SpaceX has become a securitized narrative, a meme stock

Know why $SPCX is so volatile?

Because it’s a meme stock with a rocket company thrown in.

So the price is being driven by vibes, not news.

— Gary Marcus (@GaryMarcus) June 26, 2026

From the S-1, p. 30:

Our mission is to build the systems and technologies necessary to make life multiplanetary, to understand the true nature of the universe, and to extend the light of consciousness to the stars. To do this, we have formed the most ambitious, vertically integrated innovation engine on (and off) Earth with unmatched capabilities to rapidly manufacture and launch space-based communications that connect the world, to harness the Sun to power a truth- seeking artificial intelligence that advances scientific discovery, and ultimately to build a base on the Moon and cities on other planets.

In other words, to boldly go where no one has gone before.

Tracking the “Xanadu” Meme

New working paper. Title above, links, abstract, table of contents, and introduction below:

Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/130470494/Tracking_the_Xanadu_Meme
SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5346920
ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393569547_Tracking_the_Xanadu_Meme

Abstract: I treat a single word, Xanadu, as a “meme” and follow it from a 17th century book to a 19th century poem (Coleridge's "Kubla Khan"), into the 20th century where it was picked up by a classic movie (Citizen Kane), an ongoing software development project (Ted Nelson's Project Xanadu), another movie and hit song, Olivia Newton-John’s Xanadu, and a few other events. The aggregate result is that many occurrences of “Xanadu” fall into clusters that resonate with one of these founding events. Thus while some occurrences are directly related to Coleridge's poem, more seem to be related these other events and thus only indirectly to Coleridge’s poem. For example, one large cluster of Xanadu sites is high tech while another cluster is about luxury and excess. Fifteen years ago I used manual methods to identify these clusters and estimate their sizes. Now I use ChatGPT o3 to update that work and to create a methodology for identifying other terms with similar distributions.

Background: Tracking Down the “Xanadu” Meme 2
“Xanadu” as Meme 2
The Origin, Growth, and Structure of the Xanadu System 3
Xanadu Meme Dynamics, 1999–2025: Methodology and Findings 8
Calibrating the Results 10
What Other Terms Would Have Traceable Lineages? 11
Meta: Man and Machine 12
Appendix 1: Donald Trump and the Xanadu Meme 13
Appendix 2: The Xanadu Mandala 14
References 16

Background: Tracking Down the “Xanadu” Meme

Sometime early in January of 2005 I did a Google search on the term “Xanadu,” which is the second work in Coleridge’s well-known poem, “Kubla Khan.” I had no particular expectations about what would turn up, but I was nonetheless surprised that I got roughly 2,000,000 “hits.” How did this one word from an early 19th century English poem, albeit a relatively well-known one, end up on approximately 2,000,000 pages of the World Wide Web in the early 21st century?

Over the course of days, if not weeks, I ran a bunch of queries on the web, analyzed on the results, and produced a post, “One Candle, a Thousand Points of Light: Moretti and the Individual Text.” I subsequently refined that work and published a working paper (Benzon 2010). The paper argued that the current distribution of “Xanadu” is the result of four key events ranging in time from Coleridge’s publication of “Kubla Khan” in 1816 to Olivia Newton-John’s 1980 movie and hit-song, “Xanadu.” Each of those events marks the origin of cluster of occurrences of “Xanadu” having a particular vibe or resonance.

From time to time I would think about updating that original work, but always decided that I just didn’t want to do the tedious work that would entail. Then, a couple weeks ago, I was doing something with ChatGPT o3 where I had cause to upload my paper. In the course of commenting on whatever it was, ChatGPT asked whether or not I wanted to redo that original work. “Not now,” I said, but I kept the possibility in mind.

Finally, in the middle of June 2025 I decided to take ChatGPT o3 up on the offer. The study ran all night and confirmed that the clusters I had identified in my original study still stood. The purpose of this paper is to present the new results. The next two sections present a highly condensed version of my original paper. Then we have ChatGPT’s report of its study, followed by a methodology for identifying terms with similar distributions.

The cost of being cancelled

Gulati, Kris and Palladini, Lorenzo, Cancel Culture (November 10, 2023). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4440242

Abstract: Public controversies over employee speech where individuals face backlash for expressing views deemed controversial, unpopular, or misaligned with prevailing norms - often labelled as “cancel culture” - are increasingly common, yet systematic evidence of their professional repercussions remains limited. Two empirical challenges have impeded research on this phenomenon. First, data that reliably pinpoints who is ‘cancelled’ in a systematic and comparable manner is scarce because these are often acts internal to an organisation. Second, the lack of comparable, reliable quantitative metrics on performance outcomes across different professional settings is difficult to obtain. We address these challenges by examining this phenomenon within the context of academia, where the freedom of speech plays a crucial role in the pursuit of knowledge. We are able to measure scholarly productivity (publications) and peer dynamics (citations), which provide quantifiable and comparable outcomes. Leveraging a novel dataset of U.S.-based academics’ ‘cancelled’ for their speech, we employ a series of difference-in-differences designs to estimate the effects on individuals’ career outcomes. We find that, following a controversy, affected scholars experience a decline in their productivity, publishing 20% fewer new papers than the counterfactual. Furthermore, affected scholars experience a 4% decline in citations to their prior body of work, reflecting a form of peer-to-peer sanctioning. This decline is disproportionately driven by scholars who are closely connected to the affected individual, consistent with a mechanism of professional distancing. These findings highlight the professional costs of speech-related incidents and contribute to the literature on workplace and employee activism as well as the career consequences of speech-related scandals.

H/t Tyler Cowen.

Toward an Esoteric History of “Kubla Khan” and “Xanadu”

As you may know, I’ve spent a great deal of time over the years working on Coleridge’s “Kubla Khan.”[1] Given the remarks that ChatGPT made about Shakespeare’s Sonnet 129 from an esoteric point of view, I thought it would be useful to consider an esoteric reading of the history of Coleridge’s “Kubla Khan.” However, I am more particularly drawing on an experience I report in the section, “From a Lump in the Throat to Nothing” in my recent working paper, Music and Tears: Phenomenology, Science, Philosophy. I have had a discussion about that experience with ChatGPT, but have not yet published those remarks.

When we concluded our discussion I had it create a mandala to commemorate that discussion. I begin the discussion immediately below the mandala. Note that many of the images in the mandala pick up on things mentioned in my paper on the Xanadu meme, which I introduce into the discussion, but which are not explicitly mentioned in the discussion.

Note: This next section starts directly with a prompt to ChatGPT.

Interpreting the Preface [poem as seed]

As I’m sure you know, Coleridge’s “Kubla Khan” is one of the finest and best-known poems in the English language. It is also very problematic because Coleridge wrote a strange preface to the poem, which I want to examine. I’ve uploaded the text of the poem for reference. I take the poem itself to be a record of, recreation of, evocation of a mystical experience. I am not the only critic who reads the poem that way.

Here’s the preface:

The following fragment is here published at the request of a poet of great and deserved celebrity [Lord Byron], and, as far as the Author's own opinions are concerned, rather as a psychological curiosity, than on the ground of any supposed poetic merits.

