Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA18501 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 6 Jul 2000 01:58:11 +0100 Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 10:56:04 +1000 From: John Wilkins <wilkins@wehi.EDU.AU> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - Welcome to My Nightmare Part 2.Bb To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017458FB@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Message-ID: <MailDrop1.2d7j-PPC.1000706105604@mac463.wehi.edu.au> X-Authenticated: <wilkins@wehiz.wehi.edu.au> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:55:27 +0100 v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk (Vincent
Campbell) wrote:
>I won't pretend to have understood most of your recent postings, but
>here
>goes with a few comments.
>
>First, there's a lot of Jung in what you say, but isn't Jung about as
>credible as Freud when it comes to social analysis? After all his
>notion of
>archetypes stems from his belief in a collective unconscious- what's
>your
>position on that?
Just to interpose, and without any references I can cite, but I think
Jung's account of the collective unconsciousness owes something to the
neo-Lamarckian and recapitulatory view of evolution; that we
biologically inherit trace records of the past phylogenetic experience
of our species. A similar notion underpinned Piaget's account of child
development. I'm sure there is or will have been a scholarly treatise in
this influence of non-Darwinian evolutionary theory on psychology.
Anyone with a good ref will be my friend :-)
>
>Second, the A/~A distinction sound remarkably like Wittgenstein's
>approach
>to logic and the formulation of knowledge, the distinction he makes is
>P/~P.
>Where do you stand on Wittgenstein's notion that meaning of words rest
>only
>in negation?
Where does he say this? In the Tractatus or in his later philosophy (eg,
Remarks on the Foundation of Mathematics)? In the Investigations, he
treats meaning as the following of a rule, more or less.
<snip rest, to say>
I find Chris Lofting's account of the difference between Lamarckian
views of evolution and Darwinian views totally opaque. The two
theoretical views are not a matter of semantic or dichotomous
definition; they are two quite different models of how biology occurs,
and they are not in the sort of opposition that textbooks often suggest.
It is possible to be a Lamarckian Darwinian, if the relevant definitions
are clear enough (for example, Darwin accepted both the inheritance of
acquired characters and the effects of use and disuse on the propensity
of a trait to be inherited).
--John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research Melbourne, Australia <mailto:wilkins@WEHI.EDU.AU> <http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html> Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
=============================================================== 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 : Thu Jul 06 2000 - 01:58:55 BST