Re: virus: Re: Rationality (meme make-up)
Thu, 13 Mar 97 10:37:22 GMT

David McFadzean wrote:

> At 01:38 PM 11/03/97 GMT, wrote:
> >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 don't think so. For it to be an active meme, I think it has to fulfill those
criteria. I think it could still be a meme without some, or maybe even
all of them, but a meme that had not recognisers would be useless, as would
a meme that didn't have any connections to other memes.

> I'm thinking that memes that have not
> yet been identified wouldn't have a definition or description sub-section.

Right, I'd go with that, and that meme may even be active, without the
hosts knowledge.

> >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
> computational).

Someone, in the last couple of weeks, said that no meme cannot be broken
down further. Do you agree? Surely there must be some fundamental level
for a singular meme, otherwise, meme-complex and meme would be universally