Re: Words and memes

From: Grant Callaghan (
Date: Sat Feb 09 2002 - 03:34:50 GMT

  • Next message: Philip Jonkers: "Re: Words and memes"

    Received: by id DAA01212 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 03:40:27 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Grant Callaghan" <>
    Subject: Re: Words and memes
    Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 19:34:50 -0800
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2002 03:34:50.0709 (UTC) FILETIME=[BAF6D850:01C1B11A]
    Precedence: bulk

    >I didn't say 'useful for anything', I said, 'justification for
    >anything' - taking up your problem (which I share) of views
    >being justified (as if that were possible) by memetics.
    >I don't try to fallback into any position, even into safe positions....
    >- Wade
    Excuse me if I'm jumping into a private arguement here, but I think memetics
    is too new a tool to have developed into a useful instrument and I've seen
    very few people try to find a way to actually use it for anything. I think
    it might be a great tool with which to study the evolution of culture, but
    it will have to compete with a discipline that already exists. Linguistics
    has the same problem with Noam Chomsky and his reductionist approach
    blocking the way.

    Memetics would seem to be a good fit for the concepts of complexity theory.
    Cultures seem like complex adaptive systems in the classical sense of the
    term. The study of what emerges from the evolution of memes and memeplexes
    might be a good place to start.

    Just a thought.


    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 : Sat Feb 09 2002 - 03:49:28 GMT