RE: virus: Memetical Axioms

David McFadzean (
Tue, 23 Sep 1997 11:39:40 -0600

At 09:45 AM 9/23/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:

>Whatever you look at, you leave something out of the picture.
>You can't focus on everything at once. So what you choose
>to look at is a matter of pragmatics. For some purposes,
>memes alone will do, while for others they won't. I translate
>what Eva said (and I hope she'll correct me if I've gotten it
>wrong) as: for many important purposes, consideration of
>memes alone will not suffice, but consideration of memes
>plus genes will. What's genetically inherited forms a highly
>significant part of the landscape in which memes survive,
>or fail to do so.

OK, I think I understand now. I lost sight of the fact that
memes are not inherited (by definition). Genes create something
that operates at the same level as memes, but they don't have
a name.

>It can also be argued that there is no clear software/
>hardware division in brains, as there is in computers,
>but I'll leave that for another day. :-)

I would argue there is no clear division in computers either.
Another day... :)

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus