[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
'cultural evolution'
---------------------------------------------------------
· · · · · · A E C F O R U M - "M E M E S I S" · · · · ·
· · · · · · · (http://www.aec.at/meme/symp/) · · · · · ·
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear memologists,
An unease that critics of the equation between scientific and cultural
systems have had since the nineteenth century is that scientists are always
very quick to suggest practical applications. Remember the racio-cultural
paradigm of physical anthropology that extrapolated cultural
difference=superiority/inferiority from biological difference; I disagree
with suggestions that there is a direct line from here into the gaschambers
in Birkenau, but they are connected to the Eugenics programme which Francis
Galton promoted and which implied the 'discouragement of marriages among
members of the inferior racial stock', etc.
Francis Heylighen writes:
>A much more important phenomenon is the effect *cultural* evolution will
>have. Indirectly, cultural evolution may even control genetic evolution. We
>already see the first applications of biotechnology to the "repair" of
>genes repsonsible for inherited diseases. Perhaps, the "Memesis" statement
>should be understood in that sense: that humanity itself will develop the
>power and the will to manipulate its own genes, throwing out those that are
>not adapted to the new cultural-technological landscape. Still, the
>statement is way too categoric.
It is irritating that within these scientific discourses, description and
the desire to control always seem to go together. Like modern genetics, the
notion of 'memetics' therefore immediately suggests a cybernetics of
culture (i.e. another science of control.
Why do we have to think memes as something that is based on the digital
code? Why not think them as polymorphous, disturbing, deterritorialising
entities that produce meaning through difference, through transformation?
Paralleling the notion of genes and memes suggests that there is a fixed
and inscribed code which gets replicated in fertile environments. Why do we
have to think memes as subject to forces of similarity?
In February at the Videofest in Berlin, I did not give the paper about "The
End of the Digital Age" which I had prepared. It seemed inappropriate for
the occasion. Here is the abstract:
The text cheerfully suggests that the digital age has come to an end and
that we are about to enter the 'memetic age'. The reductive ideology of the
binary code that ruled the digital age has been superseded by a first
glimps of polymorphous, heterogeneous singularities called 'memes'. The
author criticises the digi-biologistic notion of memes which equates them
to pseudo-genes carrying and spreading the contents of human culture.
Rather, he suggests that memes exist as singular forces on a stratum
separate from the current human-digital biotope, and that humans should
learn how to parasitically benefit from the heterogenic energy produced in
the transient event of molecular-memetic materialisations. The text
concludes with a suggestion for an 'aesthetics of the heterogeneity'
according to which artists should strive for the development of disruptive,
counter-intuitive interfaces.
Greetings from sunny Rotterdam in May,
Andreas Broeckmann
............................................................................
..........................................................
V2_Organisatie * Andreas Broeckmann * abroeck@v2.nl
Eendrachtsstr.10 * NL-3012XL Rotterdam * t.+31.10.4046427 * fx.4128562
<http://www.v2.nl> <http://www.dds.nl/n5m> <http://www.v2.nl/east>
----------------------------------------------------------
· · · · to subscribe to the Open Forum just mail to · · ·
· · open-memesis-request@aec.at (message text 'subscribe')
· · · · · · · send messages to open-memesis@aec.at · · · ·
----------------------------------------------------------
