I became infected with a meme about 5 years ago
that I might call <recreation>. It was such a
novel concept to me (that things could be done
without a stated reason or desired outcome) that
it re- organized my mind in a virulent fashion. I
was inundated by "ideas" which (in a immunological
way) attacked the new meme-- in an attempt to
declare it a foreign body and so destroy it.
The organization of these ideas according to the
pattern presented by the meme formed an organized
defense against the threat imposed. The
organization of ideas according to the pattern
presented also led to a form of automatic
"drawing" by which I went into a state of trance/
mystification and drew a graphic design which (I
assume) was a representation of the defensive
structure, an "anti-body" clothed in behavior and
recorded in the design itself.
I can't say if the design protected me from the
meme. In one sense of the word, the design was a
direct result OF the meme. I DO assume that a
graphic design (as a superior organization of
ideas) can create a resistance to "inferior"
memetic designs. As for creating an anti-body
which has a continued effect on the mutative (or
viral) tendencies by which a meme might
degenerate back to a previous developmental
stage... I suppose this seems likely (as the
previous behaviors of the evolutionarily inferior
meme have also *evolved* to a point at which they
might mimic the design of the superior meme... in
response to its introduction).
And, I suppose that my difficulty with your
proposal is in the distinction between virus,
meme, and *antibody*. I would say that the
graphic design is either a meme or an antibody and
the deconstruction of this design (by which the
design elements might be tested) would result in
viral mutations of the design. As such, their
memetic viability would be tested-- as regards the
applicability of the design elements to the stages
of the development of design... and the strength
of these consecutive stages in the development of
the design would determine if the design, as
originally conceived, was truly a memetic ideal or
if it were a reaction against another meme-- if it
were, in the second case, merely an antibody.
As such, the "viral" component of a design is
contained in its disorder rather than it's
order... that or in its "generalizability" to
other applications (which seems counter to the
intent of design in the first place).
I have a "mandela" linked from my website. This
is a type of design to which some myths attribute
protective qualities. This idea is (somewhat)
backed up by Jungian theory. Feel free to include
my comments or mandela in your presentation if you
think they are relevant.
B. Lane Robertson
Indiana, USA
http://www.window.to/mindrec
Bio: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay
See who's chatting about this topic:
http://www.talkcity.com/chat.cgi?room=MindRec
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com