Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA19345 (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 15:56:51 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Darwinism/Lamarck -- reply to question 2 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:10:35 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIGEPNCGAA.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
Kenneth,
I will respond to your questions with different posts and the second one
first, i.e. the different/sameness distinction. This is all still developing
so there may be possible 'differences'!
SAMENESS/DIFFERENCE (question 2)
I would say that SAMENESS is fundamental but at the *general* level of
object and relationship patterns and so the system adapts best to adopt a
response more to DIFFERENCE at the particular level, the *uniqueness* of
expressions (objects & relationships) we have in 'realtime' (as you have
linked -- difference to individual).
Detection of DIFFERENCE is paramount for survival but the preference is to
an underlying sense of sameness. For example, in physics all photons,
electrons etc are 'the same' and so 'pure' at the general level with
allowances for local differences i.e. polarisation, charge etc. Thus all the
many types of particles are reducable to a general sense of SAMENESS in the
form of fermions [e.g. electrons, object-biased] and bosons [e.g. photons,
relationships-biased]. We see the SAME method of categorisation in physics
as we do in evolutionary theory since the root of categorisation is 'in
here', in the brain and its sensitivity to sameness/difference that can be
abstracted (or sourced?) in the distinction of objects(ones) and
relationships (many).
Understand the structure of how 'in here' processes data and you get a more
refined viewpoint on any discipline even if you do not know the 'language'
since all of these different languages are expressions of the SAME patterns
of meaning, those linked to the descriptions of 'objects' and
'relationships'. This is what my template is about.
The determination of laws/principles/typologies/templates etc is the attempt
to find sameness IN difference, these laws/principles act to usually REFINE
our responses to difference through the ability to determine the behaviour
of difference through giving difference a non-local context as well as
local; we look BEHIND & BETWEEN differences and so difference is 'contained'
within such 'laws' as gravity etc such that we do not respond to falling
bodies in the same way as we do to bodies that seem to 'float' in the air!
At the human social level these methods of determining
laws/principles/typologies create such tools as the MBTI etc that aim to
capture elements of sameness within groups of individuals and so aid in the
prediction of behaviours and so maintain CLEAR and PRECISE identification.
The original elements of the MBTI are sourced in Jung's Analytical
Psychology which aimed to give the individual a wider set of choices in
behaviour; akin to modifying a species (sameness) through variations such
that there is a choice of expressions based on a given context (difference);
thus a sameness that allows for difference and so a degree of individual
flexibility.
The creation of the MBTI manifest a generalisation of these processes with
the aim to BOX and so determine SAMENESS out of difference but KEEP the
sameness, thus the MBTI acts at a different scale to 'box' the individual
and put them in a context that best suits that box for the greater social
good, NOT necessarily personal good. Note that the original intent (Jung)
was expansion and the developed intent (MBTI) was contraction.
I think the 'traditional' Darwinian perspective looks at differences
(many)linked to a species (one, same) in that mutations, genetic drifts (and
so contextual changes) etc are considered the influences on the 'one' that
lead to 'many'. The Darwinian focus is initially on the 'one', the
particular species (and so the "Origin of Species" rather than "OriginS of
Species" ?). This perspective is archetypal in form in that the form of the
original species is 'archetypal' and so interpreted as 'eternal', as 'the
one', as 'the beginning'. The archetypal perspective, when exposed to a
difference, will try to detect the sameness that 'must' be behind the
difference, the aim is revelation, reductionism to 'basics'; the removal of
'tricks' and 'fuzzy' boundaries.
Once the above is understood (re archetypes etc) our interest then focuses
on the transition from archetypal to typal where we initially recognise that
the archetypal is 'pure', and that eventually this is, in an evolutionary
sense, sterile with its emphasis on in-breeding or asexual/androgyne
reproduction. There is a structural emphasis and that is all (more meitosis
than meiosis). The transition (meitosis to meiosis) enables the emergence of
genetic diversity (difference)at the cost of 'immortality', at the cost of
sameness. (note that cells will survive forever as long as they are given
food and 'removed' from their time clocks. e.g. HeLa cells used in cancer
research. Skin cells, etc are structure-based where you do not want
difference).
The archetypal perspective (in general; applied to all disciplines/models
etc) is symbolically linked to the SAME set of objects forever in battles in
an eternal war (e.g. LIGHT vs DARK, perceived as eternal concepts, never
changing and never uniting, thus not only is their individuality maintained
in local expressions but their individual content is maintained and is seen
as pure and so 'same'; there is no actual darness within light only darkness
as metaphor for describing intense, destructful light; light keeps its
'purity' but extends its influence by being able to be described (and so
'united') using other sources as metaphors).
Overall there is a fundamental opposition emphasis where any cooperation is
purely done for self-interest. In mythologies the 'gods' (archetypes) would
make loose associations with other 'gods' purely (!) for their own
interests. Once the battle was won/lost these associations would break-up
and new ones form for the next battle in the eternal war.
Darwin's education would have exposed him to these general concepts and so
they would be resident in his mental background. Lamarck would have been
exposed to similar education (perhaps not as rigidly victorian?) but
social/personal contexts can introduce biases and so a favouring
point-of-view at the general level that would act to set a qualitative
context used in observations.
