Re: applied memetics (ignore last)

Mark Mills (
Thu, 3 Sep 98 09:44:26 -0600

Subject: Re: applied memetics (ignore last)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 98 09:44:26 -0600
From: Mark Mills <>
To: "Memetics List" <>
Message-Id: <>

>Interesting story, Jane. A business such as that could still be prosecuted
>for fraud in the U.S

I think scam artists will always be worthy of memetic study. Their
processes have no merit, but 'survive' via continuous mutation. Such
behavior is clearly of memetic interest and there is generally no
difficulty maintaining objective distance.

It is a bit more difficult to gain objective distance from 'speed
seduction.' Some of the reasonable minds here are interested in how Mr.
Jeffries' neural mechanics relate to memetics. Thus, it is more
difficult to maintain objective distance.

Regardless, Mr. Jeffries' efforts end up being interesting memetics. If
he is a scam artist, he is a modern mutation of a long line of 'sex aid'
scams. If his NLP practices offer insight into neural processes, his
work has direct implications on memetics.

If there is a problem, it is probably the differing boundaries writers
here apply to the memetic domain. Again, such differences seem an
appropriate topic of conversation.

I wonder if the energy released by this discussion isn't exposing
something of a fault line between two memetic interest groups. On one
hand, there are those interested building memetics from an understanding
of neural function (building from the synapse up). On the other, there
are those interested in aggregate social behavior (building from cultural
expression down). Each potentially discounts the relevance of the
other's interests since their focus is so different. Bruce Edmonds'
recent paper examines this issue.


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)