A good point. The problem as I see it is that it is often difficult to define
things without a common frame of reference. Language is a slippery thing
and in drawing any group of people together in is necessary to "define" the
more basic elements of communication. Who's books have you read, what
is your life like, how did you come here, talk a little...and let me see if
I can
speak in your voice some? Often that requires a broader range of discussion
to start. In my experience you can't gather a group of people towards any
task (even shooting the shit on e-mail) by defining a goal and setting out to
do it. That's the myth of efficiency. Computers process...people, as my
fiancee says, "nest" on/in ideas. Sometimes it takes a very long time to roll
them around in our heads...and sometimes we have to gather what might seem
like mind-trash or perhaps a little irrelevant in order to establish some
esoteric point.
I'm wary of trying to directly define words like "meme". Look at VoM:
Richard spends a few pages just telling you what Dawkinks, Plotikin, and
Dennett said before he proposes his own. The meme "meme" is in a high
state of flux right now...and who can tell what the most "useful" definition
of it is?
Simply as an alternative, perhaps we could simply use it as we each understand
it (however vague) and allow the syntax/meaning processors we all are
equipped with help us to find that closure. We could provisionally tolerate
multiple meme-definitions and see which turns out to be more useful.
As Richard B. might say: "And perhaps, in the end, we will discover that many
definitions are, in some sense, true...depending on your application."
Or not. I'm of two minds on this one...I'm simply speaking for the one I didn't
read in your post above.
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------