Joy Garnett on Mon, 8 May 2000 00:19:47 +0200 (CEST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> It's not me it's my genes, or is it my memes?

Ana Viseu wrote:

> It's not me it's my genes, or is it my memes?

Actually, it could be just our jeans...

The main problem with the current genetic model is it's failure to acknowledge the
other, far more elusive half of the Equation of Life :


The cellular, electronic pulse.

We're all walking batteries, and the gene material in a dead dog is EXACTLY the same
as it was when the dog was still alive. Dead or alive: same DNA. Ha! So, something
else which is terribly important must be missing in the dead dog.

What is the nature of energy as it pertains to our bodies? our cells? our genes? What
makes the gene become "living" genetic material? You can order DNA and RNA  from any
biology supply house. It comes as a powder that gets cloudy when you add water. Just
add water. But it's still not alive. No amount of Frankensteinian bubble and squeak
will make it jump up out of that jar either. Oh well. And your computer won't be
worth shit to you if you don't plug it in....Information is only half the story.

Dylan Thomas got it right: the force that through the green fuze drives the flower,
etc. etc. It seems to be something the poets can get, and the rationalists hasten to
forget. The electrical genius Nicola Tesla got it, and he was sabotaged, done-in. Sad
story. The Energy model has yet to be developed.

So, the problem with basing the meme model on the gene model is that the gene model
is faulty, incomplete. Perhaps someday someone will come up with  better models.

joy garnett


Nettime-bold mailing list