Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA03097 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 28 Jan 2002 07:52:11 GMT Message-Id: <firstname.lastname@example.org> X-Sender: email@example.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 126.96.36.199 Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:41:30 +0800 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: Stephen Springette <email@example.com> Subject: Re: Meme bonding In-Reply-To: <200201280609.g0S69gp19600@mail21.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
At 10:09 27-01-02 -0800, Joe Dees wrote:
> It is impos!
>sible, for instance, to incorporate evolution within the rubric of
>semiotics, if it is being done properly (and a lot of it isn't). You need
>memetics for that. As I said before; these two disciplines are
>complementary; each contributes something that the other cannot, thus
>combining them in a study maximises one's chances of grokking one's object
>- which is why it makes no sense to leave one for the other.
Well put, Joe. But memetics carries too much genetic-determinist baggage,
and this constant implied reference to genes-as-cause puts a serious limit
on how far we can take memetics.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 08:02:02 GMT