>
>So...er...was memetic theory (as originally formulated by
>Dawkins) intended to be viewed as autonomous from genetic
>evolution, or was it inextricably linked with it, or were they
>seen as dialectically affecting one another?
>
I _think_ the answer to what Dawkins' thinks can be found best in his book
'The Extended Phenotype'. I _think_ his underlying ideas are ..
(*) his 'new, broader' view of life, life is 'anything that replicates' (or
the 'differential survival of replicationg things' as he ses) - memes would
be included in that.
(*) So in answer to your question above, I assume (his view would be)
'genes' and 'memes' (or 'memetic evolution' and 'genetic evolution') are
two examples of the same process.
(*) things such as the dams beavers build, or for that matter cars and
microwave ovens, are as much 'alive' or 'a part of life' as what are
commonly called 'living things' (he feels)
(*) also, I seem to remember reading somewhere him saying that he pretty
much steers clear of talking about 'sociobiology' or using the term,
because, it is so fraught and loaded
(*) .. indeed if you flip over to .. :looks: pg 191 of Selfish Gene, nr.
the top, .. is that sort of Dawkins saying "my idea of memes, contra
sociobiology" ?
(*) Whilst Dawkins came up with the notion of memes, certainly more people
have written much more about 'memetic theory' - so maybe, what aspects were
you thinking on precisely re: 'memetic theory' ?
jp
___________________
jpm@tweb.com
I can't complain, but sometimes I still do!
- Joe Walsh