Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA12232 (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 20:06:50 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Darwinism/Lamarck -- reply to question 2 Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 05:21:17 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIMEBOCHAA.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: <000901bfe411$7f4b9520$6306bed4@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 8:36
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Darwinism/Lamarck -- reply to question 2
>
>
>
> ----- 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.
>
Where is the 'problem'. ANY law acts to contain, to set boundaries such that
all 'differences' have an element of sameness in the form of their behaviour
to the law. The law is 'refined' when differences behave in a manner
seemingly 'outside' of the law.
Love the story re the oak trees -- very EEC. :-)
<snip>
> << What is MBTI !? I am not familar with that term, I think !
Myers Briggs Type Indicator, a typology system aimed at 'grouping'
individuals based on their sameness.
<snip>
> << 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 !?
Man/Woman is NOT of at the same level as the distinction of Light/Dark.
Light/Dark reflect (!) eternal opposition.
Man/Woman reflects the 'joining' of these fundamentals to lead to
cooperation.
Archetypal thinking (bias to the 'one') favours opposition, favours purity,
asexual/androgyne reproduction, and emphasis on structure and so things
being in their 'correct' place (and so the battles we find in the archetypal
world). The problem with the archetypal is it favours immortality and purity
and so there is no diversity. (very fractal though :-))
Typal thinking (bias to many) favours cooperation, favours MIXING, sexual
reproduction and an emphasis on variations on a form, on relational dynamics
over rigidity in structure. The advantage is genetic diversity, the loss is
immortality. Thus the typal world introduces temporal concepts beyond
'eternity' -- we have life/death, begin/end etc etc
This area considers relationships 'out' of a particular species, as Lamarck
did in he looked at the space in-between trees and giraffes and 'saw' a
relationship.
In the *archetypal* world 'out there' is evil :-) ANY sort of relationship
is purely for self-interest where our allies in one battle become our
enemies in another, all in the eternal war!
Since these form a dichotomy, we can apply it to itself to give us
variations on these 'absolutes' where feedback from the typal acts upon the
archettypal as well as developing archetypes of its own.
<snip>
> <<.... 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 !?
Darwinism, or any 'ism' favours their perspective over all others such that
any 'good' points from other similar disciplines is re-written in the
lexicon of that particular ism. This process manifests archertypal thinking,
'the one', there must be only 'one' theory of evolution and the 'best' one
is Darwin with its source of 'being' very much 'in here'...
Since the reactive/randomness element seems to come 'first', before the
'change' to proactive/determinism, so the favouring of Darwin over Lamarck
is neurologically, psychologically, logical :-)
As we start to understand the structure of our METHODS so when we learn this
we will start to see such dichotomies as Darwin/Lamarck with 'different'
eyes :-)
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 - 20:08:35 BST