Re: Substance and Form

Josip Pajk (
Thu, 28 May 1998 12:58:11 +0200

Message-Id: <>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 12:58:11 +0200
From: Josip Pajk <>
Subject: Re: Substance and Form
In-Reply-To: <>

At 13:03 25.05.98 -0000, Mark wrote:
>I'm reading the articles.
>Based on a quick glance at the papers, the articles address a basic
>debate we are having on the list. I'm refering to the 'what is a meme'
>conversation. Personally, I've concluded that the real problem is the
>question 'what is a gene.'
Thanks for the response Mark.
The articles intrigued me because they try to give an answer to the
(everlasting) question: "what is ... anything".

If the semantic and semiotic problems of "what does it mean" are still
bothering such "mature" sciences like biology and genetics, that can
experiment with real substance, as you say, "manipulating DNA chunks", I
don't see how memetics which is dealing exclusively with imaginary forms
(ideas) could escape from the problem of meaning. I think memetics IS all
about that. I think we all can agree on the fact that all of our sciences
are dealing with the same substance. Only that anyone of them (us) make
different forms (ideas) about it, based on its selected characteristics.
There are no rigid boundaries between these forms as there are no rigid
boundaries between the substance they represent.

I still don't have a rigid theory that "keeps water" about this issues, but
I "feel" that in this line of thinking have to be something. I made an
attempt to explain my point of view in the last article (About FORM and
SUBSTANCE) on my post on TRIPOD. I will appreciate any (critical) comment
about this issue that could help me to make this framework more stable.


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)