Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA19329 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:56:41 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Darwinism/Lamarck -- reply to question 1 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:10:40 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIIEPNCGAA.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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <000e01bfdedd$c6b5b8c0$730fbed4@default> Importance: Normal Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Hi Kenneth, here is my reply to 1, for those interested, Kenneth's original
question is appended at the end.
FRACTAL STRUCTURES. (question 1, part A)
Darwinian processes tie to species-related development from within,
genetics, and are centered in the species down to the level of the
individual (which is true in that all species genes are within the
individual! :-))
Lamarckian processes tie more to the spaces inbetween the
species/individuals and so to those relational processes that are NOT
genetically determined but sociologically/contextually determined; context
awareness that goes towards asserting the identity of the individual/species
(and for Lemarck allowed for direct modification of structural elements
within one-two generations) Thus the focus, the center of operations, is
sourced in the space-in-between objects.
In the sense of identity, applying a strict dichotomisation, identity is for
the Darwinist sourced within the individual where the different expressions
are still predicatable to some degree by the underlying sameness. Jung's
Analytical Psychology recognised the structure of personality was 'in here'
but that through adaptions to the environment we adopt particular threads of
that 'carpet'; Jung's intent was to get us experience the other threads and
so become more flexible in different contexts. Note that the FULL set is 'in
here' and all the context does is set of a favouring of the expression of
one element over the others.
Identity for the Lamarckist is sourced OUTSIDE of the individual in that
CONTEXT determines expression (and for Lamarck that included insertion of
structural changes over short time spans, i.e. one generation). Thus
regardless of the object (individual or group) it is relational space we
need to look at (and here you find memes etc).
Now take this strict dichotomy of Darwinism/Lamarckianism and apply it
recursively. This will lead to the creation of a continuum that reflects all
possible interpretations of the evolutionary process, showing that the
elements of the original dichotomy are 'windows', assumed to be 'different'
but in fact are ways of interpreting the same thing and in fact reflect
different aspects of the same thing which, when summed, give us a richer
perspective. ('aspects of the same thing' is more the revealing of the set
of meanings that are used in our method of analysis; thus the full set of
all possible meanings is 'in here').
Attempts by Darwinists to re-interprete Lamarckian principles in Darwinian
terms may lead to a 'clear' and 'single context' perspective on evolutionary
theory but this will also lead to a degree of complexity in trying to
describe the more 'lamarckian-like' areas in that the manner of descriptions
must map to observations that are social, i.e. a *perceived* intent when a
lifeform crosses the boundary between reactive and proactive development;
passage across this boundary leads to the 'feeling' of a teleological
component which can be generalised to "the hand of God" and so taken
literally (and is by much of our planet).
To deny the feeling without explanation or with some extremely complex
justifications that are counter-intuitive does not help. However,
understanding HOW we describe, HOW we make maps, at the
neurological/psychological level makes dealing with teleological issues
easier as well as allow us to see past the Darwin/Lamarck modes of
interpretations.
BECOMING (part B).
In the context of 'becoming', the more you shift focus from objects to the
space-in-between so you overload choice as well as increase chances of the
emergence of policies/doctrines etc., that may seem 'not nice'. This said,
it is the shift to focusing on the space-in-between that allows for the
overthrow of 'not nice' forces!
Evolution is not 'aware' of us, it is not a thing but a process and as such
will go on regardless. Without constraints EVERTHING is permissable and it
is 'market forces' that determines what survives and what does not. However,
the fundamental difference as far as we are concerned is that we have the
ability to be discerning. We CAN modify the structure and direction of our
culture/planet in realtime, within a generation of two. Thus we can choose
'preferred' choices over others and so sow the seeds for the future
(government financial actions try to 'guide' the economy at the general
level).
One would think that to become HUMAN means going beyond our A VS ~A
categorisations and the trend in globalisation is trying to do this in that
the globalisations act to impose global sameness over local differences.
However, this favours 'archetypal' perspectives (aka MacDonalds vs Burger
King as hamburgers, Ford vs GM as cars etc) and that introduces emphasis on
purity and a them vs us perspective and so an increase in competition that
will eventually lead to DIFFERENCES; the act of globalisation and sameness
sows the seed for differences since the sameness emphasis will eventually
lead to 'sterility'.
Many corporations over the last 10 years or so have been driven to acts of
takeover and an emerging globalisation in their business/corporate outlook
and this pushes the emergence of archetypal perspectives. Note that there is
a LOT of choice in the shops but trace their origins and the choices often
stem from the same corporation. The culture is firmly in the
'space-in-between' but the support mechanisms are getting more and more
'object' centered, the 'one', achieved by corporate takeovers.
An example of the archetypal expression is where the corporactions insist on
divisions within the corporation acting competatively; archetype fights
archetype but there is no 'winner' in general, just local battles hopefully
with the outcome of a more 'perfect' product, methodology etc. that can be
used in the next local battle. Thus economics 'reflects' the same processes
as evolution since the processes are part of the set of properties and
methods our brains use in dealing with, surviving in, interpreting, reality.
I think this current observable trend to globalisation reflects the
emergence of archetypal processes from a period that was very typal, but one
system does not 'stop' and the other 'begin', at our level of development
both typal and archetypal perspectives are present, one is 'down' and the
other 'up' and if you include analysis across different scales then you find
up/down at all scales but in different 'modes' of operation.
