Re: virus: Angelica de Meme

Tim Rhodes (
Sun, 6 Apr 1997 12:51:24 -0700 (PDT)

On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, Tadeusz Niwinski wrote:

> >This is a contribution? "M" for "memetics" not "R" for reality, Tad. I
> >get the feeling that if you were around when mankind was first learning
> >how to tame fire, you would be the one asking if fire existed independent
> >of our understanding of it, while some of us were out gathering kindling.
> Why do you have to get personal, Tim, and speculate what I would do? Do you
> mind answering the three yes/no questions? I don't understand your analogy
> with fire. Do you suggest it is a waste of time to ask such questions?

In order: It seems to have been effective in returning the focus to memes.
No, not at all (was that the first one?). To bad, analogies are powerful
tools. And, finally; No, but can we discuss other things in other
threads, please?

> >Let me rephrase what, I'm sure, you meant to say, Tad:
> >
> >(1) Do we all believe memes exist?
> >(2) Do we believe we are conscious of these memes?
> >(3) Do we believe we are capable of learning about these memes?

> Can memes exist outside of reality?


> What are your answers?

>From the above:
1) As a theoretical model, yes. We need to do some work before we can say
more than that.

2) Yes, to varying degrees in varying consciousnesses.

3) Yes, or rather I did. But the responses so far to my "call to study
memes" meme, leads me to believe that this forum may not be
self-disciplined enought to foster that kind of learning.

-Prof. Tim