On Jul 5, 2:55 pm, grimeandreason <[email protected]> wrote: > Well thanks for the list of personal presumptions on your part. > > You didn't answer the question. Is all the contemporary writing on > cultural evolution likewise redundent?
Only when it is reductionist; tries to crow-bar it into a single explanatory theory and when it ignores the specifics and particularity of cultural and social logic. > > I have tried to avoid getting personal. I know full well that I am > not arguing from authority. You have done that twice already,by attempting to validate your theory with reference to others that have 'supported' it. > I fully admit I haven't even read any of > the discourse on cultural evolution and that my ideas come from > disparate, accessible sources. This is a serious error. The point is that we all know cultures evolve, decline, become extinct. But we also know that it is not the same as somatic evolution in that there is no genetic corollary. The thing is that we have been engaged in understanding and studying how and why societies grow and decline since Herodotus and we are well equipped to discourse on this through history, anthropology and related disciplines. CVT and memetics does not add to this. Its like trying to understand the journey using car mechanics. If you have something new, say so. > > You however have been a exceptional personal and deriding (yet you > have the balls to call me arrogant?), whilst all the while using > arguments that Blute calls 'old and tired' regarding the definition of > the memetic unit. Demonstrate or describe the memetic unit! Until you have defined god you cannot expect anyone to validate it. If you have something different that is not 'old and tired' then type it in right here. > > Why are you being such a dick to me? I think you need to read back on some of the postings. > > Ben > > On 4 July, 22:18, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Your problem is that you think others around you are ignorant. > > Well, the fact is I am probably older than you, more qualified than > > you and better educated than you. > > I've been reading about cultural evolution (probably) since before you > > were born, and I've been there, done that, got the map, seen the book, > > watched the play and worn out the t-shirt on CVT and Memetics. > > > On Jul 4, 7:52 pm, grimeandreason <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Says the person who spent the first few posts arguing without even > > > having bothered to read it. > > > > I've just dipped into the vibrant, contemporary discourse on cultural > > > evolution. Is that all bollocks too because I'm finding a lot of what > > > i've written there.... > > > LIke I said above, people who have the big answer always tend to see > > their grand theory confirmed in many different places; whether they > > are religious , new age or just plain arrogant. > > > > On 4 July, 09:45, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Argumentum ad authoritatum does not work here. > > > > What works here is discussion on the points of the argument, and a > > > > defence of any critique. > > > > You have not really made that attempt very effectively. > > > > > On Jul 3, 2:36 pm, grimeandreason <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > At the end of the day, more distinguished people have expressed a > > > > > liking for it, Pierre Levy for one whos ideas it explands, than those > > > > > who resort to personal, childish attacks instead of polite discussion. > > > > > > Therefore I dont think your comments are going to lose me sleep, > > > > > though they have been informative in some ways so thanks for that. > > > > > > On 3 July, 14:33, grimeandreason <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > wow, clearly this aint the place for debate, just personal attacks > > > > > > and > > > > > > closed-mindedness. > > > > > > > On 3 July, 12:49, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Also, if you go to the library, ask for any copy paste > > > > > > > instruction, > > > > > > > because some of your links give a Page Not Found error. Come on, > > > > > > > get > > > > > > > lost > > > > > > > > On 3 jul, 07:35, grimeandreason <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I utterly disagree. Your argument are just as relative to genes > > > > > > > > (which cannot be defined as specific units) since the > > > > > > > > relationship > > > > > > > > between form and function is not based upon one-to-one but > > > > > > > > one-to-many > > > > > > > > and many-to-one (as they are with memes). Give me your email > > > > > > > > and i'll > > > > > > > > send you that paper and chapter from Marion Blute. I think she > > > > > > > > nails > > > > > > > > it. She also answered my question as to whether the > > > > > > > > terminology of > > > > > > > > memetics inspires unconstructive reactions. > > > > > > > > > Look, meme is just the terminology I use to conceptualise > > > > > > > > cultural > > > > > > > > evolution. > > > > > > > > > As for the rich and famous bollocks you could not be farther > > > > > > > > from the > > > > > > > > truth!!! I really couldnt give a rats ass if I die unknown, > > > > > > > > I've > > > > > > > > already got everything I need in the contentment I have found. > > > > > > > > This > > > > > > > > is simply a hobby. > > > > > > > > > Im really not obsessed by memes. Its just the terminology > > > > > > > > through > > > > > > > > which I was introduced to the concept of cultural