Re: i-culture and m-culture

t (
Tue, 3 Jun 1997 16:10:06 -0500

From: <>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 16:10:06 -0500
Subject: Re: i-culture and m-culture

Excellent topic.

>The distinction between replicators and interactors is connected to the
division of code and matter (Pattee, 1977).

Good point.

>Code has no meaning separated from a translation system.
>Pattee describes for instance that the cell gives DNA its meaning.

While I think this an excellent point, I would like to expand on it. I'll
propose the following:

Neither code nor matter have meaning separated from the translation
system's rhythmicity (standing waves).

I suspect a study of static cells devoid of rhythmicity (fossilized,
frozen) insufficient to deduce organizational behaviors (meaning)
associated with their DNA. Our discussion of 'extinct memes' has touched on
this issue. Without an assumption that brain rhythmicity has been constant
over the past 10,000 years, how can we conclude anything about the memetic
content of cave paintings or stone tools?

As a fish might be unconscious of water and a bird unconscious of air, we
are generally unconscious of our natural rhythmicity. We have little
awareness of our heart rate and rarely consider or control our breathing.

Despite our ability to ignore rhythmicity in many conventional settings, I
suspect memetics will require a heightened awareness of this criteria.

Rhythmicity is a feature of all evolving entities. Death is the cessation
of rhythmicity.

For a reference to rhythmicity on the molecular level, see
Molecular Biological Clocks, by Joseph S. Takahashi and Michelle Hoffman,
American Scientist, March-April 1995,


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)