Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA12226 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:06:43 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Darwinism/Lamarck -- reply to question 1 Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 05:21:11 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIKEBOCHAA.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: <000b01bfe392$888967e0$6002bed4@default> 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 Kenneth Van Oost
> Sent: Sunday, 2 July 2000 5:28
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Darwinism/Lamarck -- reply to question 1
>
>
>
> ----- 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.>>
Sameness is reflected in the existence of genes.
> 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.>>
We are dealing with fundamental 'forces' and from a reactive base such that
we 'allow' these sorts of processes to continue (more so that we have not
been in a position to see them.) The 'problem' in becoming proactive, and in
doing so becoming a force, is that what you propose is social engineering
which is frowned upon in that the current emphasis on 'market forces' is an
emphasis on what we would call Darwinian processes.
This has been fine upto now but if you let this continue then you will
ensure that conflict remains. However, better corporations having wars than
nations having wars :-)
This said, the process we call evolution is blind; thus our drive for social
development and the emphasis on 'market forces' leads to us creating X
flavours of icecream at a considerable cost as well as considerable waste.
Western civilisation utilises HUGE amounts of energy for what? We do not
need 'new' fridges etc., we can make these sorts of devices to last
'forever' but we dont since under the current system, by doing so, we would
have to close the factories or re-tool them for somethingelse since we would
no longer have a 'viable' operation -- no profit for the shareholders! (or
so some claim).
We have the potential to create support systems (housing, fridges, cookers,
transport systems etc) that would outlive your average family and so
establish a standard of living for all on the planet but to do that would
mean finding a solution to the problem of what to do to maintain the economy
when all the 'necessities' are completed? The refridgeration industry would
become a maintenance industry with little sales of fridges other than those
for 'new' families (who could buy second-hand in that the durability of
these systems would ensure that secondhand systems were still robust enough
to keep going).
Imagine light bulbs, TVs, videos, clothes, that last 'forever', they never
need replacement within the lifetime of the individual or family. We are
close to, or can, achieve this but it would destroy our economic systems
that thrive on 'market forces' where we encourage people to 'shop', either
to emphasise difference (clothing styles etc) or to emphasise 'the new',
fresh meat. New 'toys'. These processes, seeking fresh meat or seeking
clothes that hide or exagerate our physical and mental boundaries, are
behaviours that are linked to our species, they are fundamental behaviours
that go back to living in caves/trees/plains in social groups. Their
expression may change, where the demand for 'newness' is expressed in a
dislike of left overs (resolved through fast food which is designed to be
throw away quickly), an attraction to new cars, 'fresh' faces etc but the
underlying genetic forces are still the same (more or less -- evolutionary
psychology gets into this but in a way that is 'novel' and so 'upsetting'.
(See Hilary Rose's article in 24 June 2000 copy of New Scientist for
questioning evolutionary psychology. I also look forward to the book
mentioned - "Alas, Poor Darwin")).
IF we do NOT start to reflect on these sorts of issues then we will start to
drown in our own waste since evolutionary process is more often seen to be
singleminded to a degree where there is no consideration of 'problems',
there is no 'negation', all is positive, forward moving; the evolutionary
process has no 'mind' other than ours and I dont think 'it' is aware of that
:-) Thus we can wipe ourselves out and life would still go on since that is
part of the 'way', but it need NOT be so since WE have minds, we have moved
to a position where we now have conscious selection over natural selection.
This can be of huge benefit to the our species as well as the survival of
other species but it also contains an element of 'darkness'. We have to grow
up and learn discernment, we have to think rather than just react. Have you
see the movie Gattaca?
It is perhaps time that we got out of the sand-pit, we moved from being
children to taking on responsibilites and becoming 'adults'. The
encouragement of individuality leads to the favouring of the child-mind but
that mind is irresponsible since it just 'plays' and the interference
patterns created by playing with others is 'reality'. IF you can maintain
the 'fun' but include discernment then we start to 'grow up'.
Singlemindedness, child-mindedness, is 'fun', it is great working within a
discipline, with its own lexicon and so the formation of a group that is
reinforced with the 'us' vs 'them' distinctions that come with this. For
those who lack a developed sense of self, the group becomes, IS, them.
However, as a species we seem to have moved past this and growing up
involves a move from opposition to cooperation (but NEVER losing knowing HOW
to be oppositional, as the Tao Te Ching says "know the yang, but follow the
yin").
I think this is VERY much in tune with discerning evolutionary principles in
that rather than BEING X you go through learning HOW to be X in that your
behaviour changes within a context and so you become a 'perfect' adaptor.
You have choice, and having choice allows you to be flexible in 'tense'
contexts such that the opposition is always a last resort and the
flexibility that goes with having choices allows you to avoid getting into
the position of the 'last resort' in the first place!
This reflects the 'ultimate' aim of a 'random' process, 'perfect' forms that
can survive in ANY context. The difference is of course that we can plan, we
can cut down the time barriers such that a billion years of heuristics is
reducable to just years of INTENT.
Karl Jung's typology, used in Analytical Psychology, attempts to install in
the individual these multiple choices by encouraging the individual to place
themselves in contexts that will bring out 'child-like' behaviours that can
be worked upon, refined, such that further exposures to the context are delt
with in a 'refined' way.
What in psychology is called the Structure of Personality, is in ALL of us
but to varying degrees. Thus some engineers are 'made' and others are
'born'; they follow a particular thread in the fabric of persona (in Jung
the term 'persona' means mask.). Following this path can be either as a
result of genes or of nature where a particular persona becomes 'useful' in
survival and over time an adaption can become 'the thing'; the mask and the
face behind it become 'one'.
The experiencing of all of the masks means that I can express my self in all
possible personas but I 'choose' to favour a particular. However, there are
some contexts where the particular persona I have adopted just does not work
and the context is strong enough to 'bring out' in me a 'side' of me I have
not experienced before or else have experienced and avoided. This 'side' of
me would thus behave in an immature manner, like a child. Jung's approach
was to encourage this such that I refine that particular 'thread', from a
corse strand to refined strand, like silk.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, a formal structuring of Jung's typology, is
aimed to use the particular type of an individual for social/group benefit
and so AVOID the original intent. Thus a system aimed at 'expanding' the
individual, the particular, has been generalised to 'contract' the
individual.
You can see in this the 'fight' of sameness/difference but also the emerging
cooperation of these to lead to the development of a 'refined' member of the
species.
We have enough information available to 'take action', but it would require
some form of loose associations with some loose goals that act to bind and
from that things can grow.
>
>
> > 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 !?
:-) gets messy doesnt it! The individual is divisable into a sameness
element (usually linked to genes) and a difference element (nurture + some
genes).
Now form a group of two or more individuals. The SAME distinctions apply
(SAMENESS/DIFFERENCE). Form a different group and then compare both groups
and the SAME distinctions apply. You need to be wary of what scale, what
position/level in the hierarchy you are communicating.
What is interesting is the ability of our method of analysis to use both
sameness/difference to support each other, thus I can describe something by
what it is, or else describe it by what it isnt.
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 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 20:07:29 BST