My understanding of Dawkins’ notion of meme is that it is specifically not anything more than a causal entity, passed on by repetition through receptive channels common to the transmitter and receiver. Meaning is not a part of their transmitability, though we can assign meaning to them, and often do, but this is an overlay, and not part of their essence as transmitable units. I think there are problems with making sense of their transmitability, not to mention of their identity conditions, but it seems to me that their “not being semiosic” is beside the point. Dawkins sees their dynamics as very much like that of solid material particles.
John Collier Professor Emeritus, UKZN http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: October 20, 2015 9:36 PM To: Helmut Raulien Cc: cl...@lextek.com; Peirce-L Subject: Re: Re: Open axiomatic frameworks (was: [PEIRCE-L] A Second-Best Morality) Helmut - I'm against the very notion of 'memes' because they are non-semiosic. They are akin to solid material particles - and the cognitive process does not swallow solid material particles. It transforms them within the semiosic process. Again, memes are non-semiosic and not amenable to semiosis; you swallow them. I don't get your binary sets of Meme-vs - rational belief Diffusion - vs -narrative Diffusion is a process; narrative is a 'thing'. Meme is a 'thing'; a rational belief is a conclusion arrived at via reason. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Helmut Raulien<mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de> To: h.raul...@gmx.de<mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de> Cc: cl...@lextek.com<mailto:cl...@lextek.com> ; Peirce-L<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 1:10 PM Subject: Aw: Re: Open axiomatic frameworks (was: [PEIRCE-L] A Second-Best Morality) Supplement: Sorry that I always add supplements, but now there is something about diffusion I want tio add: A crystal of potassium permanganate diffuses in water and turns it pink, but in oil it does not. A meme or an idea diffuses only when it is put into a proper social environment, that is a social system with a structure that allows the idea to diffuse (and copy itself). That is why I think, that the diffusion concept is not wrong, but neither complete. Clark, Edwina, Stephen, List, I do not see, that there is an either-or, regarding memes and rational beliefs, or diffusion versus narratives, or subconscious versus conscious structure-elements. I think, that there is both, and that it always is good to make the subconscious conscious, that is, to uncover memes to see where they come from. Many of them are myths, that is lies- and these lies may have been told deliberately, or they may have come up by a social systems own dynamics, as any system intends to reinforce itself. Anyway, to make the subconscious conscious is the way of psychoanalysis, and I do not see, what is so wrong about it, fundamentally. Of course, it is bad to have a wrong analysis, and Freud probably was wrong in many places (eg., that a child is polymorph-pervert). But I think, it is very good to replace a diffusion with a narrative- if the narrative is telling the truth, and if this can be made sure. Can it? By scientific method? Best, Helmut "Clark Goble" <cl...@lextek.com<mailto:cl...@lextek.com>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote: Clark - I prefer not to think of Jung. You wrote: "the sorts of things structuralism dealt with in treating the mind as literature were correct." I'm not sure what you mean by the above. In most ways psychoanalysis is treating the mind (especially dreams) as if they were a literary work to be interpreted with the various ways literature was interpreted. That’s why even though Jung, Freud and company aren’t typically taken seriously in science they still are in literature departments. The way a person interprets literature simply is quite different from say what goes on in contemporary psychology or cognitive science. ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto:l...@list.iupui.edu> with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto:l...@list.iupui.edu> with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ________________________________ ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto:l...@list.iupui.edu> with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