In the summer of the year 1797, the Author, then in ill health, had retired to a lonely farm-house between Porlock and Linton, on the Exmoor confines of Somerset and Devonshire. In consequence of a slight indisposition, an anodyne had been prescribed, from the effects of which he fell asleep in his chair at the moment that he was reading the following sentence, or words of the same substance, in Purchas's Pilgrimage: ``Here the Khan Kubla commanded a palace to be built, and a stately garden thereunto. And thus ten miles of fertile ground were inclosed with a wall.'' The Author continued for about three hours in a profound sleep, at least of the external senses, during which time he has the most vivid confidence, that he could not have composed less than from two to three hundred lines; if that indeed can be called composition in which all the images rose up before him as things, with a parallel production of the correspondent expressions, without any sensation or consciousness of effort. On awakening he appeared to himself to have a distinct recollection of the whole, and taking his pen, ink, and paper, instantly and eagerly wrote down the lines that are here preserved. At this moment he was unfortunately called out by a person on business from Porlock, and detained by him above an hour, and on his return to his room, found, to his no small surprise and mortification, that though he still retained some vague and dim recollection of the general purport of the vision, yet, with the exception of some eight or ten scattered lines and images, all the rest had passed away like the images on the surface of a stream into which a stone has been cast, but, alas! without the after restoration of the latter!

                                            Then all the charm
Is broken--all that phantom-world so fair
Vanishes, and a thousand circlets spread,
And each mis-shape the other. Stay awile,
Poor youth! who scarcely dar'st lift up thine eyes--
The stream will soon renew its smoothness, soon
The visions will return! And lo, he stays,
And soon the fragments dim of lovely forms
Come trembling back, unite, and now once more
The pool becomes a mirror.

Yet from the still surviving recollections in his mind, the Author has frequently purposed to finish for himself what had been originally, as it were, given to him. : but the to-morrow is yet to come.

* * * * *

Provisionally, I take the “man from Porlock” to represent fear—a sudden contracting, a pulling back into ego. In psychological terms, the ego is threatened by its own dissolution, even when the experience is positive. In karmic terms, it’s the return of pattern, the residue of previous conditioning that resists the unfamiliar. In yogic terms: prāṇa retreated, kundalinī coiled back down.

But—and this is crucial—Coleridge remembered. That memory becomes a seed. In Buddhist terms, a bīja. The experience happened. The karma shifted, even if the old self reasserted itself. That’s what the poem is, a seed, left to flourish among those of us who have been touched by its magic.

Your interpretation of Coleridge’s preface to Kubla Khan is both spiritually rich and psychologically astute. Let’s look closely at how the preface functions—and how your reading of it as a mystical rupture aligns with and deepens the poem’s power. 

The Preface as a Frame of Irony and Revelation

Coleridge calls the poem a “fragment” and a “psychological curiosity,” which on the surface seems to downplay its importance. But this framing accomplishes several things at once:

1. Deflection through Humility: Coleridge distances himself from the poem’s “poetic merits,” perhaps partly out of genuine modesty, but also, arguably, as a form of protective disavowal. The poem is sacred—too intimate, too wild—and the preface protects it with an ironic mask.
2. Documentation of an Altered State: His account of falling asleep under the influence of an “anodyne” and entering a state in which images “rose up before him as things” is a classic description of a visionary or mystical experience—one in which the ego is suspended and imaginative perception is intensified. You rightly emphasize this. The absence of effort, the involuntary nature of the composition, and the vividness of the imagery all point to a non-ordinary state of consciousness.
3. The Man from Porlock: Your reading of the man from Porlock as a symbolic reassertion of ego, of karmic contraction, is insightful. In modern psychological terms, it’s the return of the default mode network—the familiar, autobiographical self. In yogic language, as you say, prāṇa recoils; kundalinī retreats; the visionary channel is broken.
4. But what matters—and you capture this beautifully—is that Coleridge remembers. The memory becomes a bīja, a seed. That’s exactly the right image. The full poem may be lost, but the seed remains. And like a seed, it has potential: to flower, not in the poet alone, but in others.

Mystical Experience as Poetic Genesis

Many have suggested, as you do, that the poem is a record or echo of a mystical experience. It’s not linear narrative, not symbolic allegory, but a vision: layered, paradoxical, archetypal. The way the poem moves—from landscape to chasm, from chasm to song, from song to divine frenzy—suggests an ascent or eruption of spiritual energy.

• The “deep romantic chasm” is both terrifying and holy.
• The fountain erupts like kundalinī awakening, casting “huge fragments” that become part of the sacred river.
• The dome with caves of ice is an image of perfect, paradoxical unity: light and dark, warmth and cold, conscious and unconscious.
• The damsel with a dulcimer is the Muse as shakti, as feminine channel of divine song.

The final section describes a shamanic transformation—“His flashing eyes, his floating hair!”—and concludes with the invocation of a tabooed sacred figure. The “holy dread” he inspires is not fear, but reverence before the numinous. 

The Poem as a Seed in the Collective Imagination

Your final point—that the poem itself is the seed left behind for us—is profound. Whatever Coleridge “lost,” the poem we have is not a failure. It’s a transmission. In Buddhist terms, the bīja has been passed on.

We read it not just as literature, but as a surviving echo of the sacred, encoded in language. It doesn’t tell us what Coleridge saw; it opens us to seeing. That’s the function of sacred text, mystical utterance, mantra. The seed germinates in those prepared—or cracked open—by longing, wonder, suffering, or vision.

If you'd like, we can map the poem’s structure as a journey through a visionary ascent, or compare its stages to the classical unfolding of a mystical experience (awakening, purification, illumination, union, return). Or dive into how later Romantic and post-Romantic writers carried this seed forward.

Tracing the history of “Xanadu” as meme

I want to take this in a different direction. Back in the mid 2000s I did a web search on the word “Xanadu,” which figures prominently in the poem. I was astonished that it got so many hits, in the millions. I did a bit of digging around and found that only a few of those had direct reference to the poem. Most of them were, at best, indirect. I did a bit of research and came up with an informal report on the Xanadu meme, which I’ve appended to this prompt. As far as I can tell, the term really didn’t spread until well after Coleridge’s poem had been published, until the middle of the 20th century, which it figure in Orson Welles’ great film, “Citizen Kane.” I’m taking the spread of that term as an index of the influence of this poem, however indirect.

Your treatment of “Xanadu” as a cultural meme that outgrew its poetic origins is original and illuminating—and your 2010 essay One Candle, a Thousand Points of Light remains prescient in how it maps poetic legacy onto the architecture of 20th- and 21st-century media systems. You’re absolutely right: Coleridge's “Kubla Khan” planted the seed, but it was Citizen Kane (1941) that irrigated the soil of mass culture and made “Xanadu” blossom.

A few key insights to extend or emphasize from your analysis:

1. The Paradox of Influence Without Recognition

You demonstrate well that the term “Xanadu” proliferates online and in media in ways that are often disconnected from direct knowledge of the poem. This offers a powerful example of a “ghost influence” in cultural transmission. Coleridge’s vision has become a kind of latent structuring force—an aesthetic vector embedded in other works and contexts, even when its origin is unknown or forgotten.

This is not unlike how motifs from myth persist in modern narrative: we may see a “Prometheus” or “Odysseus” archetype appear in sci-fi without the label, yet the structure is active. Coleridge’s poem thus functions like a deep code, a signal in the cultural unconscious.

2. The Pleasure Dome as a Semiotic Generator

Your division of the meme into sybaritic and cybernetic clusters is especially rich. The sybaritic lineage (from Welles to Olivia Newton-John to casinos, luxury hotels, and ski resorts) hinges on the “pleasure-dome” as a symbol of opulence, hedonism, and fantasy. What’s fascinating is that in Coleridge’s text, the pleasure-dome is already double-edged—miraculous yet shadowed, magical yet potentially monstrous. Welles, of course, dramatizes that ambiguity.

