Re: virus: Angelica de Meme

Martz (
Thu, 3 Apr 1997 22:45:58 +0100

On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Tadeusz Niwinski <> wrote:

>Mathematicians do not say which numbers are good or bad. How come,
>memeticists claim they know which memes and "harmful" or "useful"? Good/bad
>has nothing to do with studying how ideas spread, does it?

Possibly not directly. However, we often view memes in relation to their
effect on their host (and the hosts consequent effect on the world). In
that sense a 'user' of mathematics in, say, engineering may well talk of
good or bad numbers. 'This number is bad because it's a measurement of
stress and my bridge just can't withstand it'. As such it's perfectly
valid to talk of harmful or useful, although it doesn't hurt to explain
how your using the terms every once in a while. I would tend to take
harmful as meaning detrimental to the long-term well being of its host
and useful to be the reverse.

>Memetics is NOT a science about how to live your life, although it looks
>that we often assume it is.

There are lessons to be drawn from it. I agree that the decision as to
what are good or bad memes to host is a purely personal one but once
that value judgement has been made an awareness of how ideas spread can
help us to implement our choice.

>Good example. How about if we can spot 4Ps on this list.

Have they been defined yet? We've seen *a* four principles but have we
seen *the* four principles.


For my public key, <> with 'Send public key' as subject an automated reply will follow.

No more random quotes.