Re: Meme bonding

From: Stephen Springette (
Date: Mon Jan 28 2002 - 07:41:30 GMT

  • Next message: Joe Dees: "Re: A Confusing Example"

    Received: by id HAA03097 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 07:52:11 GMT
    Message-Id: <>
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 
    Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:41:30 +0800
    From: Stephen Springette <>
    Subject: Re: Meme bonding
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
    Precedence: bulk

    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