Re: virus: Re: Rationality (meme make-up)

David McFadzean (
Tue, 11 Mar 1997 16:00:42 -0700

At 01:38 PM 11/03/97 GMT, wrote:

>> The pattern-recognizers are also part of the meme. So we've identified at
>> least 3 parts to the meme: the pattern-recognizer(s) that activate the meme,
>> the associations that more or less define the meme, and the behaviour-
>> generator(s) that influence the outside world (causing it to be reproduced
>> among other things).
>Is any of this new to you, David? I was just wondering whether we're just covering
>old ground, in which case, I won't continue, or whether we've not really thought
>about the parts of a meme? For the moment, I'll assume that this is all new.

I don't recall discussing this before so it is new (at least to me).

>How many parts are there to a meme? The front-ends, the processing itself, its
>links with other memes, its definition, the sub-section that describes the meme (as
>in the <rationality> meme being the meme that says rationality exists, rather than
>describing the process).

Are the parts you introduced optional? I'm thinking that memes that have not
yet been identified wouldn't have a definition or description sub-section.

>How about on a larger scale? Can meme-complexes act in the same way as a single
>meme? If so, how is it decided within the memesphere what the front-ends will
>be? Any thoughts?

I think the only difference between a meme and a meme-complex is that the
latter is a meme with identifiable components which are also memes. Sort of
like how a function can be composed of other functions (mathematical and

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus