Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA23098 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Thu, 7 Feb 2002 00:18:11 GMT Subject: Re: Words and memes Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 19:12:44 -0500 x-sender: email@example.com x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas From: "Wade T.Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "Memetics Discussion List" <email@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <20020207001231.AC0B61FD5C@camail.harvard.edu> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
Hi Joe Dees -
>>I wonder if such mutation is not _completely_ due to the intention of
>>improving their replicatory coefficient- understand my meme totally, and
>>you are me.
>Lots of people put what they consider the 'correct' idea out there, even
>when they strongly suspect it will not be 'popular', but of course they
>hold out hopes for succeeding generations.
But they put it out there to be _understood_, and understanding is a
great deal of the replicatory coefficient.
Being misunderstood is not a personally efficient memetic state. Such
misunderstanding might further a few memes that might take hold
somewhere, outside of intention.
I'm sure there are many examples of this, although producing the Edsel
rings out loudest to me at this moment of memory.
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 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 00:31:05 GMT