Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA16514 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:46:50 GMT Subject: Re: Words and memes Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 07:41:20 -0500 x-sender: firstname.lastname@example.org x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas From: "Wade T.Smith" <email@example.com> To: "Memetics Discussion List" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <20020205124109.27C1A1FD4E@camail.harvard.edu> Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
Hi Joe Dees -
>And that is a major flaw with behavior-only; it cannot acknowledge the
>latent and potential memetic efficacy of communication-designed artifacts
Well, _my_ behavior-only memetic stance does. (I don't know about any
others, really.) I use the whole of aesthetics to deal with the efficacy
of the communications of artefacts. I don't deny their strength, at all.
In fact, IMHO, the behavior-only stance elevates the artefacts' status,
and makes them more important, than just calling them 'outside' vs
And, by using aesthetics and dramatic theories (and others) for the study
of artefacts, demands more attribution to the narrative components.
So, no, artefacts are not downgraded or not acknowledged _at all_ in
behavior-only memetic analysis. They are, after all, often the by-product
of the behavior. They just ain't called memes.
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 : Tue Feb 05 2002 - 12:57:49 GMT