Re: implied or inferred memes

Tim Rhodes (
Mon, 4 Oct 1999 20:44:01 -0700

From: "Tim Rhodes" <>
To: <>
Subject: Re: implied or inferred memes
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 20:44:01 -0700

Bill Benzon wrote:

> I wrote:
> >This is a good point. I think often we're actually talking about reverse
> >engineering when we use the word "imitation". Reverse engineering our
> >L-memes from the G-meme behaviors they are meant to "imitate".
> >
>However, what if there are 37+ different ways (L-memes) to produce the
>G-meme? In that case, the imitation will be successful if anyone of them
>is created. Does it make sense to call anyone of them a meme, or the set
>as a whole a meme? It's the G-meme that's replicated, not the mental
>whatever that subserves it.

I couldn't have said it any better myself! <s>

But I expect we'll find (maybe... someday...) that there are certain limits
on what forms those 37 plus L-memes could possibly take and still result in
the same G-meme being imitated. At which point, it might actually be of
some value to label that whole set the "L-forms" for a given G-meme.

(And then one could look at how the various L-forms of different G-memes
interact with one another to produce novel G-memes--but that all seems quite
a ways down the road still.)

Thinking aloud again-

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)