From: Nym@suny.buffalo.com Subj: RE: meme? > Timothy writes:Well, as for "origins:" the word was coined in 1976 by Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins in his book, "The Selfish Gene." It wasn't really a major argument of the book, simply a final chapter which attempted to suggest that, just as there were biological replicators -- genes, so there could perhaps be cultural replicators -- memes. The notion was that an idea, or even a behavior, could spread throughout a population, and that this could explain some strange things about human culture. Everything from fashion fads to catch-phrases [for instance, the word "OK" to denote being all-right. The root of its original meaning is lost, but that meaning remains tied to the meme]. Even such behaviors as "waving" could be explained as memes which traveled like viruses throughout groups of people, resulting in a common "culture" and the messy-but-real concentrations which attend it.> Hello all. I was wondering about this word I'd heard elsewhere around the > Net, and about it's origins. The word is "meme."
> The context in which I read it led me to believe that the author considered > it as some sort of idea he wanted to get across to the rest of the readers... > this is difficult to explain.
Hah, tell me about it! :) Don't worry: through discussion and use, the *idea* of the meme will become much easier to *understand...* yet it's never become too much easier for me to *explain* to someone who's just encountered it, except through analogies.Yeah, I gnow what you mean. All I can say is that I [and most others within the Net] will do my best to give you a useful response to any question you have. Remember, these frustrations aren't new to you; others before you have had them and others after you will too. Someday you'll be in *my* virtual shoes, explaining the MEME to someone else! :)> Guess I'll have to settle for a "word of mouth" definition, huh? It's not so > bad, I guess. It's just that it happens so often here on the Net; so many > ideas flitter past so quickly.
> I wish there were some sort of "official" net.glossary that could be pointed > to in order to figure out which ideas were legitimate and which ones were > useless.Well, careful there. I mean, there *are* books here and there, both online and as PRINTED MATTER, that explain many of these ideas. But none of them are really "official;" they CAN't be, because there's no "officiating body" which runs the Net, and I'll thank the stars for that fact! Whether or not a particular idea is useful or bogus to you will depend on its plain old elbow-grease UTILITY to you as a tool for communication with the people you're around, and then on how well whatever source you run across can translate their conception of the idea into your own personal local lingo.
Still, I can empathize. Being of a scholarly bent myself, I can't help but wonder how these ideas will translate to the "outside" and how warmly they'll be accepted when there aren't any "official" places to cross-check. hm.
Onward!
- Nym