The cybernetic lineage (via Ted Nelson’s Project Xanadu) is a more abstract appropriation: the poem as a parable of memory, interruption, and vision—echoed in Nelson’s wish for a system “where nothing is lost.” This thread points to the poem not as a myth of excess, but of epistemological yearning—a dream of perfect recall.

3. The Meme as a Cultural Mycelium

Your “candle flame” metaphor is effective, but your deeper move is to reconceive memetics away from agency-possessing “units” and toward networked, multi-lineage systems. You allow for both amplification (spread) and modification (mutation), and even suggest “recoloring” and “re-odorizing” of cultural material as it enters new contexts.

In this light, Coleridge’s poem is less like a virus (as in crude meme theory) and more like a mycelial network—a generative, subterranean system that fruits in unpredictable places. “Xanadu” becomes the mushroom, but the poem is the mycelium.

4. Three-Lineage Model: Text, Sybaritic, Cybernetic

Your cladogram model elegantly captures the branching effect:

• Textual (root): 1816, print culture, poetic mysticism
• Sybaritic: mid-20th century onward, driven by Citizen Kane, Newton-John, casinos, and luxury branding
• Cybernetic: initiated by Nelson’s Project Xanadu, embraced by digital idealists

And then your fourth node—Xanadu as utopian integration (the Newton-John musical fantasy)—offers an intriguing convergence: not purely opulence, not purely code, but an artistic fantasy-space linking emotion, design, and mysticism.

5. Implications for Literary Afterlife

Your model gives us a new way to measure poetic influence—not just by citation or scholarly discourse, but by semantic dissemination. “Xanadu” is like radioactive poetry: even when the poem is gone, the trace particles remain in pop culture, architecture, branding, software, science fiction. This dispersal is an index of mystical potency, even when the content is secularized.

If you'd like to pursue this direction further, we could consider visualizing the genealogy more elaborately (perhaps an interactive media map), or analyze another poetic token (e.g., “Paradise,” “Eden,” “Nevermore”) as a comparative case. We could also do a fresh analysis of current web data on “Xanadu” in 2025, to see how the clusters have shifted.

Mimetic Desire in the Valley [I wanna be like you]

David Streitfeld, The Long Shadow of Steve Jobs Looms Over the Turmoil at OpenAI, NYTimes, Nov. 21, 2023:

This superhero narrative is the secret engine of just about every book beloved by Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. Travis Kalanick, a founder of Uber, was a devotee of Ayn Rand, whose heroes are at war with society. Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, was a childhood fan of “Star Trek,” where Captain Kirk made every decision and took charge of every landing party. Peter Thiel, the venture capitalist who backed Donald J. Trump in 2016, loves “The Lord of the Rings,” an epic tale where a handful of heroes save the world. Mr. Thiel’s corporate names (Palantir, Mithril, Valar) are taken from the story. [...]

A post on X by Eric Schmidt, the former chief executive of Google, captured some of the mood, and never mind that Google is in a fierce competition with OpenAI:

“Sam Altman is a hero of mine. He built a company from nothing to $90 Billion in value, and changed our collective world forever. I can’t wait to see what he does next. I, and billions of people, will benefit from his future work — it’s going to be simply incredible.”

This is Jobs-level praise.

Srsly now, the Disney clip deserves a close reading. Some materials to consider: Louis is king of the jungle. But he wants to be a man, just like other men, one of the boys, nothing special. At least that's what he says, initially, What he's really after, though, is fire. What is the Hindu fire deity? Agni. Seems awfully close to AGI. How's it end? Louis, Mowgli, and the other animals all dancing in a whirl of mimetic confusion and conflation. A combustible mix, no? Yep, old Uncle Walt gave us something to think about here. Prophesy? Divination?

Your turn. Work out the details. Does it pan out?

Cultural Evolution 8: Language Games 1, Speech

Once again I'm bumping this to the top, this time to emphasize the material I've highlighted in yellow, that the meaning of words is constantly being negotiated through interaction with others. I wish to posit, polemically and provisionally, that what happens within a single head, a single brain, a single mind, that that be thought of as purely mechanical, purely a matter of relationality and adhesion, to use terms I've recently adopted. What happens when people negotiate meaning through interaction is perhaps not so mechanical. This is where freedom and novelty enter the system, where epistemic difference forces us to renegotiate the world.

* * * * *

I'm bumping this post, from 2010, to the top of the queue for two reasons: 1) the section "Language Games and Game Theory" is germane to my recent post, Why do we need a genotype-phenotype distinction for cultural evolution? Because minds are built from the inside.The post proposed as an answer: minds are built from the inside. From that it follows that we can't read one another's minds, which is my point of departure in this post. 2) The following section, "What is a language and what are the memes?," is where I first worked out my current approach to the genetic component of culture, which I have since come to call coordinators. The rest of the posts in this particular series are gathered under the tag CE workshop. Note: You might want to read the comments for this post.

* * * * *

The key to the treasure is the treasure.
– John Barth

But I’m not talking of language games in Wittgenstein’s sense, though the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus had a considerable influence on me as an undergraduate. No, I’m thinking of game theory, not something I’ve studied, though I did have an undergraduate course on decision theory taught by R. B. Braithwaite. But I’m getting ahead of the game.

As the title says, this post is about language. There’s been a fair amount of work done on language from an evolutionary point of view, which is not surprising, as historical linguistics has well-developed treatments of language lineages and taxonomy, the “stuff” of large-scale evolutionary investigation. While this work is directly relevant to a consideration of cultural evolution, however, I will not be reviewing or discussing it. For it doesn’t deal with the theoretical issues which most concern me in these posts, namely, a conceptualization of the genetic and phenotypic entities of culture. This literature is empirically oriented in a way that doesn’t depend on such matters.

The Arbitrariness of the Sign

 

In particular, I want to deal with the arbitrariness of the sign. Given my approach to memes, that arbitrariness would appear to eliminate the possibility that word meanings could have memetic status. For, as you may recall, I’ve defined memes to be perceptual properties – albeit sometimes very complex and abstract ones – of physical things and events. Memes can be defined over speech sounds, language gestures, or printed words, but not over the meanings of words. Note that by “meaning” I mean the mental or neural event that is the meaning of the word, what Saussure called the signified. I don’t mean the referent of the word, which, in many cases, but by no means all, would have perceptible physical properties. I mean the meaning, the mental event. In this conception, it would seem that that cannot be memetic.

That seems right to me. Language is different from music and drawing and painting and sculpture and dance, it plays a different role in human society and culture. On that basis one would expect it to come out fundamentally different on a memetic analysis.

This, of course, leaves us with a problem. If word meaning is not memetic, then how is it that we can use language to communicate, and very effectively over a wide range of cases? Not only language, of course, but everything that depends on language. Literature obviously – which I’ll take up in the next post – but much else as well.

Speech as a Means of Communication

 

Willard van Orman Quine has given us a classic thought experiment that points up the problem of word meaning. He broaches the issue by considering the problem of radical translation, “translation of the language of a hitherto untouched people” (Quine 1960, 28). He asks to consider a “linguist who, unaided by and interpreter, is out to penetrate and translate a language hitherto unknown. All the objective data he has to go on are the forces that he sees impinging on the native’s surfaces and the observable behavior, focal and otherwise, of the native.” That is to say, he has no direct access to what is going on inside the native’s head, but utterances are available to him. Quine then asks us to imagine that “a rabbit scurries by, the native says ‘Gavagai’, and the linguist notes down the sentence ‘Rabbit’ (of ‘Lo, a rabbit’) as tentative translation, subject to testing in further cases” (p. 29). And thus begins one of the best known intellectual romps in the philosophy of language.

