>Ah, but is it the nature of the idea that makes it possibly
>irreplicable, or is it (i hate to say it, it sounds so insulting) a lack
>of communication ability upon the part of the individual who has the
>idea?
I think you're assuming that all ideas come in something like a linguistic
form--something that mirrors the process of communication. But the idea for
a painting may have nothing to do with an image--even if it turns out that a
2-D image is the best way to transmit that idea.
>Lets say a great artist and hellen keller both simultaneously had
>the same idea. Since the artist can replicate it and poor hellen
>cannot, is the very same idea called a meme in one case, and not in the
>other?
Again--that damn thing ain't anything other than an idea in ANYONES mind!
Until it moves from one mind *to another* it cannot qualify as a meme. The
deaf mute can have all the ideas they want--some no doubt much more
beautiful and complex than most peoples--but until those ideas are
communicated they remain just that: ideas. A "meme" is a specific subset of
idea. And one of the criteria for that subset is replication and
transmission.
Look at it this way: In the vegetable drawer of my fridge there are a great
many food stuffs large and small. They are a /potental/ salad, or a
/potental/ soup, or a /potential/ stir fry, or even a "dormant" relish tray,
but until I star making dinner it would be wrong to call them either a
"salad" or a "soup" or a "stir fry" or a "relish tray." It is only after I
move them *out* of the veggie bin and start to prepare them that I can say
that they *become* <soup and a salad>.
See?
(strange... suddenly I'm hungry)
-Prof. Tim