Memetics vs. Mimesis

[Bianca Steele]

I believe there is even a critical approach to literature that
emphasizes the memetic, or use of imitation. If you think I'm
exaggerating the application of the study of memes in literature as
http://users.ipfw.edu/waldschg/whatis.htm

The link you give is to yet another complaint by a professor of English
literature that the profession is going down the tubes. I'm sure
they'll work it out. They are busily incorporating the results of
recent philosophers like Derrida and his successors, just as they have
successfully incorporated modern psychology -- being such skilled
readers that they don't need commentaries or written critiques, only
word-of-mouth that stays inside four walls -- and they make sure to
keep up with the latest established theories of the social scientists
(at least those who aren't politically tainted). Their profession is
based on thousand-year-old traditions of rhetoric and hermeneutics, and
literature studies themselves have been widely respected for centuries,
and have produced some truly impressive work. Self-criticism is an
admirable thing, but they have a discipline and don't need any help
from us outsiders. The evident sophistication of those who've
succeeded in English literature programs is clear proof that they teach
something true.

The author of the site you link to may complain that there is something
seriously wrong, but he is not critical of anything other than details
(of interest only to himself and his colleagues), any more than are
those he cites with similar complaints. Indeed, he emphasizes the fact
that nothing will ever change, and suggests one should not worry. He
is simply emphasizing the eternal truth that things are always bad, and
one cannot do more than one's best.

----
Bianca Steele

[bookburn]

"Bianca Steele" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| bookburn wrote:
| > I believe there is even a critical approach to literature that
| > emphasizes the memetic, or use of imitation. If you think I'm
| > exaggerating the application of the study of memes in literature
as
| > imitation in evolution , take a look at someone's description at:
| > http://users.ipfw.edu/waldschg/whatis.htm
|
| The link you give is to yet another complaint by a professor of
English
| literature that the profession is going down the tubes. I'm sure
| they'll work it out. They are busily incorporating the results of
| recent philosophers like Derrida and his successors, just as they
have
| successfully incorporated modern psychology -- being such skilled
| readers that they don't need commentaries or written critiques, only
| word-of-mouth that stays inside four walls -- and they make sure to
| keep up with the latest established theories of the social
scientists
| (at least those who aren't politically tainted). Their profession
is
| based on thousand-year-old traditions of rhetoric and hermeneutics,
and
| literature studies themselves have been widely respected for
centuries,
| and have produced some truly impressive work. Self-criticism is an
| admirable thing, but they have a discipline and don't need any help
| from us outsiders. The evident sophistication of those who've
| succeeded in English literature programs is clear proof that they
teach
| something true.

I came to that site by accident, confusing memetics with mimetics, but
by golly memetics supports my idea that plagiarism is not what's
happening, imitation is. And memetics seems to present a version of
literature in evolution that takes the measure of other post-modern
approaches like deconstructionism, etc.. Evidently, the idea is that
memes are building blocks of memorable ideas, both small and large,
that are capable of replecating themselves, like genes; so I see an
interest in working out a history and sociology of the study of
English that is up to speed with science. It's quite intriguing and
mind-bending, IMO.

I like the example of meme that replecates itself, that "a scholar is
a library's way of creating another library."

| The author of the site you link to may complain that there is
something
| seriously wrong, but he is not critical of anything other than
details
| (of interest only to himself and his colleagues), any more than are
| those he cites with similar complaints. Indeed, he emphasizes the
fact
| that nothing will ever change, and suggests one should not worry.
He
| is simply emphasizing the eternal truth that things are always bad,
and
| one cannot do more than one's best.

I left an e-mail at the author's site, suggesting he comment on the
extent that memetics and mimetics support each other. You might try
to engage him in this Tempest indebtedness study going on at h.l.a.s.
Identifying textual origins in terms of single creator would probably
lose some credibility. bookburn.
|
| ----
| Bianca Steele
|

[Bianca Steele]

Post by bookburn
I came to that site by accident, confusing memetics with mimetics, but
by golly memetics supports my idea that plagiarism is not what's
happening, imitation is.