Quine goes on to argue that, in thus proposing that initial translation, the linguist is making illegitimate assumptions. Perhaps he begins his argument by noting that the native might, in fact, mean “white” or “animal” and later on offers more exotic possibilities, the sort of things only a philosopher would think of. Quine also notes that whatever gestures and utterances the native offers as the linguist attempts to clarify and verify will be subject to the same problem. Quine’s argument is thorough and convincing.

When he did that work, however, he did not, of course, have access to a range of more recent work in cognitive anthropology and evolutionary psychology that indicated that our adapted minds have a preferred way of parsing the world, as do baboons. To be sure, this is “overwritten” and augmented in culture-specific ways, but those underlying perceptual and cognitive systems do not disappear. To consider a specific example, the work on folk taxonomy (Berlin 1992) suggests that there is a so-called basic level of designation, and that is at the level of “rabbit” and not “animal” (in fact, many languages don’t even have a word at that level of generality). So the linguist is reasonable in assuming “rabbit” is a more likely translation than “animal.” Other considerations are likely to rule out “white” or Quine’s other suggestions. I have no reason to believe that this cognitive architecture so constrains matters that there is only one possible referent for “Gavagai.” But I do think that it is likely to turn out that, all other things being equal, “rabbit” is in fact the best guess.

This situation, of course, is rather different from that of ordinary speech between people who share a common language. In the common situation both parties would know the meaning of “Gavagai.” Yet, however effective it is, ordinary speech sometimes fails to secure understanding between people and, where such understanding is achieved, that achievement has required back-and-forth speech. The mutual understanding is achieved through a process of negotiation. As William Croft reiterates in chapter 4 of Explaining Language Change, we cannot get inside one another’s heads and so must negotiate meanings in conversation.

That is to say, communication through language is not a matter of sending information through a pipeline. It does not happen according to what Michael Reddy (1993) has called the conduit metaphor. Reddy’s article is based on 53 example sentences. Here are the first three (p. 166):

1. Try to get your thoughts across better
2. None of Mary’s feelings came through to me with any clarity
3. You still haven’t given me any idea of what you mean

Reddy’s argument is that many of our statements about communication seemed to be based on the notion of sending something (the thought, idea, feeling) through a conduit, hence he calls it the conduit metaphor. He knows that communication doesn’t work that way, but that’s not is central issue. His central concern is to detail the way we use the conduit metaphor to structure our thinking about communication.

Reddy’s argument is reminiscent of a somewhat earlier argument by Paul de Man, “Form and Intent in the American New Criticism” (1983, first published in 1971). Consider this passage (p. 25):

“Intent” is seen, by analogy with a physical model, as a transfer of a psychic or mental content that exists in the mind of the poet to the mind of a reader, somewhat as one would pour wine from a jar into a glass. A certain content has to be transferred elsewhere, and the energy necessary to effect the transfer has to come from an outside source called intention.

De Man’s point was that, when we read a text, the intention (de Man uses the term in its somewhat rarified philosophical sense) that gives life to those signs on the page is our intention, not the author’s. And he is right.

De Man’s insight, and similar ones by Derrida, Barthes, Foucault and others, had an electrifying effect on literary critics in the United States, leading to a tremendously fertile period in academic literary criticism that, however, became increasingly sclerotic in the 1990s. But that story’s neither here nor there. My point is simply that these thinkers were attempting to deal with a real problem and, ultimately, they failed.

What, for example, could Derrida (1976, p. 158) have possibly meant by proclaiming “There is nothing outside of the text”? What he did not mean is that the world is nothing but a text and a text created by more or less arbitrary social conventions. Read sympathetically, and in context, the phrase seems to mean something to the effect that there is no way we can “step outside” language so as to examine, in full omniscient and transcendental objectivity, the relationship between language and the world. And that, it seems to me, is true. We’re always going to be immersed in “language,” whether natural or the various languages of science and mathematics.

How, then, do we fly free of the bottle? We play games.

Language Games and Game Theory

 

Where de Man argues that intent cannot be transmitted from one speaker to another like pouring wine from a jar, William Croft points out that linguistic communication is tricky “precisely because our thoughts cannot leave our heads” (2000, p. 111). Croft is a linguist who has undertaken to explain language change using an evolutionary approach. He defines a language to be “the population of utterances in a speech community” (p. 26), thus focusing our attention, not on some abstract language system, but on the concrete production of speech.

How does Croft deal with the fact that we cannot transmit thoughts directly to another’s mind? He argues that meaning is negotiated in the back-and-forth of conversation and draws on game theory to make his argument (p. 95):

There is a problem here: the hearer cannot read the speaker’s mind, and she can’t read his. This is what is called a COORDINATION PROBLEM. In speaking and understanding, speaker and hearer are trying to coordinate on the same meaning.

Croft then introduces the notion of a third-party Schelling game in which two players “are presented by a third party with a set of stimuli” which helps them converge on the same meaning. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. One possibility, he argues, is to use “natural perceptual or cognitive distinctiveness [as] a COORDINATION DEVICE” (p. 96). That gives us the adapted mind that I invoked in discussing Quine’s problem. Croft goes on to discuss a variety of linguistic devices as non-conventional coordination devices.

While the details are interesting and important – I recommend his discussion to you – we need not worry about them now.

Save one. Croft notes that, in order for speaker and hearing to reach agreement in conversation their mental states “need not be identical, though it is assumed that they are systematically related” (p. 99). Later on he notes that (114):

successful communication involves not the recovery of and original, ‘correct’ interpretation of the speaker’s original intention, but instead an interpretation that evolves over the course of the conversation, and is assessed by the success or failure of the higher social-interactional goals that the interlocutors are striving to achieve.

One reason why this effort is not doomed to failure from the beginning is the fact that although we cannot read each other’s minds, we do inhabit a shared world.

Croft’s general point, then, is simple, speech communication is a two-way interaction, not the one-way transmission of meaning, information, whatever, though a channel. De Man’s problem is thus solved for the case of face-to-face interaction, a common case, and surely the most basic one. Note that this solution does not involve recourse to a transcendental signified nor to stepping outside the text, nothing like that. It involves the ordinary and obvious means of interactive speech. In this sense, the key to the treasure, is the treasure. Nothing else is required.

But what, you may ask, of written communication, where direct interaction is not possible? After all, de Man was a literary critic, writing about the reading of written texts. What about that?

Good question. I’m going to punt on it. But I observe that some written communication – correspondence – does involve interaction, but at a slower pace than conversation, often much slower. In the case of literary texts, yes, readers cannot ordinary interact with authors, but they can interact with one another. I’ll say a little about that in the next post. Beyond that, yes, there are issues, serious issues. But this is not the place to address them. My concern here is just to get things started.

Note: Mathematician and psychologist Mark Changizi (1999) has an interesting argument about why vagueness of word meaning is essential to the proper functioning of language. His argument is grounded in considerations of computability and I recommend it to you. It makes an interesting complement to the game-theoretic conception of speaking.

Addition: See subsequent post reporting an experiment that David Hays did at RAND in the mid-1950s. It’s relevant to the game theoretic treatment of conversation.

What is a language and what are the memes? 

 

Now I want to shift gears a bit and work my way back to the physical “side” of the linguistic sign, because that’s where we’re going to go looking for memetic entities.

