>The statements that *the existence* of genes are " implied
> by the manner in which traits are handed down..." seemed to imply
to me
> that genes were the most basic unit of that which hands down
traits, their
> basic nature being such that they can only be studied by their
effects. I meant
> to say that this view of genes as being the cause of themself--and
> therefore beyond question--must be questioned.
Well, in a sense, aren't genes the cause of themselves by way of
self-replication? It isn't necessarily beyond question, because
there's the matter of the First Cause; whatever it was that caused
the first genes to exist. I don't think that it can be observed
directly, but can be theorized at least. What can be observed is the
cause of new genes by mutation or whatnot. And that can be likened to
studying the creation of new memes, as well as their effects.
>I hope I conveyed that memes affect genes (a
> point I have made in other posts). But, no...I do not thind that
> we "already have a good idea of /how/memes transfer from one mind
to
> the next".
I don't think you conveyed that in this particular discussion, but
I do know the point that you're referring to. I mean that we have
just as good of an idea of how memes spread as we do about the
propagation of genes (copulation...sex cells w/ DNA... new human). I
didn't say we had a crystal clear understanding, but we do know that
the many forms of communication are what carries a meme from point A
to point B.
> Is this a comment on the idea that (I may have given this
> impression): Genes are the mechanism for the transference
> of memes from one mind to the next?
No, I wasn't talking about that at all. I'm referring to genes and
memes in their own separate, yet parallel, contexts. Carl Jung had a
theory about genetically inherited archetypes, though.
I know I haven't presented any new ideas here, but I just wanted to
clarify what I meant.
Mark