Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA08764 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 2 Jul 2000 11:10:45 +0100 Message-ID: <000901bfe411$7f4b9520$6306bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIGEPNCGAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: Darwinism/Lamarck -- reply to question 2 Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 12:35:57 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 2
<< Chris, here the reply to yours on question 2. More questions !>>
<< I < Snipped > a lot !
> SAMENESS/DIFFERENCE (question 2)
> 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!
<<The attempt to find Sameness in Difference that is OK for me, but the
term ' contained ' I don't like that, though ! It seems rather to me that
the
same problem comes over and over again. On a pure human level it seems
to me that containing differences is something like clear up the
differences.
As an example I would like to add what in the European Parlement was
debated a few years back, namely the definition of what a European oak
tree was ( the idea on itself is quit hilarish I would say), but anyway.
The definition was that a European oak tree was close to what a French
oak tree looked like. In order to make Sameness out of Difference, as we
are attempting here, the Parlement could rule that all other oak trees had
to be replaced by the French type. You can easily see the revolt of such an
idea, not in the least that the forest of Nottingham (remerber Robin
Hood)consist meanly out of the English type of oak tree. And with the
assumption
that England don 't like very mush the European Idea... >>
> 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.
<< What is MBTI !? I am not familar with that term, I think !
" capture elements of sameness within groups of individuals and so aid..."
_same argument here, it is to a miracle quit an idea for scientific
investigation
but as a practical application the problems will emerge...abuse,definitely
in politics.>>
> 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.
<< Strange doing, though ! If the One is fundamental/ archetypal, what to
say about the modern idea of individuality !? With the memetic concept in
hand we can go one step further and argue that we are loosing at some
level the Sameness_why won't the One back down !?
Of course, a strange phenomenon is croppin' up_why are we as individuals
always searching for ' one collective ' (club/ union/ society/ association)
as
on the other hand we are all hyper-individualists !?
Maybe, the individual is becoming One !? Then,of course, the whole
of society is changing... >>
> 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).
<< Light and Dark, I thought the opposite-bounding perspective of our
society was an old idea !? Man/ Wife, Good/Bad, Negative/Positive,
Low/ High, ...in your opinion we never passed that phase !?
That would conclure with my opinion too, but what to say then about the
philosophy where that idea is long over due !? >>
> 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.
<< The same principle is argued in the scapegoat-theory of René Girard.
It is an endless war, people will always find differences to start up the
next battle. >>
> Sameness reflects the single context that is preferred when analysing
> objects at the particular level, it is distracting to have a changing
> context...
<< That is just the problem with the Sameness/ Collective...it won 't back
down. Same argument we can hold for Darwinism. The idea is so far well
spread that noone is arguing against it. >>
...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).
> 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)
<< That is why I argued a time ago, but not on this list, that with the La-
marckian and the memetical concept in hand we have to watch the children
of Marc Dutroux (Belgium most ' famous ' criminal) carefully. Of course I
have to be carefull too, statements like these can jeapardize the future of
the children. I think this list is not quit the network to discuss those
things.>>
> 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 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.
<< True !! But what to say about the absence of Lamarckian evolution in
our major view of evolution. At school we learned Darwin not Lamarck !?
Why we do re-write history of evolution without mentioning Lamarck !?
Due to the fact that he was/ is even important for the understanding of our
own as Darwin was/ is we do owe him mush !! >>
> >From the BEHIND perspective the emphasis is sameness BEHIND difference
and
> as such the sameness within the individual.
<< The individual becomes One !? >>
Thanks Chris for the wonderful display !
Hope you enjoy mine arguments as I did yours !
Many regards,
Kenneth
(I am, because we are) the same
===============================================================
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 : Sun Jul 02 2000 - 11:11:29 BST