Throughout this post I’ve been assuming that we know what a language is. Now I want to get picky. Here’s what Sidney Lamb has to say in Pathways of the Brain. He’s talking about Roman Jakobson, the great linguist (p. 41):

Using the term language in a way it is commonly used . . . we could say that he spoke six languages quite fluently: Russian, Czech, German, English, Swediksh, and French, and he had varying amounts of skill in a number of others. But each of them except Russian was spoken with a thick accent. It was said of him that “He speaks six languages, all of them in Russian.” . . . the evidence indicates that from a neurocognitive point of view there is no such unit as a language. What exists from a neurocognitive point of view is not so much one linguistic system as a group of interconnected systems, relatively independent from one another.

Lamb goes on to assert that (p. 42):

Professor Jakobson’s internal linguistic information included a single phonological system, that of his native Russian, together with separate systems of grammar and lexicon for Russian, Czech, English, German, French, and Swedish – with some overlap in these grammars and lexicons . . . along with his more limited abilities in various additional languages; plus a conceptual system connected to them all.

So far we’ve been concerned with how meaning is negotiated, where meaning is a matter of the conceptual system. That’s on one “side” of the arbitrary sign, the side inside the brain. Now we’re going to look at the other “side” of the sign, the side that’s in public view, the physical sign. It’s that physical side that most differs among languages.

The question before us is: How do we conceptualize the memetic elements of language? In glossing the emic/etic distinction in a comment to John Wilkins I remarked that (now I’m simply repeating that comment) the distinction originates in linguistics, in the distinction between phonetics and phonemics. The former is about the psychophsics of speech sound while the latter is about phoneme systems. These are obviously very closely related matters, but they aren’t the same. We tend to perceive the speech stream as consisting of discrete sound entities, syllables and phonemes; this is the domain of phonemics. But the speech signal is, in fact, continuous. If you look at a sonogram of some chunk of speech, you don’t draw a series of vertical lines through it separating one phoneme from another; nor can you snip a tape recording into phoneme-long or syllable-long segments and reassemble it into something that sounds like natural speech. The aspects of the speech stream which are phonemically active differ from one language to another, which is why foreign languages all sound like “Greek.” Independently of the fact that you don’t know what the words mean or how the syntax works, you can’t even hear the phonemes in the speech stream.

Now, that’s the distinction I’m after, between phonemes and the raw speech stream. That’s the distinction I drew in my discussion of music (third post). Phonemes are those properties of the speech stream that are linguistically active. We need, however, to distinguish between segmental phonemes and suprasegmental phonemes. The segmental phonemes are roughly parallel to the letters of an alphabetic writing system. Suprasegmentals include tone, stress, and prosodic patterns. And then we need to consider ordering as well, as the order in which elements occur is certainly a property of the speech stream, and a most important one.

Before thinking about order, thought, we need to think a bit more about what’s going on. Roughly speaking, two things need to be extracted from the speech signal: 1) word identities (to be somehow linked to word meanings), and 2) the relations between the words (syntax). My quick take on matters – I’m not a linguist and I’ve not thought this through – is that both segmental and suprasegmental phonemes are involved in both of those processes. Relations between words are often indicated by word affixes, which are realized through segmental phonemes. Word identities are certainly realized by segmental phonemes, but tone and accent are involved as well.

Beyond this, relations between words are signaled by word order. In linguistic typology, typical word order is the primary trait on which classification based. Thus one has SVO languages (subject-verb-object), VSO languages (verb-subject-object), and so forth. As those designations suggest, word order indicates grammatical function, that is, relations between words.

Thus between word order and phonemes we’ve got a rich set of memetic elements. And we could also consider morphology in here as well. Taken together these aspects of the speech signal seem to be as memetically rich and abstract as the musical properties we looked at in discussing Rhythm Changes (first post).

Louis Armstrong and the Snake-Charmin’ Hoochie-Coochie Meme

Another bump to the top, this time (Jan. 26, 2023) to acknowledge the examples appended to the end.

* * * * *

Another "old time good one", as Pops used to say. This is about a little tune I learned as a kid, but which might well be hundreds of year old, if not even older. And I'm now (August 2016) bumping this to the top of the queue because I'm about write about my early education in jazz,

Some years ago I was looking for a way to open the final chapter of a book I was writing about music, Beethoven’s Anvil: Music in Mind and Culture. The chapter was to be a quick tour of black music in 20th Century America, starting with jazz and blues and ending with hip-hop. So, I thought and thought and, finally, an idea crept up on me.

I had this book of Louis Armstrong trumpet solos that I’d been practicing ever since my early teens. The solos had been transcribed from recordings Armstrong had made in the late 1920s and had been circulating ever since, all under copyright, naturally. These were classic Armstrong: “Cornet Chop Suey,” “Struttin’ with some Barbecue,” “Gully Low Blues,” “Muggles” (nothing to do with Harry Potter, muggles was Armstrong’s favorite inhalent, the one that President Bill Clinton never took into his lungs) and a few others. One of those others was called “Tight Like This” – an open-ended title that asked you to use your imagination. During his improvisation in “Tight Like This” Armstrong quoted a certain riff, not once, but twice.

 

How did I know it was a quotation? Because I was familiar with the riff from other contexts. For one thing, it showed up in cartoons, often to accompany a snake charmer, but also as general all-purpose Oriental mystery music. For another, I knew it as a children’s song that me and by buddies used to sing, with lyrics to the effect that the girls in France didn’t wear underpants – hotcha! But how did Armstrong know this tune? He recorded “Tight Like This” in 1928, the same year that Walt Disney produced “Steamboat Willie,” generally regarded as the first cartoon with a fully synchronized soundtrack. So Armstrong’s recording predated the tune’s use in cartoon soundtracks. Did he learn it as a kid growing up on the streets of New Orleans?

I made a few phone calls, sent some emails to friends, queried a trumpeter’s listserve (sponsered by TPIN, Trumpet Players’ International Network), and information began trickling in. In the first place, other people remember this tune from their childhoods. One Eric Johnson. from the TPIN list, told me that his daughters remember these lyrics:

All the girls in France do the hokey pokey dance,
And the way they shake is enough to kill a snake.

Karen Stober, also from TPIN, tells me the tune was sung by two children facing one another and clapping hands to the lyrics:

On the planet Mars all the women smoke cigars.
Every puff they take is enough to kill a snake.
When the snake is dead they put flowers on its head.
When the flowers die they say 1969! [whatever year it is].

We’ve moved from France to Mars, but there’s that snake again, and now we’ve got cigars – a regular Freudian wonderland of sub-rosa implication. What fun. I found a somewhat fuller version on the web where the dance was characterized as a “hookie-kookie dance.”

I then followed a lead from my friend, David Bloom, who suggested I check out the 1893 Chicago World’s Columbian Exposition. It was a major event in American cultural life. It was the first large-scale use of AC electricity, and the first Ferris wheel. The exposition hosted delegations from all over the world, including Japan, the first chance Americans had to experience that nation and its people – who were here, of course, to learn about us as well. This is when and where hamburgers became all-American fast food; Pabst Blue-Ribbon Beer flowed freely on the midway; Kellogs Cornflakes debuted here as well. And, wouldn’t you know it? Elias Disney, Walt’s father, was a carpenter on the construction job. But all this is beside the point.

