Hm. Well, what is the goal of communication? Is it the activity
of communication itself? A purpose behind the communication?
What purpose? === I personally don't find quotes or memes
generally persuasive when someone is making a point, nor do I
find them seductive. I give value to novelty, or at least a
sense of novelty. Memes and quoting others have the sense of
plagiarism to me when in a discussion, lifting someone else's
words or ideas for one's own purposes which may (and often is)
unrelated to the intent of the original author. Even if it
*does* fall in line with original intent, since the person I'm
writing with is presumably there, and the one being quoted
(and/or the creator of the original meme) ISN'T, it feels as if
I'm talking to no one. Yet eloquence, original formulations,
persuasiveness customized to the situation at hand - those
things impress me. = Of course - and there is validity at times
for source material - I enjoy source material for further
research at times. Yet, when conversing, I find hearing the
paraphrase - or even the original quotes *through the lens* of
the person I'm speaking to, quite valuable. I find it
persuasive. I find it effective. When one goes "straight to the
source" constantly, it feels as if they are saying, "Well, you
don't believe me? Listen to my dad! He'll tell you when he gets
home from work!" - in short, appealing to authority figures
rather than at least attempting to stand alone. == Compare: "It
is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a
thought without accepting it." - Aristotle vs When Aristotle
says, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to
entertain a thought without accepting it.", it relates to our
conversation as follows: point 1) point 2) point 3) and then
continuing from there with persuasive techniques that may or may
not be related to the quote. When the quote stands alone, naked,
it's akin to someone who speaks in Bible verses without context,
presuming the listener will interpret precisely as intended.
Perhaps this is effective for some, but I've never found it to
be so. == Oh memes are very effective at their 'viral-ness' and
popularity value - ; I love memes. I've even engaged in a number
of conversations that were solely memes exchanged. A meme can
contain a concept very compactly. But like all things, there's a
time and place. == Oh you're right of course. I've sometimes
left a meme to stand alone and see what happens. But I'm
thinking in terms of back-and-forth conversation. At times, it's
good for its own sake - yet haven't you ever been in a
copy/paste conversation? A conversation where somebody is
repeating the same phrases and points like a hammer over and
over, expecting different results upon teh repetition? == Well,
consider: a) these are conversations. b) conversations are among
humans (presumably) c) communication involves the same
skillsets: thinking, formulating something to say/show,
filtering, sending, transmitting, receiving, filtering,
formulating something to respond with, and so forth. d) a virus
is an life-like creature that injects bacteria with its RNA e)
something that is viral in memes is not a life-like creature
that injects bacteria with its RNA. f) meme viralness is a
metaphor, an analogy to physical systems. g) analogies are
rhetorical devices, designed to convince. They are so effective
at times, they can be nearly instantly understood and yet, can
remain entirely wrong or partially so, without any realization
of the receiver OR the transmitter. h) Yet, despite their
similarities to biological virii, they remain in the realm of
communication and conversation. I don't have a final point
really. Sorry smile emoticon == Oh! Here it is: All
analogies/metaphors fall under viral. Our very memories are
FORMED via analogizing and comparing/contrasting with novel
input. Therefore: the only distinction between a meme or a
repeated quote versus producing one's "own words" - is this:
Novelty. == Standard definition of novelty work fine here: "the
quality of being new, original, or unusual." Unusual. When
someone is "speaking for themselves" or quoting someone while
placing it in a conversational context, they are providing
something unusual, even if it is not new, even if it is not
original. This greatly improves its rhetorical weight. At least
for me. == That sounds utterly ridiculous, James. If you spend
10 years studying others, you've been formed by their thoughts
and likely then less CAPABLE of formulating your own original
thoughts. == How broad are you using "studying" though? We study
people from the time we're born. We analyze, critique, digest,
contradict, argue and agree with the people and culture around
us, including our entertainment, friends, family, school,
academics, work... ... these are all forms of study. But I sense
you're speaking of something more formal, yes? ==
