RE: virus: Memetical Axioms

Brett Lane Robertson (
Tue, 23 Sep 1997 13:07:38 -0500

>Yes, our memes influence who we mate with and therefore which genes are
>passed down. And, yes, it is not as obvious a relationship as one would
>-Prof. Tim

Pragmatically speaking, if there is a behavior that is elicited on the level
of "memes influence who we mate with", then the mechanism for this behavior
would also exist at the level of "which genes are passed down" and even at
the level of *how genes structure themselves*. For experimental purposes,
our behavioral effect on genes must reside in the gene itself in the form of
a "cause" which can be manipulated in such a way as to produce the observed
effect; and manipulating the dependent variable would also show a
change--not due to chance (like the "influence" on who we mate)--which can
then be attributed to "meme" the genetic determinant similar to "meme" the
social determinant.

While it is not "obvious" that memes influence who we mate with; it is more
obvious that "memes influence...which genes are passed down" (minus the
intervention of yet another variable--"who we mate with"): It is "more
obvious" being a more direct relationship. And the pragmatic aspect (the
term "obvious", as in "objective" being replaced by "pragmatic" as in
"implied")...the pragmatic aspect is that the word "meme" if defined
"intelligent" usurps the word "gene" defined "chance" since things which
occur intelligently (the works of Shakespeare, for written by
"Shakespeare"-the-intelligent-being) are more likely to occur due to
intelligence than given a large number of monkies with keyboards, "chance".


Rabble Sonnet Retort
First Rule of History:
History doesn't repeat itself -- historians merely repeat
each other.