Re: Ontology (and the culture-meme-mind interface)

Mario Vaneechoutte (
Mon, 24 May 1999 10:19:50 +0200

Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 10:19:50 +0200
From: Mario Vaneechoutte <>
Subject: Re: Ontology (and the culture-meme-mind interface)

Dan Plante wrote:

> At 06:53 PM 18/05/99 -0400, Jake Sapien wrote:>

> Undeniably the existence of selves has profound impact on
> >memetic/cultural evolution, and in turn memetics plays an important role, in
> >determining the characters of selves.
> >
> >But "having a self" (perhaps "selfishness"?) itself is not a meme. It is
> >resultant of a degree of complex awareness which is inscribed not only
> >memetically, but also and initially genetically into each human organism.
> As far as ascribing the phenomenon of "mind" or "awareness" solely to memes
> is concerned, I have to agree. When viewing the mind, at a specific level
> of functional abstraction, as the emergent "thing" that arises out of the
> dynamic interplay between memory, intellect and emotion, it becomes evident
> that the previous interpretation cannot be correct, since it attributes
> only one aspect of the mind (memory/memes) with cognitive awareness, and
> relegates the rest of it (intellect and emotion) to a kind of neutral
> substrate upon which memes operate. This ignores the fact that the basic
> operational unit of culture is the individual mind which, as a thing which
> is *greater* than the sum of its parts, cannot be treated simply as the sum
> of its parts (or, as in this case, one of its parts). It should also be
> seen that, without intellect and emotion, the causality of individual
> actions cannot be traced solely through memes.
> Dan


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)