> If Prof Tim is saying that the encoded meme is decoded into a viral form
> (that is, it is impacted by the environment) and that this "vector" is
then
> re-encoded by a second meme complex (which now includes the meme and its
> symbolic interaction with the "meta-complex"--the shared environment
> inclusive of multiple meme-complexes) such that the meta-complex is
> contrasted from multiple interpretations of a "meta-meme" (the ideal
> interaction of meme with environment exclusive of effect...that would be
> inclusive of "one" perfect relationship); then, I agree.
I don't think that is at all what I'm saying. But then, to be honest, I'm
not certain enough that I understand what you are saying to be sure of
this.
> But, it seems that Tim is saying there is no meta-meme and that all
effects
> of the "vector" (or *pattern*) which can be attributed to a shared set,
or
> environment, are null--such that (again) all effects are chance
occurrences
> about a perfect relationship, negated.
I think you misunderstand what I mean by a "memetic vector".
> Then, Tim is describing genetics
> rather than memetics...attributing evolution (yet again) to chance
> recombination and mutation.
I'm sorry, I don't have the energy to devote to another discussion of
evolution and natural selection with you. Maybe someone else does.
-Prof. Tim