> >to ever be translated. Do they `encode memes'? I'd say no; they carry
> >patterns that have no interpreter to make use of them to encourage
> >in-head meme-reproduction from other memes.
Note the above which states my position on the status of `meme encoding.'
> How do you know the Sanskrit fragments are unlikely to ever be translated?
> Egyptian heiroglyphics were not interpretable for almost 2000 years until
> the discovery of the Rosetta stone in 1799.
>
> (http://www.gold.net/users/iy12/aaes/orion/egyptol.htm)
Unless we find the equivalent of the Sanskrit Rosetta Stone they'll
never be translatable, and even if we do find one, the translation
will only be as good as both the translation into the intermediate
language and thence to English will be. Note that this pretty much
puts the kibosh on us ever getting the exact meme-structure out of the
original writing, both by the lack of the same cultural meme-complexes
and memetic scrambling through multiple translation.
> Would you say the heiroglyphics encoded memes when they were written,
> stopped encoding memes when the language was lost, and started again
> when the Rosetta stone was discovered? That seems rather bizarre to me.
/I/ would say the heiroglyphs don't encode memes at all but rather are
stimulous-patterns for various meme-complex interpreters that did not
exist in the intervening 2000yrs and even the second recreation of the
interpretive meme-complexes are grounded in pure linguistic, not fully
cultural, interpretation.
What those that suggest language/communication `encode memes' would
say I have no idea. :)