RE: implied or inferred memes

John C. 'Buck' Field (
Wed, 6 Oct 1999 11:12:58 -0500

From: "John C. 'Buck' Field" <>
To: <>
Subject: RE: implied or inferred memes
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 11:12:58 -0500


Would you be willing to share your suggested "deeper view" with us? Perhaps excerpts
from your articles would help some of us understand you criticism better.

Cultivate A Healthy Mind With Reason, Empathy, And Clear Vision.
Project Management and Technical Writing -

>From: []On Behalf
>Of Bill Benzon
>At the moment memetics is mostly a pop-intellectual fad. I don't know how
>long that fad can continue (how long did phrenology exist in the 19th
>century?). Some folks, of course, are trying to make a serious
>intellectual discipline out of memetics and some version of the internalist
>position seems to be the reigning orthodoxy among these. I don't think
>that theoretical stance will develop a rich body of empirical results to
>support it. If it doesn't, then how can long can it hang-on? Of course,
>there are serious academic desciplines that are empirically weak -- the
>humanties -- but they don't advertise themselves as science. Memetics
>does. So memetics has to produce empirical results. You can't produce
>those results simply by taking a majority vote. As internalist memetics
>dies, there will be room for a deeper view.

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)