Thus 'becoming Darwinian' and 'becoming Lamarckian' are processes running
concurrently. In the current social order, the expression is very choice
oriented, with the expression of the individual and difference, when
compared to what is BEHIND the expression in the form of a smaller and
smaller group of suppliers of choice. The more labels you wear on your
clothes the more association with one of the underlying suppliers such that
YOU become an expression of one of the corporations and in general there is
a perceived emphasis shift from the space-in-between to the objects,
corporations manifest a species and employers/users etc their expressions.
(you see this in the recording industry where the entertainers are all
expressions of 'Sony' or 'Warner Brothers' 'stable' of musicians etc.
Move to the internet and the increase in individual expressions are now
being intruded upon with advertising and site content chains e.g. all sites
on neurology get linked together in a 'casual' manner that over time, to
'improve quality' will require the individual to 'stylise' their sites to
conform to a 'general' patterns and use specific graphics/pictures to
emphasise the group responsible for the design/idea of the link (the
space-in-between).
This pattern of development is the SAME as that of evolutionary processes.
From my template work there is a development pattern captured in the terms:
BIND --> BOUND --> BOND --> BLEND
Binding - is the loose association of objects/object-to-a-context. Both
sides retain their unique identities and there is a dynamic emphasis, 'new'
beginnings, transformations, problem solving, cultivation etc etc
Bounding - reflects the erection of a boundary that emphasises 'us from
them'. Text+Context fit together but still retain individual identity. There
is a developing sense of guidance/direction, a developing ideology if you
like. Also includes beginning of socialisation, control.
Bonding - reflects the closer ties between object and context/other objects
such that you start to fail in trying to clearly differentiate A from B.
Identities become blurred in that you lose the ability to clearly
distinguish A from B and yet you can still 'see' them.
Blending -- the entanglement process where you can no longer differentiate A
from B, they have become '1'. This can include a total change in expression
in that A+B where the 'seed' for C.
When you get to BLEND you introduce the beginning of the 'rise' of its
complement/opposite. Thus the peak of Darwinism introduces an attraction to
Lamarckianism since NEITHER clearly solve 'all problems'. Lamarckianism does
not just 'appear', it was there all of the time but not noticed (going
throught its 'down' period).
Note that behavioural charcteristics are subtly different in that a BIND in
object space has differences to a BIND in relationships space but the
overall emphasis is binding, to oneself (objects) or to others
(relationships).
Overall, these processes relate to ANY dichotomously derived interpretations
since they are fundamental properties that form part of our internal method
of determining meaning.
best,
Chris.
-----Original Message-----
From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf Of
Kenneth Van Oost
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2000 5:44
To: memetics
Subject: Darwinism/ Chris Lofting
Chris, thank you for the excellent paper ! A wonderful piece of deduction.
But, if I may I wish to confront my own ideas about Darwinism/ Lamarckism
with yours. I see some resemblances and I would like your opinion.
<< The fractal structure that results from Darwinian and Lamarckian
interaction.>>
The idea is twofold.
_1. Darwinian structures, as you put it_ context, are to me what we should
call
the collective/ the sense of community_in a sense what makes us a race of
men.
It indicates DNA/ genes/ intelligence/ reason/ functionality (the Darwinian
end).
Lamarckian structures are what I see as individuality/ opportunism/ memes/
action/ emotion/ sudden (what you should call sensitive/ aware).
_2. The interaction begins with a desire/ a (re)action/ a need which must be
satisfied.
A/ that is what I call To- become- Lamarckian.
Behavior results here from epigenetic/ semantic/ emotional (re)actions upon
situations which we encounter. These (re)actions are from some perspective
conscious or unconscious.
That is _ violence/ murder >< psychosis/neurosis.
Either way, the distiction is not very clear where the conscious aspects
stop
and the unconscious begins_ see p.e. mental derangements and schizofrenia.
B/ The above mentioned interaction intersects with what I call To- become-
Darwinian, that is our rules of conduct/ culture/ our ethics/ our political
agreements/ religion/ social order_ our sense that we're a part of something
greater.
Like I think, Lamarckian (re)actions will devide a social order because
inborn
needs are to be satisfied (like survival is one) !
Of course, that 's no way to direct a society, so the sensitives/ the
lusts/ the
stimulations will be comformed by Darwinian law into new definitions/ stipu-
lations/...until there originates a fractal structure.
How often we exerts the Darwinian pathways, how stronger growns the message
which the Darwinian laws are holding within_that is, we 'll not jeapardize
de-
mocratic/ social institutions, we know we will be punished if we break the
rules.
The fractal structure is here encoded in the DNA sequence, it is build up
out of Darwinian (collective/ historical/ genetical) cultural habits/ uses
and/ or stresses/
desires and needs which make up our collective consciousness
The system is ordened, regulated, provided with definitions/ conditions and
proper-
ties...which in their turn provoke, each in their own interest, a Lamarckian
(re)-
active which once again wants to corrobate itself into the Darwinian idea of
selection and variation etc; untill there originates that fractal structure
where I am
talking about. (See your paper of 22/ 06/ 2000 paragrapf ' If you treat
evolutionary
development as a dimension then the Darwin 'end ' reflects...)
Do you mean the same !?
That is one of my two questions.
Now the second one.
<snip>
(I am, because we are)
===============================================================
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 : Mon Jun 26 2000 - 15:57:27 BST