evolution. > > > > > > > > That we > > > > > > > > (body and mind) are the result of two co-evolutionary process > > > > > > > > is not > > > > > > > > trivial, it's fundamental. > > > > > > > > > As for trying to pin down a theory, why the hell not? In > > > > > > > > mathematics > > > > > > > > as well as reality, complexity theory has shown that nature > > > > > > > > produces > > > > > > > > complexity from recurring simplicity. Personally I believe that > > > > > > > > seeing human history and civilisation as anything other than > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > brings about all sorts of philosophical problems. > > > > > > > > > Lets not get personal shall we? > > > > > > > > > On 3 July, 00:58, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > You are starting to remind me of a fundamentalist. All you > > > > > > > > > have to do > > > > > > > > > is read the bible and all will be revealed. > > > > > > > > > > A meme has no material corollary. Memes are everything, which > > > > > > > > > means > > > > > > > > > they are nothing. What is a meme? It might be the shape of a > > > > > > > > > big toe > > > > > > > > > on a statue, or the Declaration of Independence; it could be > > > > > > > > > a smiley > > > > > > > > > face :) or the way a person laces his shoes; it might be > > > > > > > > > capitalism > > > > > > > > > itself or a tiny part of the mechanism of trade; an emotional > > > > > > > > > state; a > > > > > > > > > word; a book; a bottle top design. There is no standard means > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > transmission, no standard means of mutation. > > > > > > > > > Al emetics says is that things that persist, will persist. > > > > > > > > > Big Deal! > > > > > > > > > It is completely useless as an idea. > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 10:00 pm, grimeandreason <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > there is only a pure chance kind of evolution. > > > > > > > > > > > A professor at Toronto has given me a proof copy of a > > > > > > > > > > chapter of a > > > > > > > > > > book being published by Cambridge University Press. Her > > > > > > > > > > name is > > > > > > > > > > Marion Blute. > > > > > > > > > > > In it, she conclusively shows that the definition of meme is > > > > > > > > > > absolutely in no way more problematic than the attempts at > > > > > > > > > > defining > > > > > > > > > > 'gene' and can therefore not be dismissed a priori. She > > > > > > > > > > herself > > > > > > > > > > doesn't use the phrase, instead talking of cultural > > > > > > > > > > transmission > > > > > > > > > > which, funnily enough, isn't instinctively shunned by > > > > > > > > > > people that > > > > > > > > > > instinctively shun it. > > > > > > > > > > > nominal, dont knock it till you read it. My conclusions > > > > > > > > > > also revolve > > > > > > > > > > around an expanding knowledge base as the basis for our > > > > > > > > > > cultural > > > > > > > > > > identities. > > > > > > > > > > > On 2 July, 17:00, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > memes.... pseudo science.....ideas....thoughts.....they > > > > > > > > > > > CANNOT > > > > > > > > > > > REGENERATE THEMSELVES (EMPHASIS ON THE > > > > > > > > > > > THEMSELVES)....hence, they > > > > > > > > > > > CANNOT EVOLVE.....look elsewhere for your answer... me, I > > > > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > > nominalism.... words , they change their meaning or just > > > > > > > > > > > become new > > > > > > > > > > > ones as the "Knowledge Base" of the people who use them > > > > > > > > > > > expands (or > > > > > > > > > > > diminishes)....but it's all haphazard..... not > > > > > > > > > > > "evolutionary"... > > > > > > > > > > > well , maybe evolutionary but in the "pure chance" sort > > > > > > > > > > > of way... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 9:24 am, grimeandreason > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have hi hopes for you lot since I have found that the > > > > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > > contemporary the thinking, the more likely they are to > > > > > > > > > > > > get my idea so > > > > > > > > > > > > here goes... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its more than just history, its identity, the self, > > > > > > > > > > > > everything > > > > > > > > > > > > humanities. Its universal, it comes down to simple > > > > > > > > > > > > axioms and is > > > > > > > > > > > > based on mere physical laws like cause and effect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd really appreciate feedback. A knowledge of > > > > > > > > > > > > memetics means you're > > > > > > > > > > > > halfway there as it is. If I show it to a historian, > > > > > > > > > > > > the cognitive > > > > > > > > > > > > science baffles them, and if I show it to science > > > > > > > > > > > > minded people they > > > > > > > > > > > > dont like committing to the big picture implications. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its > > > > > > > > > > > > athttp://sites.google.com/site/grimeandreason/memetics/we-are-what-we-t... > > > > > > > > > > > > or, because you can't comment there (though you can see > > > > > > > > > > > > the matrix in > > > > > > > > > > > > the appendix which blogger couldn't handle), it's also > > > > > > > > > > > > on my > > > > > > > > > > > > blog,www.grimeandreason.blogspot.comunderthe20/6/2010entry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
