From: Coyote (coyyote@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Aug 20 2000 - 14:06:23 MDT
Subject: Re: The unnecessary meme
Date: 08/17/2000
Author: jamiro2002 <jamiro2002@my-deja.com>
<< previous · next >>
In article <20000817124958.24185.00000060@ng-me1.aol.com>,
johnwr1873@aol.com (JohnwR1873) wrote:
> I think that you have zeroed in on the the important fact. What we
put in
> makes us seem adolescent at the very least. Our behavior in the
conventions
> attests to this. John
>
Excuse me?
Also, I still kind of wonder what fundamental aspects of existence can be
explained solely by the use of memes (which admittedly was not a point you
brought up.) Anybody?
Jamiro
>> Forum: alt.memetics
>> Thread: The unnecessary meme
>> Message 1 of 1
Subject: Re: The unnecessary meme
Date: 08/14/2000
Author: jamiro2002 <jamiro2002@my-deja.com>
<< previous · next >>
In article <39952123.145351202@news.freeserve.net>,
arky@aniceplace.com (Arky) wrote:
> >I have been a lurker here for a while and have studied up a bit on
> >memes.
> >
> >The most striking observation I am forced to make, and to which I
would
> >welcome your input, is that there is no proof for memes. In fact, it
> >seems like somebody took the obvious (ideas and concept travel by
means
> >of communication from one person to another, whereby speed, accuracy
and
> >life expectancy of the recepient's new concept may vary) and dreamed
up
> >a fancy and quite unnecessary name for it. Hence the meme.
> >
> >I don't mean to sound overly critical, but I have so far failed to
> >observe major advantages to this uproven theory.
>
> The theory at its simplest is practically self evident. You yourself
> admit it is stating the obvious. What it does is provide a new way of
> looking at culture. It is analagous to looking at biological evolution
> from the gens eye view rather than the organisms. This led to new
> insights like how kin selection and reciprocal altruism could have
> evolved. Similarly thinking in term of memes may allow us to explain
> things which we previously could not.
Sounds good. I just can't seem to see anything that can not be explained by
common sense or existing concepts, but can be explained by memes. Can you
suggest some?
> Memes are real because they are defined as real. How can "something
> that can be imitated" not be real?
That seems sort of obvious. If you define real as agreed upon and thereby
experienced, sure, anything can be real. Of course I would then have to
question the value of such a reality as basis for mutual interaction. I am
not saying the implications in the case of the meme would be tremendous,
since you in fact mostly label an obvious occurence with a fancy word.
Expanding your philosophy of "real is what is defined as real" and "anything
that can be imitated is real" however quickly borders ad absurdum.
Jamiro
>> Forum: alt.memetics
>> Thread: The unnecessary meme
>> Message 1 of 1
Subject: Re: The unnecessary meme
Date: 08/14/2000
Author: jamiro2002 <jamiro2002@my-deja.com>
<< previous · next >>
In article <20000813113650.14674.00000729@ng-fe1.aol.com>,
johnwr1873@aol.com (JohnwR1873) wrote:
> Jamiro: Who cares whether memes are true or not? I would suggest
that we get
> on with the research and find out why our culture is so stupid. John
>
Since you bring it up - and I have no idea if your post reflects the
sentiments of the people discussing here, though I doubt it: The two
(factualness of the meme and lack of intelligence of our culture) might be
connected. Introducing false or unnecessary concepts into common think would
make a culture more stupid, would it not?
Jamiro
>> Forum: alt.memetics
>> Thread: The unnecessary meme
>> Message 1 of 1
Subject: The unnecessary meme
Date: 08/11/2000
Author: jamiro2002 <jamiro2002@my-deja.com>
<< previous · next >>
I have been a lurker here for a while and have studied up a bit on memes.
The most striking observation I am forced to make, and to which I would
welcome your input, is that there is no proof for memes. In fact, it seems
like somebody took the obvious (ideas and concept travel by means of
communication from one person to another, whereby speed, accuracy and life
expectancy of the recepient's new concept may vary) and dreamed up a fancy
and quite unnecessary name for it. Hence the meme.
I don't mean to sound overly critical, but I have so far failed to observe
major advantages to this uproven theory.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:32 MST