Re: virus: 200 words for snow
Dave Pape (davepape@dial.pipex.com)
Thu, 5 Jun 1997 22:29:00 +0100 (BST)
At 15:21 04/06/97 -0700, Grant Callaghan wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Tim Rhodes wrote:
>
>>
>> > > What will you think the next time you read something using
>> > > "400 words for snow" as an example?
>> > The same thing I though when I just saw you use it. It is serving the
>> > purpose for which you are using it. You are using it to make a different
>> > point, but you are using it and have just propagated it to hundreds or
>> > thousands of other minds on the Internet.
>>
>> Really? I thought Reed had successfully propigated the "If the
>> 400-words-for-snow thing isn't true how many of my insights are based on
>> rumor" meme. I must not be paying attention.
>>
>There's a problem that memetics has yet to clear up. If someone uses
>a meme to make a different point, does that make it a new meme? If so,
>then we just might have 600 memes for snow.
Well, memes have fuzzy boundaries and that but you could say "same meme,
transmitted with different companion memes, the 'different point' is a
different metameme."
Dave Pape
==========================================================================
I am ready.
Phonecalls: 0118 9583727 Phights: 20 Armadale Court
Westcote Road
Reading RG30 2DF