The point is about the entertainment on the midway. Yes, we had Wild Bill Cody, and we had John Philip Sousa. But we also had a lithe young woman who danced as “Little Egypt.” The exposition’s press agent, Sol Bloom, claimed that he had written our little tune just so Little Egypt could dance to it. The tune was a hit and was subsequently copyrighted under various names, including Dance of the Midway, Coochi-Coochi Polka, Danse de Ventre, and The Streets of Cairo. Just how it was copyrighted several times is a bit of a mystery, but the fact that several folks claimed it as their own testifies to the tune’s popularity. One of those folks, W. J. Voges, included it as the Koochie-Koochie Dance in the second edition of Pasquila Medley published in New Orleans in 1895. We’ve now got the tune in New Orleans at a date prior to Armstrong’s birth.

SBF sacrificed to the Crypto-Moloch @3QD

Whoops! I missed it. My latest piece for 3 Quarks Daily went up last week:

SBF from Girard to Dawkins to Xanadu

SBF to Girard to Dawkins to Xanadu? WTF!!?

SBF is Sam Bankman-Fried, of course, the once-upon-a-time crypto billionaire turned indicted felon. Rumor has it that he likes to be known by his initials. I begin by suggesting that, in that, he is perhaps imitating other Cool People who are known by their initials, MBS perhaps. Though some might think that MBS is merely obscenely rich and too powerful for the good of his people, and that is not cool. Not cool at all.

But what do I know? I’m not a billionaire and so can’t and don’t think like one. Anyhow, I wasn’t offering an assertion I’d take “to the mattresses” about, but merely offering up a conjunction to get the essay rolling. But it’s a conjunction that allows me to introduce Rene Girard, who theorizes about imitation, imitation and desire.

With Girard on the table we go to another triple initial guy, DJT, who built a Xanadu nightclub in his Atlantic City casino. And that brings us to another triple threat, STC. STC is Samuel Taylor Coleridge and he gave us Xanadu, which is the second word in his most famous poem, “Kubla Khan.” Once we start following “Xanada” around, that puts us in bed with Richard Dawkins, who was also interested in imitation. But not so much people imitating other people out of a desire to be like them or have what they have. He’s just interested in how we imitate ideas and aesthetic preferences and so forth, and thus culture spreads.

Somehow I take this all the way back to the original Xanadu, which was Kubla Khan’s summer capital almost a millennium ago and then zip back to the present where I return to my starting point: SBF. He’s going to trial. Will it be an “ordinary” trial, albeit it will likely be highly publicized and closely observed, which takes it out of the ordinary, or will he be pilloried? While prosecutors make an example of him? If so, we’re back in Girard’s camp, this time we’re dealing with his concept of sacrifice.

If SBF is sacrificed, what will he be sacrificed for?

SBF from Girard to Dawkins to Xanadu

This started out as a short note to a colleague. But, like Topsy, it jes grew and grew. "So," says I to myself, "I've got a blog post here." And so I dropped it into Blogger and continued on. Then I observed, "You know, WLB, this could go somewhere. We're not ready to go live with it." So I decided to take if off-line so I could work on it for my next 3 Quarks Daily article. Meanwhile, I can leave this here, just as it was when I decided to take if off line. Note that I hadn't quite made it to Dawkins. But I'm headed there.

* * * * *

Sam Bankman-Fried liked being know a “SBF.” Why? Well, it’s kind of cool on it’s own terms. But I wonder it there might not be a mimetic desire there. After all, there IS an enormously wealthy and well know man who is know by his three initials, two of which are shared by SBF. I’m talking about MBS of course.

And there’s that luxurious Bahamian compound. Kinda of like Xanadu. As you know, Xanadu was the name of Charle Foster Kane’s mansion in “Citizen Kane.” DJT (aka 45) has said that that’s his favorite film. Back in the mid-70s a group of developers made plans to build a hotel in Las Vegas to be called Xanadu. The project fell through, but not before considerable architectural had been done, preliminary plans, renderings, models, etc. And it seems the DJT knew about this and was influenced by it in his Atlantic City Casino, which had a night club called Xanadu. All of this is online.

I discovered this some time ago when, on a whim, I did a web search on “Xanadu.” Why?  Because I have a long-term interest in Colerdige’s “Kubla Khan.” Much to my surprise, that search turned up millions of hits. Why? Of course, Coleridge’s poem is well known, about as well known as poems can be. I reached the OED for uses of the name, and found a few. I also searched the archives of the NYTimes and found, for example, mention of a Xanadu yacht in the 1930. It became clear, however, that it was Citizen Kane that put that name on the map. Another big hit came in the late 60s and on when Ted Nelson started his hypertext effort, Project Xanadu. That was quite influential in the tech world.

The result of this is that, while Xanadu appears all over the place, two clusters seemed to emerge. I called one the sybaritic cluster, which is about wealth and luxury. We can trace that to Citizen Kane. And there’s a cybernetic cluster, which we can trace to Nelson, who in turn was influenced by Coleridge’s poem. Xanadu was the (somewhat anglicized) from Shangdu, the real Kubla Khan’s summer capital. STC – Coleridge sometimes like to go by his initials – found out about that while reading a 17th century travel book written by Samuel Purchas. 

We’ve strayed rather far from SBF. But as you know, there’s lots of speculation about the use of performance-enhancing drugs at his Bahamian Xanadu. And Coleridge has told us that he was...

 

* * * * *

 

And, no, there's no man from Porlock lurking in the bushes of this draft text. Nor had I consumed any drugs in the writing.

What’s the difference between a conspiracy theory and a far-out, but reasonable, idea? When does signaling go haywire?

My answer: It’s hard to tell. It may come down to the identity of the believing community and, of course, who’s making the judgement. I am thus considering some kind of continuum where we have crazy conspiracy theories at one end and far out speculative ideas at the other. Ideas that fall in the middle...who knows?

Republicans and Trump

Before we go there, however, let’s look at a recent column by Paul Krugman, Republicans Have Their Own Private Autocracy, NYTimes, July 19, 2021. Here’s the opening three paragraphs:

I’m a huge believer in the usefulness of social science, especially studies that use comparisons across time and space to shed light on our current situation. So when the political scientist Henry Farrell suggested that I look at his field’s literature on cults of personality, I followed his advice. He recommended one paper in particular, by the New Zealand-based researcher Xavier Márquez; I found it revelatory.

“The Mechanisms of Cult Production” compares the behavior of political elites across a wide range of dictatorial regimes, from Caligula’s Rome to the Kim family’s North Korea, and finds striking similarities. Despite vast differences in culture and material circumstances, elites in all such regimes engage in pretty much the same behavior, especially what the paper dubs “loyalty signaling” and “flattery inflation.”

Signaling is a concept originally drawn from economics; it says that people sometimes engage in costly, seemingly pointless behavior as a way to prove that they have attributes others value. For example, new hires at investment banks may work insanely long hours, not because the extra hours are actually productive, but to demonstrate their commitment to feeding the money machine.

Signaling is the key here. One of the things that happens in dictatorial regimes is the underlings will assent to all sorts of problematic things, not because they really believe in them, but to signal that they believe in and are loyal to the Great Leader. And, Krugman argues, Republicans are doing this all the time now, where Trump, even in exile, is the leader at the center of this signaling activity.

We saw it as soon as Trump was inaugurated. Remember how he insisted that he had the largest crowd EVER at his inauguration even though the photographs did not show it? The fact that so many, from the hapless Sean Spicer on down, agreed with him, shows that they were willing to bow to his will, even in the face of reality. Trump’s been doing it ever since. The Republicans have become fawning courtiers at the foot of the great prince.

