Re: Meme bonding

From: Philip Jonkers (
Date: Mon Jan 28 2002 - 21:00:30 GMT

  • Next message: Steve Drew: "Re: neccesity of mental memes"

    Received: by id UAA04862 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 20:07:36 GMT
    Message-ID: <012901c1a83e$dc2a8f60$5e2ffea9@oemcomputer>
    From: "Philip Jonkers" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: Meme bonding
    Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:00:30 -0900
    Organization: Prodigy Internet
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
    Precedence: bulk

    > > 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
    > >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
    > >- 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.

    Please explain how that is so. Genes made the brain, the brain makes memes.
    Although we may influence genetic evolution through memes, it is the
    current gene-pool which build brains that restrict meme-creativity


    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 - 20:16:05 GMT