> At 03:35 PM 07/03/97 GMT, jonesr@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com wrote:
> >
> >Hang on, though. Earlier you said that the meme was a far more complex
> >set of instructions, not just a short-cut key. Therefore, it's not
> >the meme that is doing the recognising in this above example. It must
> >be one of the "front-ends" if you like.
>
> The pattern-recognizers are also part of the meme. So we've identified at
> least 3 parts to the meme: the pattern-recognizer(s) that activate the meme,
> the associations that more or less define the meme, and the behaviour-
> generator(s) that influence the outside world (causing it to be reproduced
> among other things).
Is any of this new to you, David? I was just wondering whether we're just covering
old ground, in which case, I won't continue, or whether we've not really thought
about the parts of a meme? For the moment, I'll assume that this is all new.
How many parts are there to a meme? The front-ends, the processing itself, its
links with other memes, its definition, the sub-section that describes the meme (as
in the <rationality> meme being the meme that says rationality exists, rather than
describing the process).
How about on a larger scale? Can meme-complexes act in the same way as a single
meme? If so, how is it decided within the memesphere what the front-ends will
be? Any thoughts?
Drakir