I agree that there must be a difference between plagiarism and
imitation. Most obviously, they have different characteristics. As
Paul Crowley pointed out, there are often marks in a student's text,
indicating plagiarism, one example being that the student uses words
without understanding what they mean, which can show up in peculiar
ways, including syntax that's just slightly "off," or odd logical
transitions. There are other indications, as well, some of which are
used by well-publicized computer programs designed to tell college and
high-school teachers which of their students are cheating.

I did change the subject slightly for a reason, which was (I think
pretty obviously) that I disagreed somewhat with the turn your
contribution had given to the thread. I don't want to get into a
debate about the proper use of the term "meme," much less a debate
about the true description of any theory of memes.

Post by bookburn
And memetics seems to present a version of
literature in evolution that takes the measure of other post-modern
approaches like deconstructionism, etc.. Evidently, the idea is that
memes are building blocks of memorable ideas, both small and large,
that are capable of replecating themselves, like genes; so I see an
interest in working out a history and sociology of the study of
English that is up to speed with science. It's quite intriguing and
mind-bending, IMO.

You can define "meme" however you like; it has already acquired more
than one sense, and it is fruitless to try to halt the tide of change.
If you find it useful for your purposes -- and you do seem quite
enthusiastic about it -- by all means, show how the concept is suited
to those purposes. Many people do seem to find the multiplication of
"scientific" theories, applied to fields like literature, more
distasteful than not; it's very difficult to see exactly what they
might be taking exception to, especially given how common it's already
become.

----
Bianca Steele

[bookburn]

"Bianca Steele" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| bookburn wrote:
| > I came to that site by accident, confusing memetics with mimetics,
but
| > by golly memetics supports my idea that plagiarism is not what's
| > happening, imitation is.
|
| I agree that there must be a difference between plagiarism and
| imitation. Most obviously, they have different characteristics. As
| Paul Crowley pointed out, there are often marks in a student's text,
| indicating plagiarism, one example being that the student uses words
| without understanding what they mean, which can show up in peculiar
| ways, including syntax that's just slightly "off," or odd logical
| transitions. There are other indications, as well, some of which
are
| used by well-publicized computer programs designed to tell college
and
| high-school teachers which of their students are cheating.

A teacher might get fanatical about detecting "cheating" and neglect
what is important. I repeat that education is about imitating and
plagiarism is only a poor version of that. When a student cheats in
any respect, it's himself that is damaged; and, really, modern ethics
supports cheating in many ways.

| I did change the subject slightly for a reason, which was (I think
| pretty obviously) that I disagreed somewhat with the turn your
| contribution had given to the thread. I don't want to get into a
| debate about the proper use of the term "meme," much less a debate
| about the true description of any theory of memes.
|
| >And memetics seems to present a version of
| > literature in evolution that takes the measure of other
post-modern
| > approaches like deconstructionism, etc.. Evidently, the idea is
that
| > memes are building blocks of memorable ideas, both small and
large,
| > that are capable of replecating themselves, like genes; so I see
an
| > interest in working out a history and sociology of the study of
| > English that is up to speed with science. It's quite intriguing
and
| > mind-bending, IMO.
|
| You can define "meme" however you like; it has already acquired more
| than one sense, and it is fruitless to try to halt the tide of
change.
| If you find it useful for your purposes -- and you do seem quite
| enthusiastic about it -- by all means, show how the concept is
suited
| to those purposes. Many people do seem to find the multiplication
of
| "scientific" theories, applied to fields like literature, more
| distasteful than not; it's very difficult to see exactly what they
| might be taking exception to, especially given how common it's
already
| become.

The sense I have about memes is that it should be "worked with," and I
can respect that. bookburn


----
| Bianca Steele
|

[Bianca Steele]

Post by bookburn
A teacher might get fanatical about detecting "cheating" and neglect
what is important.

