RE: virus: Re: The saga continues!

Brett Lane Robertson (
Mon, 15 Sep 1997 22:59:14 -0500


I'm not a scientist. I tried to convey to Wade and the list that I think
experimentation has little meaning...that good theory proves itself. I was
implying that someone who wants to make things DO things (using electricity
to move a dial around and then saying that this proves electricity, for
example) are not really doing anything more than "using marbles to predict
the movement of marbles". I was implying that a person with a scientific
outlook is egocentric (using physical "evidence" to back up physical
evidence...using the body as a reference--physical--to "prove" something
physical which in turn sustains the position of the body's centrality).

When Wade (still) says something like "has there been any actual
experimental considerations given to whether or not such a thing actually
_is_?", Wade is using the word "is" to imply "like the body" (ie. physical
on the same order as the body's physicality...that is "what do they DO").
More importantly, scientists (and others) who require physical
confirmation--being oriented from a bodily perspective (they see themself as
separate, distinct, central)--don't *only* want to know what a thing does
but what it does for *them* (themself being the reference from which they
view the universe).

I think we are speaking a different language somehow though. I'm not really
implying that words make things physical or that "meme" the physical object
shouldn't be tested using "experiment", the physical confirmation of
physicality. I was really just commenting on the mindset which asks "but
have we *proven* it yet". And, I can only say, that--NO--we will never
*prove* when is enough enough?


At 07:27 PM 9/15/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>>Do we have any experiments for memes yet? We have some definitions, but
>>>there are definitions for ghosts too....(below)


>>I am assuming that Wade means: What can we make them DO?

>Not to sound too disingenuous (who, me?)- no, that is not what I meant at

>I really meant, 'Do we have any experiments to _find_ memes yet?'
>Because- ain't they still a theory, undisproven or scientifically
>validated? The fact that cultures are maintained and transplanted does
>not a meme make. (Even if it is what we think they may _do_.) It is
>_attractive_ to make up this thing called a meme, give it an operational
>definition, and see if some patterns emerge, but has there been any
>actual experimental considerations given to whether or not such a thing
>actually _is_?

>Yes, I really meant to compare memes with ghosts.

>Am I stepping back too far here, or is most everyone else suspended
>before the fall?

Wade T. Smith

Rabble Sonnet Retort
Boy, n.:
A noise with dirt on it.