Re: Words and Memes

From: Grant Callaghan (
Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 - 14:51:05 GMT

  • Next message: Grant Callaghan: "Re: ality"

    Received: by id OAA18504 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:56:40 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Grant Callaghan" <>
    Subject: Re: Words and Memes
    Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 06:51:05 -0800
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Feb 2002 14:51:06.0091 (UTC) FILETIME=[DD6DCBB0:01C1B49D]
    Precedence: bulk

    Why are memes any
    > > different?
    >Genes have a well-defined boundary. They can't be equated with any old
    >thing. They're not "everywhere" in the figurative sense.
    Not true. Biologists are still arguing about what constitutes a gene and
    genes commonly refer to every feature of every plant and animal on earth.
    Some writers say that proteins have as much influence on how features are
    expressed as DNA does. Many features are expressed through the actions of
    more than one gene and the times when they are turned on or off. There
    seems to me to be almost as much confusion in the literature defining genes
    as there is in our effort to define memes. Biologists seem to be having
    trouble deciding where to draw the line, too. Maybe the line isn't
    important. But since there is a morpheme in language, it seems to me there
    should be some similar smallest unit that defines the rest of life's memes.


    Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:

    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 : Wed Feb 13 2002 - 15:06:16 GMT