Equally, a student might get "fanatical" about succeeding or appearing
to be intelligent and skilled, and neglect what is important, namely,
learning what's being taught.

Post by bookburn
I repeat that education is about imitating and
plagiarism is only a poor version of that.

I think we all know what "plagiarism" means, though we are more unclear
about "imitation," especially after Plato and Aristotle have been
brought in to defend derivative art (I saw nothing exceptional about
Robert S.'s comments on this). I think it's also usually pretty
obvious what kinds of imitation are desired in student work, and what
kinds of imitation are frowned upon.

Post by bookburn
When a student cheats in
any respect, it's himself that is damaged; and, really, modern ethics
supports cheating in many ways.

To get back to the point for a minute, we're not talking about the
ethics of students cheating. We're not even talking about how writing
is done. Primarily, we're talking about how copying is detected. An
analogy was made between discovering literary sources and detecting
plagiarism. The point was, clearly, whether a reasonable person would
find specific verbal parallels significant evidence of outright copying
from a source.

Conceding that there are two questions -- one relating to the ethics of
what we agree to be cheating, and the other relating to the proper
distinction between copying that is cheating and imitation that is good
writing -- what does either of these have to do with the point that had
been under discussion?

Post by bookburn
The sense I have about memes is that it should be "worked with," and I
can respect that.

There are many sources on memes, and the site you linked to mentioned
the most important names that I'm aware of, among scholarly rather than
popular uses of the term. Those sources have already been criticized
by people who are more qualified than I am, and I would not be able to
defend their criticisms here, nor to defend the original sources
themselves (even though I think I largely understood these at the time
I read them, quite a while ago, and even though I think there is some
reason on both sides). These are very widely-known theories; many
people know who Dawkins and Dennett are, what their other commitments
are, and what kinds of criticisms other academics have made of their
ideas.

Your original claim apparently had to do (a) with the idea that
defenders of the use of "memes" in literary study were defending what
others might call plagiarism and/or (b) with the idea that certain
specific criticisms made here (by Mark C., Tom R., and Paul C.), of
Lynne K.'s and Roger S.'s argument about possible sources for _The
Tempest_, might be understood to be either valid or invalid if we
understood the theory of memes. I do not see support for your claims
at that web page.

----
Bianca Steele

[bookburn]

"Bianca Steele" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| bookburn wrote:
| > A teacher might get fanatical about detecting "cheating" and
neglect
| > what is important.
|
| Equally, a student might get "fanatical" about succeeding or
appearing
| to be intelligent and skilled, and neglect what is important,
namely,
| learning what's being taught.

I shall try to bring the discussion around to what Crowley alleges
about plagiarism with respect to genius and creation of Tempest. So
far as I care, ethics can be left out as a consideration.

|
| >I repeat that education is about imitating and
| > plagiarism is only a poor version of that.
|
| I think we all know what "plagiarism" means, though we are more
unclear
| about "imitation," especially after Plato and Aristotle have been
| brought in to defend derivative art (I saw nothing exceptional about
| Robert S.'s comments on this). I think it's also usually pretty
| obvious what kinds of imitation are desired in student work, and
what
| kinds of imitation are frowned upon.

So perhaps we can agree that "imitation" is one way to consider
parallels in literary indebtedness.

|
| >When a student cheats in
| > any respect, it's himself that is damaged; and, really, modern
ethics
| > supports cheating in many ways.
|
| To get back to the point for a minute, we're not talking about the
| ethics of students cheating. We're not even talking about how
writing
| is done. Primarily, we're talking about how copying is detected.
An
| analogy was made between discovering literary sources and detecting
| plagiarism. The point was, clearly, whether a reasonable person
would
| find specific verbal parallels significant evidence of outright
copying
| from a source.

