RE: i-memes and m-memes

Gatherer, D. (
Thu, 02 Sep 1999 13:12:25 +0200

Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 13:12:25 +0200
From: "Gatherer, D. (Derek)" <>
Subject: RE: i-memes and m-memes
To: "''" <>

A potential X is something of an inherent quality to become X. A prospective
X is something that may yet conceivably serve as an X, for whatever
happenstance. Potential X are distinguished from utter non-X. Prospective X
need not be. All phenomena are memetic. Anything may prove perceivable and

As far as I can see your thesis is based around a few trivial distinctions
between potential and prospective and between replicator and replicated.

In this an artifact is no different than a found object. Just
as an Archeologist decodes a Greek urn, re-encoding memetically the
impression from the experience of decoding, into their own brain, likewise
the Geologist decodes the strata of the rocks, encoding the impressions from
the experience decoding into their own brain. The same goes for events,
phenomena, and behavior, all observed and even interacted with. Reception is
perception. Polly-directional communication is interaction.

This is just rhetorical flourish.

You might as well seek to identify a wind entity.

I think I just found one. Sorry, Aaron, I just can't follow your argument.
I've tried hard, but now I'm going to have to give up. And now the weather

Weather is an ongoing event.

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)