Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA24472 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 22 Jun 2000 07:41:53 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Darwinism and evolutionary economics Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:56:20 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIOEOGCGAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <MailDrop1.2d7j-PPC.1000622143051@mac463.wehi.edu.au> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
6. Is Social Evolution Lamarckian or Darwinian? Geoffrey M. Hodgson
oops. I am facinated with the continued presence of the OR in this
dichotomy. This heading suggests we are dealing with a structural issue
(oppositions) but if you reflect on the method of analysis and the subject
we actually go past that dichotomy format into a cooperative emphasis.
The Darwin/Lamarck frames of reference are more so windows on to a
continuum. This continuum reflects what seems to be a fundamental dichotomy
at work, that of reactive/proactive.
If you treat evolutionary development as a dimension then the Darwin 'end'
reflects random, context insensitive chance development. Once a stable
context is developed or found so the feedback processes of text (the object,
gene, whatever) with the context that eventually develops leads to an ever
increasing degree of entanglement and this introduces a degree of
determinism which is reinforced when the object becomes proactive in that it
develops an internal model of the context such that it can pre-empt context
resident processes and so increase chances of survival.
This internalisation and switch to proactive processing leads to the
perception of intent, the presence of teleological element presumed to be
outside of the object but in fact an illusion.
Lamarck's observations were on lifeforms that had reached the entanglement
state where it becomes difficult to seperate object from context since the
dependencies have become so strong that it raised the question of 'who came
first' and so raised the issue of realtime modification of germ cells etc.
This process of moving from reactive to proactive seems present in all
development processes at all scales (and includes reversals as a system
collapses, thus we can 'see' Peirce's firstness-secondness-thirdness in that
moving past 'the moment' we get into feedback issues and the emergence of
choice, discernment, qualitative decision making).
The process includes 'leaps' in development where the internalisation
process allows for a suddent burst in development that can destabalise the
context for a short time (or even destroy the relationship as some believe
is happening in our proactive approach to the planet as far as using
resources is concerned)
There is no DARWIN VS LAMARCK it is more the entanglement of DARWIN AND
LAMARCK with a definite 'start' position being with Darwin since Darwin
allows for self-regulation/production (asexual/androgyne processes and so
survival in extreme conditions to start with) whereas Lamarck requires
strong contextual ties; this suggests Darwin is more archetypal, opposition
biased and the transition to typal processes (sexual) is more
Lamarckian-like - cooperative bias (the proactive side also supports
increase in genetic diversity where there is a further leap in that the one
form gives way to many variations and so further increases in survival
although a potential cost in maintaining so many variations. At the social
level this process is seen in the manner in which the Nazis and the Russians
developed their weapon systems during WW2 as well as our own development
where vanilla icecream gives way to thousands (?) of flavours!).
The IDEAS reflect the two aspect of our thinking, object oriented context
insensitive Darwin and relationships oriented context sensitive Lamarck
which when raised from their 'traditional' opposition status to a
cooperative status give us a good picture of general evolutionary processes
(as well as the 'poles' in our methods of analysis).
BTW note my distinctions of context insensitive/context sensitive; another
dichotomy that when fleshed out becomes a dimension that overlays the
fundamental reactive/proactive dimension, thus the gene is context
insensitive but over time there develops choice as a result of chance
surivival in the context such that a degree of context sensitivity develops
in realtime, a lifeform can move or modify the context if things get too
extreme etc etc
Best,
Chris.
===============================================================
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 : Thu Jun 22 2000 - 07:42:36 BST