The Darwinian approach is attracted to the sameness BEHIND difference since
it is concerned with establishing clear and precise identity and differences
can confuse this process; by being able to trace one or more species back to
a common source (and so sameness) improves our need to identify since we can
point to 'variations on X' and so 'know' fundamental sameness patterns. The
variation is thus interesting but we do not have to use up a lot of energy
to identify it clearly since we already think we know about it once we
establish its sameness links (as in "X looks like all Ys so check sameness
to confirm and also check differences which may add something to general
sameness patterns.")
Sameness reflects the single context that is preferred when analysing
objects at the particular level, it is distracting to have a changing
context at the same time as trying to analyse a difference unless you are
analysing a pattern (as in abduction where we 'hold' the text and flip
through different contexts until we find a 'fit'. On the other hand,
deduction holds the context and flips through texts. In general something is
held constant whilst the other is varied).
The human brain utilises these distinctions in that quantitative, 'point'
precision is linked (in most) to left hemisphere function as is single
context expression and a general positive/neutral approach. Qualitative,
'field' precision seems to be more linked to right hemispere functions and a
more critical approach since there is an emphasis on context and so
NOT-the-point. The right ties to the implicit rather than the explicit. (I
am speaking generally re left/right. Zoom-in on either side and you find the
SAME patterns within each hemisphere etc)
From a totally 'wave' bias perspective, left is into high frequency
processing and right is into low frequency processing (and so corse data
processing -- approximations, probabilities, fuzzy boundaries,
exagerations/supressions of boundaries to bring out aspects etc overall
harmonics analysis other than the fundamental, in other words there is a
bias to context over text and the filtering of that context to aid, or deny,
identification).
I think Lamarck was attracted to the path of the typal in the form of
linking DIFFERENT expressions (species etc) and their RELATIONSHIPS in time.
More so I would say that difference in objects (individuals) is a given and
so ignored as is the species link, the samnesses within the individual
differences; the emphasis is on the relationships and so the space
in-between the individuals/groups etc., you move from a genetic basis
(inside/behind the individual) to a memetics basis (or whatever you would
like to call this! - outside, between individuals).
In this sense there is a change in level of perspective, we move from
primary to secondary in that the distinctions of individuals/groups has been
habituated and we shift focus and seek the sameness in the differences
BETWEEN individuals/groups/species etc and this takes us into feedback
analysis in the short term (within a generation of two, proactive bias)
rather than the long term (random mutations, genetic drifts etc
reactive-linked events)
In this proactive context there is always the implied 'cooperation' from a
symbiotic perspective where there is a perceived or actual cooperation e.g.
noticing a symbiotic relationship between giraffes necks and the height of
particular tree foliage.
Thus the Lamarckian fundamental perspective was also into noticing SAMENESS
within DIFFERENCE but in the space inbetween the 'dots' aka relational
space. The 'problem' is the linking of this 'lamarckian' perspective to
STRUCTURAL issues within the timespan of two generations. This is possible
in the our world where SOCIAL structure can be both maintained and modified
over two generations or even within one generation. IN other words
DIFFERENCE was accepted as 'fundamental', there is no going 'behind' the
difference but more the analysis of the space 'in-between' the differences
and identifying 'sameness' in relationships.
The recent studies of the human immune system, a biochemically dynamic
system, lean towards this area of study, the space in-between alien objects
and the defence network (T-lymphocyte developments etc). The immune system
is closer to a relational process than a structural process and so more
easily interpreted along 'Lamarckian' grounds).
The continued presence of Lamarck in all discussions is due to the 'fact'
that what I call secondary processes were observable 'out there' at the same
time as Darwin's ideas start to emerge such that there was a perceived D VS
L rather than the realisation that both viewpoints act as windows into the
same process, the dimension followed by evolutionary processes.
I hope the above has helped in refining your distinctions re:
"Difference is for the Individuality, Sameness the Collective."
From the BEHIND perspective the emphasis is sameness BEHIND difference and
as such the sameness within the individual.
From the BETWEEN perspective the emphasis is sameness BETWEEN difference and
as such the sameness between individuals (or differences, works both ways,
bidirectional, unlike BEHIND that is unidirectional in development. Lamarck
emphasises this bidirection in relationships, Darwin favours a more
unidirectional process.).
Note that these are NOT on the same level. The former, BEHIND, is more
archetypal, structural when compared to the latter other than in 'ephemeral'
contexts as found in relational processes where these BETWEEN processes do
'structure' society but then societies are determined by interactions of
'the space in-between' (but also note that a lot of species-specific social
interactions are gene linked, for example the structure of baboon troops on
the move where, in general, everyone has their 'place' and it seems to be
genetically determined at a general level)
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.
<snip>.
Now the second one.
You talk about Sameness and Difference.
I agree on the fact that Lamarck searched the Difference but overlooked the
Sameness but, and I would like once again your opinion, the approach I take
to explain those terms is as follows.
Difference is for the Individuality, Sameness the Collective.
If Difference is fundamental and Sameness comes out of the relationships can
we say that Individuality seen as the bias for our being is something what
happens over and above the Individual_the urge towards Individuality is a
need
for each us independently but it happens in a Collective way (each of us is
doing it)_ results that in a Sameness !?
I think it does.
What do you think !?
Many regards,
Kenneth
(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 - 15:58:43 BST