Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA27408 (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 15:36:30 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Darwinism and evolutionary economics Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:50:54 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIKEOICGAA.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.1000622171740@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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of John Wilkins
> Sent: Thursday, 22 June 2000 5:18
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Darwinism and evolutionary economics
>
>
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:56:20 +1000 ddiamond@ozemail.com.au (Chris
> Lofting) wrote:
>
> >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.
> ....
>
> Hodgson argues that cultural evolution is both Lamarckian and Darwinian,
> as does Knudsen. I argue that cultural evolution is only Darwinian, and
> that any apparent Lamarckism reflects a deeper or broader Darwinism, as
> does Vromen. The latter two are working from an explicitly memetic
> foundation. However, Hodgson and I agree that Darwinism and Lamarckism
> are not mutually exclusive (although a certain kind of neo-Darwinism and
> neo-Lamarckism is). I propose that what I call Dawkins' Conjecture is
> true - that any apparently Lamarckian process can be redescribed as a
> Darwinian one, in culture or anywhere else.
>
> BTW: "OR" can be inclusive, and indeed it is in first-order sentential
> calculus.
perhaps so but in most texts I have seen refering to the D/L dichotomy the
content is very exclusive :-)
I find no real problem with your comments other than to say that Darwinism
reflects a primary process and Lamarck a secondary one, you cannot have
valid/workable Lamarck perspective without a Darwinian foundation.
Therefore Lamarckian perspective can be seen as a re-identification of more
complex Darwinian processes although perhaps these processes seem to be
better described (or more easily described) using Lamarckian points of view.
By this I mean that social development includes the passing on of acquired
characteristics in the form of information to one's offspring and as such
can be acceptably described using Lamarckian concepts. (it is noteworthy
that generations develop creole/pigin languages that are nipped in the bud
by the previous generation controlling the education process).
I dont doubt that the same processes can be described in more complex
Darwinian terms (but require some 'modification' to original axioms?)
however none seem to have come to light in the period that these sorts of
discussions have been going on and my emphasis on the structure of the IDEAS
is that underneath all of our models is a set of invariant concepts combined
into a method that has a range that includes a more object oriented,
oppositional emphasis (manifest in Darwinism) and a more relational oriented
cooperative emphasis (manifest in Lamarck). So this continuum has structure
and that general structure is manifest in our particular models.
When you apply dichotomous analysis to the original dichotomy, a method that
includes an initial opposition that develops to be cooperative, we see
emerge a continuum linking both sides of the dichotomy and so puts the
elements of the original dichotomy in their 'correct' places, Darwin and the
reactive process first followed by Lamarck and the proactive processes and
both being windows onto a 'deeper' continuum.
When you get down to the nittygritty, when systems collapse, when the
cooperation is over, all you have left is Darwinian perspective which is
presented as opposition based 'fight' for survival, these are archetypal
perspectives where time is 'eternal'. If the system develops cooperation you
then have transformation and we go 'up' a level whereupon we initially see
Darwinian processes again since the same continuum applies at all levels of
map making.
Thus attempts to 'remove' the Lamarckian perspective will find problems
since the principles 'exist' in a way such that re-identifying them in
Darwinian terms can lead to claims that "Darwinists agree with Lamarck but
cannot accept it and so re-write in 'their' terms". Regardless of Darwin or
Lamarck, the patterns underneath all of the words are the same and being
aware of the properties of our methods, i.e. the way we use dichotomies, can
help to resolve/clarify some of these arguements.
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 - 15:37:32 BST