some of these entries are in fact older journal entries. in trying to establish a manageable grounds for explanation, i feel that i need to share a few past thoughts, mostly for clarifying's sake.
as with any 'new' science, meme theory needs time. the Metameme (Grant 2005) reveals the circular nature of the theory: if meme theory is honestly viable, the character of the meme of meme theory must as well be accepted into the system and understood to be itself included in the evolutionary process it denotes. note that while we weren't even sure for a while if the proper location of a gene was on a DNA molecule or a protein, it is safe to assume by science that the location didn't change before nor after our discovery that it is/was DNA. however, memes have a very different nature by comparison in that -- even if there is a location to be found, and we can assume is the same in pre- and post-discovery (at least relatively) -- our very means of analyzing are in fact of the same sort that is the object of study. the 'gene-meme' for instance might best be described from a memetical perspective as the meme/memeplex that is our knowledge database of genes and genetics. a Metameme however must try to include in every facet data of itself and its kind (memes). thus, we cannot expect our study of it to too well resemble our naturalistic study via the science we've developed up to this time -- at least, the study cannot be exclusive of its 'physical' expressions (its objective memetic phenotype, or sociotype) to its entire subjective and intersubjective criteria (Heylighen 2001) as well.
so, on top of the effort of possible scientific experimentation, we must expect even more concerning how to experiment, regarding all aspects of the theory. and this will take time. let's be patient.
No comments:
Post a Comment