Re: Morphogenetic fields and memes

From: Scott Chase (hemidactylus@my-Deja.com)
Date: Sun Jan 23 2000 - 11:49:16 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "Re: Morphogenetic fields and memes"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA04890 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 23 Jan 2000 11:50:02 GMT
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 03:49:16 -0800
    From: "Scott Chase" <hemidactylus@my-Deja.com>
    Message-ID: <EEMJNKFMJNCDGBAA@my-deja.com>
    X-Sent-Mail: off
    X-Mailer: MailCity Service
    Subject: Re: Morphogenetic fields and memes
    X-Sender-Ip: 209.240.200.32
    Organization: My Deja Email  (http://www.my-deja.com:80)
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Language: en
    Content-Length: 3437
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

     

    --
    

    On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 12:13:03 Kenneth Van Oost wrote: >Hi folks! I am a new kid on the block in the search into memetics. >I can't stop wondering how much the theory about morphogenetic fields coincide, >in some sense,with what we should call meme-complexes. >In my point of view they are comparable and exchangeble_the hypothesis of formative causation,(see Rupert Sheldrake),that is the hypothesis that organisms or morphic units at all levels of complexity are organized by morphic fields,which are themselves influenced and stabilized by morphic resonance from all previous simular morphic units could then easily become the hypothesis that organisms or memetic individuals at all levels of increasing complexity are organized/selected/ cumulated/regulated/structurated/...by meme-complexes,which are themselves [already imitations by which a selection-process evolves,and] influnced and stabilizes by memetic-lineges from (all) previous simular memetic-profiles. > >It may be better understandeble in following clarifications_a human organism who >is a member of a culture must acquire the standards/knowlegde base and expe- >rience_these things of a particular discipline are in my opinion,then morphogenetic >fields_all what follows are memes. >In other words:-morphic resonance triggers thought-forms which boottrap in existence memes,which become meme-complexes or paradigms which in their turn form a new platform/pattern for the occurance of morphic resonance,or in some sense to selection,variation and eventually to new ideas/memes and meme- >complexes. >Is there anyone out there to discuss this further!? > Yikes! I just finished reading Sheldrake's _A New Science of Life_ for the second time (for "fun" not seriousness). Do any of his other books get any better? I would like to explore how people confuse the meme of morphic resonance with the morphogenetic fields. Developmental biologists study morphogenetic fields. I've heard names such as Paul Weiss, Louis Wolpert, Conrad Hal Waddington, and even Brian Goodwin batted about when fields are at issue. Developmental biologists do not take Sheldrake seriously. Why should they? Morphic resonance is a parapsychological geist factor in about the same vein as Jung's synchronicity. It's just plain goofy (which adds to its entertainment value though).

    A morphogenetic field might be equated to an equivalence group or competence group or a group of cells awaiting to be subdivided in subsequent development. Goodwin is less genically inclined than others. Wolpert IIRC uses a gradient model for his French flag model version of morphogenetic fields. For a good review see:

    Gilbert SF, Opitz JM and Raff RA. 1996. Resynthesizing evolutionary and developmental biology (173): 357-72

    From the last part of their abstract: (bq) "These fields (which exemplify the modular nature of developing embryos) are proposed to mediate between genotype and phenotype. Just as the cell (and not its genome) functions as the unit of organic structure and function, so the morphogenetic field (and not the genes or cells) is seen as a major unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes bring about changes in evolution." (eq)

    BTW, they do NOT reference Sheldrake. Morphogenetic fields are NOT to be confused with morphic resonance.

    Scott

    --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 11:50:03 GMT