Re: Words and memes

From: Philip Jonkers (
Date: Sat Feb 09 2002 - 05:12:31 GMT

  • Next message: Philip Jonkers: "Re:"

    Received: by id EAA01326 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 04:21:01 GMT
    Message-ID: <017001c1b128$6127efe0$3e03aace@oemcomputer>
    From: "Philip Jonkers" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: Words and memes
    Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 20:12:31 -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

    > > To be replicated is necessary but insufficient to qualify as memetic.
    Memes are not passively replicated but actively self-replicate. The mere
    repetition of words doesn't mean memetic propagation is occurring. Memes
    exploit our conscious interaction in order to replicate themselves from one
    mind to another. In order for this to occur, the words must involve some
    kind of interpretation ("bacon is evil") and not a mere statement of fact
    ("bacon is in the fridge"). If it's merely factual, the repetition of the
    statement can be accounted for according to normal, intentional use of

    > > I'd say there's only no fundamental difference between the two. Either
    one of them
    > > is adopted if the potential host deems it worthwhile to do so. The
    latter in times of
    > > appetite for instance, the former in times of mental illness.
    > Or religious proscription, obviously. Not that there's always a
    discontinuous difference between the two.


    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 - 04:36:33 GMT