Detective work to identify copying, okay. But if I can forgo ethics
as a consideration, why don't you also avoid plagiarism as a label?
Let's just look at the function of literary indebtedness in terms of
what the echoes are and their sources.

| Conceding that there are two questions -- one relating to the ethics
of
| what we agree to be cheating, and the other relating to the proper
| distinction between copying that is cheating and imitation that is
good
| writing -- what does either of these have to do with the point that
had
| been under discussion?

I say the only question is What accounts for the echoes in Tempest
that can be recognized? supposing they are everything from verbal to
structural to generic.

| > The sense I have about memes is that it should be "worked with,"
and I
| > can respect that.
|
| There are many sources on memes, and the site you linked to
mentioned
| the most important names that I'm aware of, among scholarly rather
than
| popular uses of the term. Those sources have already been
criticized
| by people who are more qualified than I am, and I would not be able
to
| defend their criticisms here, nor to defend the original sources
| themselves (even though I think I largely understood these at the
time
| I read them, quite a while ago, and even though I think there is
some
| reason on both sides). These are very widely-known theories; many
| people know who Dawkins and Dennett are, what their other
commitments
| are, and what kinds of criticisms other academics have made of their
| ideas.

I suspect you are more knowledgable about memetics than I am, who
knows nothing about its critics and apologists. You see, I am
imitating what the author of the essay suggests about "working with
memetics," as this seems to reflect the essence of its workings as a
function of evolving culture and history, including literature.

| Your original claim apparently had to do (a) with the idea that
| defenders of the use of "memes" in literary study were defending
what
| others might call plagiarism and/or (b) with the idea that certain
| specific criticisms made here (by Mark C., Tom R., and Paul C.), of
| Lynne K.'s and Roger S.'s argument about possible sources for _The
| Tempest_, might be understood to be either valid or invalid if we
| understood the theory of memes. I do not see support for your
claims
| at that web page.

More to the point, in the current examination of sources in Tempest,
it may be possible to identify one or more early sources that
Shakespeare and/or Strachey has "cribbed" from that Kathman has not
(yet) accounted for, but characterizing such use as plagiarism is
silly, given what we know about imitation and moral guidelines of the
time.

To conclude on a positive note, I think I can say that: 1) mimetic
approach in literary criticism recognizes application of various
rationales and idiologies in interpreting literature, depending on
recognition of mimicry and imitation, which is what the Tempest debate
is about; and 2) memetics, or the science of memes, or memorable
building blocks that replicate themselves in history and culture, also
seems to apply to determining sources in Tempest. Maybe in memetics
the memes operate through cultures in a way similar to the "time
spirit" brings things about in the fullness of time, for all I know.
Anyway, both mimetics and memetics hold harmless the author as
instrument/agent in the process. bookburn

| ----
| Bianca Steele
|

[Mark Cipra]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[bookburn]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Mark Cipra]

Post by bookburn
| If you want to know more about memes, you should start with Dennett,
who
| first conceived of them, I believe. Don't remember the name of the
work,
| but it shouldn't be too hard to find.
|
| There's also an article in the October 2000 Scientific American by
Susan
| Blakemore and others which gives an overview of the topic.
|
| Not my cup of tea, frankly - it's a little too Platonic for my
taste. I
| think "memes" is a metaphor that got out of control. Which may make
it a
| meme.
Yes, memes memes. Name a cat, Meme (male), Memes (female). I will
try to get up to speed with memetics, if only to find out if it goes
beyond literature as myth and legend building, has applications in
comparative literature and anthropology. bb

In theory it certainly has applicability, but the (very few) discussions
I've seen always seem to end up being about the concept of memes rather than
advancing any knowledge of the topic at hand.