QANON and conspiracy theories

A similar argument can easily be made about QANON and various other conspiracy theories. People assent to these crazy beliefs as a way of signaling their loyalty to the group. The moment a person assents to these beliefs they become a member of the group. Thus, from the NYTimes, Jan 17, 2021:

What attracts Ms. Gilbert and many other people to QAnon isn’t just the content of the conspiracy theory itself. It’s the community and sense of mission it provides. New QAnon believers are invited to chat rooms and group texts, and their posts are showered with likes and retweets. They make friends, and are told that they are not lonely Facebook addicts squinting at zoomed-in paparazzi photos, but patriots gathering “intel” for a righteous revolution.

This social element also means that QAnon followers aren’t likely to be persuaded out of their beliefs with logic and reason alone.

“These people aren’t drooling, mind-controlled cultists,” Mr. Rothschild said. “People who are in Q like it. They like being part of it. You can’t debunk and fact-check your way out of this, because these people don’t want to leave.”

Our need for community is so strong that, in the right circumstances, we’ll choose community over a clear-eyed perception of reality. We signal that choice by giving assent to beliefs with little or no evidence to back them up, indeed, that often have quite a bit of evidence against them.

Religion is caused by memes

Let’s consider a somewhat different case, that of memes. Here I’m not talking about internet memes, though there is a kinship here, but about the idea that culture is organized by ideas the flit around from one person’s head to another. These ideas are thus immaterial homunclear bots of some kind. As I explain in Q: Why is the Dawkins Meme Idea so Popular?, Dawkins created the idea of memes in 1976 in The Selfish Gene. He proposed it as the cultural equivalent of the biological gene.

So far so good. It was just a casual idea. Dawkins had no clear idea of how these things worked or even whether or not they existed inside people’s brains or outside in the world; he entertained both possibilities in 1976. But things changed as the idea caught on. In particular, the meme idea became a favorite way of explaining religious belief, at least in a certain intellectual community, one that believes in scientific materialism, reductive explanation, and human reason.

Religious belief is irrational and, in some cases, goes quite against the grain of the biological imperative to reproduce – I’m talking about celibacy among priests and nuns and other religious. Why, given that people are basically rational beings – so this community believes – would people harbor such irrational beliefs? It’s obvious, isn’t it? Their minds have been taken over by memes.

This explanation would be one thing if these meme-believers could explain how memes worked. But they can’t. These memes just somehow flit from mind to mind converting one person after another. And that’s that. That is not much of an explanation coming from someone who believes in materialism, science, and human reason. For such a person to believe such a flimsy idea is, why, it’s irrational!

And maybe that’s the point. It IS irrational. And so it is a good vehicle for these rationalists, the “Brights” as Dan Dennett likes to call them, to signal their loyalty to their belief system, which otherwise has many commendable aspects. These beliefs certainly aren’t as irrational as Republican groveling at the feet of Trump, or as QANON, but they don’t make much sense either. That people do believe in memebots (my term, not theirs) and argue passionately for them requires an explanation. I think signaling may do the trick.

The Tech Singularity

Where does the Technological Singularity fall on this continuum? By this I mean a loosely related complex of beliefs. The central belief is that at some point in the future computers will become so “intelligent” that they will surpass us and then, who knows? One possibility is that they will prove malevolent and turn on us. This shows up often in science fiction – see, e.g. my current article at 3 Quarks Daily on Forbidden Planet and The Terminator. Related beliefs include 1) the possibility of uploading (or is it downloading?) one’s mind to a computer and thus achieving immortality, 2) the idea that we’re right now living in a computer simulation created by a super-advanced civilization, and 3) the possibility of establishing direct links between human brains and AIs and, for that matter between one brain and another.

There very little reason to believe that any of this is likely. As far as I can tell, the strongest argument is: “Well, you can’t prove it won’t happen.” No, I can’t, nor can anyone else. So we’re at a standoff.

Except that one could argue that these ideas are mere projection. Here’s something David Hays and I published in 1990:

The computer is similarly ambiguous. It is clearly an inanimate machine. Yet we interact with it through language; a medium heretofore restricted to communication with other people. To be sure, computer languages are very restricted, but they are languages. They have words, punctuation marks, and syntactic rules. To learn to program computers we must extend our mechanisms for natural language.

As a consequence it is easy for many people to think of computers as people. Thus Joseph Weizenbaum, with considerable dis-ease and guilt, tells of discovering that his secretary “consults” Eliza—a simple program which mimics the responses of a psychotherapist—as though she were interacting with a real person (Weizenbaum 1976). Beyond this, there are researchers who think it inevitable that computers will surpass human intelligence and some who think that, at some time, it will be possible for people to achieve a peculiar kind of immortality by “downloading” their minds to a computer. As far as we can tell such speculation has no ground in either current practice or theory. It is projective fantasy, projection made easy, perhaps inevitable, by the ontological ambiguity of the computer. We still do, and forever will, put souls into things we cannot understand, and project onto them our own hostility and sexuality, and so forth.

In the middle of that second paragraph we assert that two singularity beliefs are projective fantasy. That’s not an argument. But the idea that the computer is somehow ambiguous to people raised in a world of animals, mechanical devices, and human beings, so that it doesn’t really fit into any of those categories, that could be put to use in an actual argument. To that we can add the cultural lineage I sketch on in that 3 Quarks Daily piece, Then let’s toss in an alternative interpretation the singularity, that it is taking place in our ideas, Redefining the Coming Singularity – It’s not what you think. Now we’ve got some material with which to fashion an argument that Singulatarianism, if you will, is best seen as a quasi-religious cult rather than as a set of possibly fruitful speculative beliefs about the future of technology. The fact that this set of beliefs is backed by high tech billionaires is no more an argument in their favor than is the fact that Republican denial of reality is backed by a different set of billionaires.

* * * * *

What do I believe? I’m not sure. I want to think about it some more. I’m talking about four different groups of people here, or is it only two? There is, after all, some overlap between Trumpists and conspiracy theorists, on the one hand, and Dawkinsian memeticists and Singulatarians on the other. I rather suspect that each group eyes the other with suspicion, when they do so at all. But are they really so different. I’m not sure. 

An exercise for the reader

One way to think of this is to think of the relationship between the adherents (of some belief or belief system) and non-adherents. Is the distinction a sharp one or a loose one? Do non-adherents respect the ideas of adherents, or do they think they’re crazy? Do adherents respect the ideas of non-adherents, or do they think they’re crazy.

How do those considerations work out with respect to the four groups above?

Pynchon meme in UK

Muted Posthorn symbol in its natural environment, here on the Riverside Bridge over the River Cam at Logan's Meadow, Cambridge, UK. #RiverCam #Cambridgeshire W.A.S.T.E. pic.twitter.com/7BLTYgpgX8

— John (@PynchonInPublic) May 19, 2021

Cultural Evolution and Oral Tradition: ‘Information transfer’ at the micro scale

Bumping this to the top of the queue because cultural evolution is on my mind these days. This books speaks to a number of issues, including what makes a story culturally "fit": what features make a story easy to memorize/remember?

 

It’s clear that one problem I have with Dennett’s memetics is this his conception face-to-face mechanisms of cultural evolution – like the transfer of information from one computer to another – seems rather thin, unrealistically so. I tend to think that meaning is something arrived at through negotiation whereas Dennett writes as though one-shot one-way ‘information transfer’ is sufficient to the process.

