From: Bill Roh (billroh@churchofvirus.com)
Date: Wed Jan 23 2002 - 15:44:24 MST
Hi Chris, and welcome.
Didja like "The Lucifer Principle"? Or Virus of the Mind?
Here is my opinion of your first question. It's probably not all that
coherent as I am just spouting off the top of my mind whatever comes to
it.
Memes, though sometimes used intentionally, generally refer to the
spread of information, including ideas, in a manner that is not
intentional on the part of the person passing the meme on. The
stereotype for instance "Mexicans are lazy" is not an idea - it's not
actually thought out by those who carry that meme. It's spread by it's
meme holders on accident, through their normal activity of
communication. The original meme started because the of vast differences
in work attitude and behavior between Mexican nationals and US Business
interests. Despite being wholly innacurate the meme spreads.
so - an idea is a meme if it is spread, but a meme is not necessarily an
idea. And an idea that is not spread cannot be a meme.
And I agree, the meme is a tool that is simply easier to work with - a
socket wrench where all we used to have was an open end wrench. We are
not talking about a revolution of social theory, but tools to expand and
comprehend what we theories we as a people have and are building.
That's the simple version - I am sure someone here willing to instill
the time and effort to give a good explanation - 'til that happens, I
can offer the cheap and dirty explanation.
Chris Donaldson wrote:
> Hello all- I'm new to this list and memetics in general. So far, I've
> read Bloom's The Lucifer Principle and have just started Brodie's
> Virus of the Mind. Anyway, using Brodie's definition of a meme: "...a
> unit of information in a mind whose existence influences events such
> that more copies of itself get created in other minds." Maybe I'm
> missing something, but what is the difference between an "idea" and a
> "meme"? They seem synonymous. The idea that ideas, depending on their
> ability to "survive" where others fade into obscurity (by providing
> useful constructs from which to base observations or provide a
> framework for reality for instance) doesn't seem new. The idea that
> individuals who relate to or invest in these ideas would be compelled
> to do what is needed for the survival of said religion or government
> or whatever doesn't seem profound. The negative aspects of mass media
> aren't secret. This metameme/idea was engineered around the same time
> as various computer related technologies were maturing and entering
> into public consciousness. Could it be that memetics is just a re-hash
> or "cyberizing" of existing (read well worn) social theory. What's
> really novel here besides the vocabulary? I really don't mean do be
> too negative or overly challenging with my first post. These are the
> questions that I have been asking myself since beginning to read Virus
> and your list seems a good place to air them. Also, and on a more
> positive note, has there been any credible work related to the
> philosophic implications of memetic theory or practical ethical/moral
> applications?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:41 MDT