[bookburn]

"bookburn" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
|
| "Bianca Steele" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| | bookburn wrote:
| | > I believe there is even a critical approach to literature that
| | > emphasizes the memetic, or use of imitation. If you think I'm
| | > exaggerating the application of the study of memes in literature
| as
| | > imitation in evolution , take a look at someone's description
at:
| | > http://users.ipfw.edu/waldschg/whatis.htm
| |
| | The link you give is to yet another complaint by a professor of
| English
| | literature that the profession is going down the tubes. I'm sure
| | they'll work it out. They are busily incorporating the results of
| | recent philosophers like Derrida and his successors, just as they
| have
| | successfully incorporated modern psychology -- being such skilled
| | readers that they don't need commentaries or written critiques,
only
| | word-of-mouth that stays inside four walls -- and they make sure
to
| | keep up with the latest established theories of the social
| scientists
| | (at least those who aren't politically tainted). Their profession
| is
| | based on thousand-year-old traditions of rhetoric and
hermeneutics,
| and
| | literature studies themselves have been widely respected for
| centuries,
| | and have produced some truly impressive work. Self-criticism is
an
| | admirable thing, but they have a discipline and don't need any
help
| | from us outsiders. The evident sophistication of those who've
| | succeeded in English literature programs is clear proof that they
| teach
| | something true.
|
| I came to that site by accident, confusing memetics with mimetics,
but
| by golly memetics supports my idea that plagiarism is not what's
| happening, imitation is. And memetics seems to present a version of
| literature in evolution that takes the measure of other post-modern
| approaches like deconstructionism, etc.. Evidently, the idea is
that
| memes are building blocks of memorable ideas, both small and large,
| that are capable of replecating themselves, like genes; so I see an
| interest in working out a history and sociology of the study of
| English that is up to speed with science. It's quite intriguing and
| mind-bending, IMO.
|
| I like the example of meme that replecates itself, that "a scholar
is
| a library's way of creating another library."
|
| | The author of the site you link to may complain that there is
| something
| | seriously wrong, but he is not critical of anything other than
| details
| | (of interest only to himself and his colleagues), any more than
are
| | those he cites with similar complaints. Indeed, he emphasizes the
| fact
| | that nothing will ever change, and suggests one should not worry.
| He
| | is simply emphasizing the eternal truth that things are always
bad,
| and
| | one cannot do more than one's best.
|
| I left an e-mail at the author's site, suggesting he comment on the
| extent that memetics and mimetics support each other. You might try
| to engage him in this Tempest indebtedness study going on at
h.l.a.s.
| Identifying textual origins in terms of single creator would
probably
| lose some credibility. bookburn.
| |
| | ----
| | Bianca Steele

I got a reply from the author as follows, assuming he will allow this
liberty. His name is Geoffrey Wald. bb

(quote)
Not sure which essay-- but assume it's the one on my website about
using
memetics to teach literature and composition.

Robt. Scholes in "Rise and Fall of English" has some interesting ideas
on the role of "parody and pastiche" in our "postmodern paradigm." A
working definition of "mimetic" would help, but I assume it is in the
"classical imitation" sense, primarily in "poetics" and literature.

interesting dynamic going on here with "mimetics" and memetics
"supporting each other," especially when "plagiarism" is thrown into
the
mix! Methinks in me own humble way it is the intent of the "copier"
or
writer/author... whether it is deliberate (mimesis), unconscious
(memetic) or fraudulant (plagiarism).

memetics asserts that "memes" have a "life of their own," an idea that
offends many in the humanities... and therefore the "copier" is merely
a
"host" and that the act of copying is largely unconscious on the part
of
the "copier." It is actually the "meme" making copies of "itself!"

There's more about this in my thesis... but NOBODY has the patience to
read that thing!

Hope this starts some ideas... and thanks for the note!

gbw
I arrived at your essay by mistake, looking for support of a post
about justifying plagiarism in terms of the concept of "imitation" and
thinking to bolster it up by the uses of the mimetic in literary
criticism. I am surprised and pleased at what I find about memetics
that seems to also support the classical idea of "imitation."

Now I have to figure out how the memetic and mimetic support each
other. You might add a footnote or something about this?

Don Cameron
(unquote)