Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA07710 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 1 Jul 2000 20:01:53 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bfe392$888967e0$6002bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIIEPNCGAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: Darwinism/Lamarck -- reply to question 1 Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 21:27:36 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 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: Chris Lofting <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 5:10 PM
Subject: RE: Darwinism/Lamarck -- reply to question 1
Chris, here is my reply to yours. I have more questions, if I may.
The first part I do understand, it seems we think along the same way but
we put it in others words. Due to the difference of our native language
much of the more expressive parts are lost in my texts, but I hope that
is no problem for you. I do think I make myself clear enough !?
I did < Snip > a lot !
> 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!
<< if I do understand you correctly, Sameness is something fundamental
and a very old direction in which our culture developped.>>
What about the following;
> 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'.
<< Why I ask myself, do we not stop this competition !? Will, to put it in
my words " an increase in the competition towards ' individuality ' sows
the
seed for differences and lead eventually to ' sterility ' !?
If is that the case, we have, I think, to re-think our concept of memetics_
due to the force of the Meme-Meme we are all driven towards individuality.>>
> 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.
<< To re-write your words, the 'one ' is the collective, ' space-in-between
'
the individual !? If so, an old and a knotty question is once again raised,
why has any collective so many problems with the individual-state !?
If so, you can ask yourself if the ' one ' is not due to lead itself
towards
' sterility ' !? Strange affair, if we bring the concept of memetics into
play.
On the one hand you have then memeplexes leading themselves into
extiction (for the meme-idea something impossible) and on the other hand
you have memeplexes leading us towards individuality.
This is a conflict of interest, but in my opinion memeplexes of
individuality
are stronger, because into the individuality of all of us there is a
sameness.
No !? >>
> 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.
<< That is also one of my major concerns for the near future, competition
just for the sake of it, will eventually lead to a total collapse of the
industry,
because internal battles will compromize its place on the international
markets.>>
> 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).
<< One of the major attractions into Lamarckism is just that," it does not
just
' appear ' it was there all the time but not noticed."
I have once started an investigation into the behavioural characteristics of
Belgium most ' famous ' criminal, Marc Dutroux. One of my conclusions
was that Lamarckism and memetics played a role in combination with natural
selection and environmental relationships. Chris, you gave me the conviction
that I am ' not incorrect ' and that leaves me thrilled. It gave me
pleasure
to read what I have been thinking all along.
I thank you for that !!
The reply on the second will follow shortly !
Many regards,
Kenneth
(I am, because we are) together
> 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.
===============================================================
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 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 20:02:36 BST