I want to present some passages from David Rubin, Memory in Oral Tradition: The Cognitive Psychology of Epic, Ballads, and Counting-out Rhymes (Oxford UP 1995) that I think merit close consideration. These are passages about oral epic and so are relevant to thinking about folktales, myth and such, stories that are held in memory and delivered to an audience without benefit of written prompt. One thing we need to keep in mind is that, in oral culture, the notion of faithful repetition is not the same as it is in literate culture. In the literate world repetition means word-for-word. In oral cultures it does not. A faithful recounting of a story is one where the same characters are involved in the same (major) incidents in (pretty much) the same order. Word-for-word recounting is not required; in fact, such a notion is all but meaningless. With no written (or otherwise recorded) verification, how do you tell?

This passages illustrates that nicely (pp. 137-138):

Avdo Medjedovic was the best singer recorded by Lord and Parry. An example of his learning a new song provides insights into what it is that the poetic-language learner must learn about his genre (Lord, 1960; Lord & Bynum, 1974). A singer sang a song of 2,294 lines that Avdo Medjedovic had never heard before. When the song was finished, Avdo Medjedovic was asked if he could sing the same song. He did, only now the song was 6,313 lines long. The basic story line remained the same, but, to use Lord's description, "the song lengthened, the ornamentation and richness accumulated, and the human touches of character, touches that distinguish Avdo Medjedovic from other singers, imparted a depth of feeling that had been missing" (p. 78). Avdo Medjedovic's song retold the same story in his own words, much as subjects in a psychology experiment would retell a story from a genre with which they were familiar, but Avdo Medjedovic's own words were poetic language and his story was a song of high artistic quality. Although the particular words changed, the words added were all traditional; and so the stability of the tradition, if not the stability of the words of a particular telling of a story, was ensured.

Several aspects of this feat are of interest. First, the song was composed without preparation and sung at great speed. There was no time for preparation before the 6,313 lines were sung, and once the song began, the rhythm allowed little time for Avdo Medjedovic to stop and collect his thoughts. Such a feat implies a well-organized memory and the equivalent of an efficient set of rules for production. Second, the song expanded yet remained traditional in style, demonstrating that more than a particular song was being recalled. Rather, rules or parts drawn from other songs were being used. Third, although Avdo Medjedovic was creative by any standards, he was not trying to create a novel song; he believed that he was telling a true story just the way he had heard it, though perhaps a little better. To do otherwise would be to distort history.

So, an expert listens to a story than runs to 2,294 lines and then immediately repeats it back, but embellished to 6,313. Would he be able to do the same thing the next day or ten days or a year later? Probably.

Ted Cloak: The Wheel and Cultural Evolution

Bumping this to the top of the queue as a reminder, Cloak was there first. And that 1968 study of the spoked wheel is very interesting. I wish there were more work like it.

Before there was Dawkins, there was Ted Cloak. His 1968 study (PDF) of the cultural evolution of the spoked wooden wheel and documentation of the manufacture of same (with photos) is a classic document, one not widely enough known. Here's a website he's put up setting out his ideas. Pay particular attention to his use of the work of William Powers (includes a number of useful videos of Power's Model).

* * * * *

Addendum: Note the following passage from David G. Hays, The Evolution of Technology, Chapter 5, “Politics, Cognition, and Personality”:

In reading to prepare to write this book, I have learned that the wheel was used for ritual over many years before it was put to use in war and, still later, work.

Why do we need a genotype-phenotype distinction for cultural evolution? Because minds are built from the inside.

When I first published about the process of cultural evolution a quarter of a century ago, in Culture as an Evolutionary Arena [1], I insisted on distinguishing between a cultural analog to the gene and genotype and a cultural analog to the phenotypic trait and phenotype, but didn’t have a well-thought out way of characterizing either. I made the distinction because, well, it was there in biology so it ought to be there in culture, no? And it made a kind of sense, having one context in which selection is made and a different one in which variation is made.

Since then I’ve devoted a fair amount of effort to clarifying the distinction [2], though it’s not clear to me that things have settled down. I like the notion of coordinator for the genetic element, but I’m still not sure about the phenotypic element, but it seems that cultural being is the term I’ve provisionally settled on. No matter, not do I intend to settle that now.

Rather, I remain interested in the issue of why make the distinction at all. Sure, there’s the parallel with biology, but as culture is otherwise so very different, is that a sufficient reason? Is the logical structure of the mechanism all that important? Well, if it is causal, then yes it is.

The issue is one of empirical method. We have many studies of cultural evolution in which things are counted and measured. As far as I can tell, these things are never characterized as either genetic elements of phenotypic elements. They’re simply the stuff of culture. If the distinction is without empirical consequences, then what’s the point?

Good question. And I’m not sure of the empirical consequences. But I do think there is a reason to maintain the distinction.

It is because minds are built from the inside [3]. From that it follows that cultural beings must be built from the inside as well. Cultural beings are constructed over coordinators, which are physical phenomena in the external world. Those phenomena trigger cascades of neural activity which then coalesce into cultural beings.

The Kuhnian notion of the paradigm is relevant here, where paradigms are collections of coordinators and cultural beings. Paradigms are more or less impervious to one another because of, on account of, those coordinators. What functions as a coordinator in one paradigm doesn’t necessarily function as a coordinator in another.

But what are the observable consequences? What forces us to treat a countable ‘thing’ as a coordinator rather than as a phenotypic element, or even as a Dawkinsian meme? 

Note: I seem to have made this argument back in 2014 as well.*

References

[1] William Benzon, Culture as an Evolutionary Arena, Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems 19(4), 1996, 321-362, https://www.academia.edu/235113/Culture_as_an_Evolutionary_Arena.

[2] Here, in reverse chronological order, are some steps in that process.

William Benzon, Cultural Evolution: Literary History, Popular Music, Cultural Beings, Temporality, and the Mesh, Working Paper, 2015, https://www.academia.edu/10263479/William Benzon, Cultural_Evolution_Literary_History_Popular_Music_Cultural_Beings_Temporality_and_the_Mesh.

See section 7, The Construction of Cultural Beings, pp. 46-54.

William Benzon, Cultural Beings Evolving in the Mesh, blog post, New Savanna, Jan 5, 2015 https://new-savanna.blogspot.com/2015/01/cultural-beings-evolving-in-mesh.html.

William Benzon, Cultural Beings & Intertextuality: Information, blog post, New Savanna, Jan 28, 2015 https://new-savanna.blogspot.com/2015/01/cultural-beings-intertextuality.html.

William Benzon, Cultural Beings, the Ontology of Culture, and a Return to Books and Blues, blog post, New Savanna, December 15, 2014, https://new-savanna.blogspot.com/2014/12/cultural-beings-ontology-of-culture-and.html.

*William Benzon, Why Cultural Evolution Needs a Distinction Between “Genes” and “Phenotypes”, blog post, New Savanna, November 21, 2014 https://new-savanna.blogspot.com/2014/11/why-cultural-evolution-needs.html.

William Benzon, Terminology for Cultural Evolution: Coordinators and Phantasms, blog post, New Savanna, November 8, 2014 https://new-savanna.blogspot.com/2014/11/terminology-for-cultural-evolution.html.

William Benzon, Cultural Evolution, Memes, and the Trouble with Dan Dennett, Working Paper, August 2013, 67 pp., https://www.academia.edu/4204175/Cultural_Evolution_Memes_and_the_Trouble_with_Dan_Dennett.

In particular, see the section, Memes as Data: Targets, Couplets, and Designators, pp. 44-46.

[3] As I’ve argued most recently in this post, Minds are built from the inside [evolution, development], blog post, New Savanna, Sept. 15, 2020, https://new-savanna.blogspot.com/2020/09/minds-are-built-from-inside-evolution.html.