Re: ply to Grant

From: Steve Drew (
Date: Thu Feb 07 2002 - 21:44:55 GMT

  • Next message: Steve Drew: "Words and memes"

    Received: by id VAA26682 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:50:38 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Steve Drew" <>
    Subject: Re: ply to Grant
    Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 21:44:55 +0000
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Feb 2002 21:44:55.0838 (UTC) FILETIME=[AEA203E0:01C1B020]
    Precedence: bulk

    Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 14:58:32 -0800
    From: "Grant Callaghan" <>
    Subject: Re: ply to Grant

    >>Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 07:18:26 -0800
    >From: "Grant Callaghan" <>
    >Subject: Re: ply to Grant
    >It IS worth billions.† Just look at the culture that Bill Gates built
    >the billions he collected for his efforts.† The same goes for Hewlett
    >Packard, Apple and Intel.† They didn't just invent new products.† They
    >invented new ways of organizing labor and management so that labor was
    >to share the riches and become totally involved in the work they were
    >† Tom Peters propagated these ideas in his books on how these ideas
    >big business.<
    >I agree with you and disagree. Asi said earlier, it= thought Naomi
    >the gist of it in that big buisness picked upon the idea of memes
    >any notion of theory. To her it is termed *brand* - it conveys an idea
    >the company and not its products. Hence bill Gates get his billions (He
    >even talked openly about making† his software more reliable, which will
    >nice {ok i'm biased i use Apple, ).
    >On the minus side, yes some folks did get rich, but if Kliens book is
    >many others got poorer. many of Tom Peters reccomendations are for
    >outsourcing. The (any) company becomes a marketing company (meme
    >with the productyion of goods, relegated to contractors, with the use
    >casual labour, far east sweat shops etc I think Aarron referred to this
    >danger earlier, and it is a real danger.

    Hi grant, i couldnít reply earlier than this, and iíve read some of the
    later postings. My friends would pee themselves laughing to hear me
    described as leftist. Peolpe have confused me with things before, but not

    >I get the impression we're talking about different things.<

    Indeed we were. I accept what you have said, it was just that when i read
    it, it came across to me as different from that which you may have intended.
    >I'm talking
    about the culture of manufacturing and you seem to be talking about
    marketing and products, which is a separate but associated culture.† If
    sweat shop produces a part for Microsoft, that has little or nothing to
    with the culture Bill Gates and his associates built on their campus in
    Seattle Washington.<

    True enough

    >Judgements about whether this is good or bad for
    society have no relevance that I can see.† As always, it will be good
    some people and bad for others.<

    Given your ideas that memes are something that we choose freely, judgements
    will play a part in our interpretation, and reaction to social situations.
    that is true even in my more limited interpretation of part choice of the
    memes we chose and those that choose us.

    >That's a position from the eye of the
    beholder.† It wasn't long ago the Chinese thought communist economics
    good for everybody.† Now they like capitalism and the WTO.† They may
    their minds again.† Who knows?† Who cares, other than the Chnese?<

    Any one that their sweatshops can undercut.

    >The one
    thing you can be sure of is that minds will change and so will culture.


    Microsoft does indeed appear to be the fittest around at the moment, in
    terms of its ability to survive in the market place. To go back to your
    analogy with Ford. I recall that he said *you can have any colour you like
    so long as its black*. The only cars that i have owned have been neither
    Ford, nor Black. The computer i own is Apple as is the software. If it
    wasn't it would be Linux. Only the past is a guide to what is fit. If it is
    in the past it wasn't fit. The definiton of most fit to me is
    circumstantial, and subject to change without notice. (A point we can agree
    on?). The horse was used as an example of a succesful species in the past
    despite the fact that in its place of origin, the USA, it became extinct and
    that essentially, the horse existed only on the sufferance of man because we
    found a use for it in Eurasia. (See Stephen. J. Gould's - Life's Grandeur).


    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

    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 - 22:06:01 GMT