[ Let us call it Meme X ]
> > that presumes that memes can be categorized into
> > two classes: those memes that allow the validity of memetics, and
> > those that do not...
>
> I don't know if they are two classes of memes- I think they are two
> modes of employment. Memetics, after all, is always memetics.
What I hear you saying is that your memetic programming does not include
Meme X. This does *not* mean that it is not a meme at all.
> The meme that does not allow for the validity of memetics is not a true
> meme-- it is simply ignorance of the subtleties of memetics.
Perhaps, according to true scientific memetics. But this does not mean
that there can exist no memes that assert otherwise.
> John said in his last post that there's a presumption that are two
> memes; one gives validity to memetics and one doesn't.
No, I didn't. I said that there is a (hypothetical) meme, Meme X, that
says there are two such classes memes. I made no motion as to whether
I hold that meme or not. Did I?
But --- having said all that, I should mention that my original statement
was supposed to be humorous, a reference to Russell's "Classes of Theorems"
paradox.
-- John Porter jporter@btg.com