Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA21273 (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 20:32:39 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Jung and Haeckel and a response to JW. Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 05:47:15 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIOECMCHAA.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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <CGLFBLEPNPJCNBAA@my-deja.com> 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 Scott Chase
> Sent: Thursday, 6 July 2000 6:03
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Jung and Haeckel
>
>
>
<snip>
> I'm not up to speed on Piaget's views on Haeckelian doctrine.
> IIRC there's one book where he's supposed to elaborate a little,
> but I haven't read that one yet. As for Jung, I've been pondering
> the Haeckelian undercurrents of some of his ideas for a while.
> Coming straight from the horse's mouth ( CG Jung, _The
> Development of Personaity_ CW 17, para 104-5, Princeton University Press):
>
> (bq) "Now if we were to ask what would happen if there were no
> schools, and children were left entirely to themselves, we should
> have to answer that they would remain largely unconscious. What
> kind of a state would this be? It would be a primitive state, and
> when such children came of age they would, despite their native
> intelligence, still remain primitive- savages, in fact, rather
> like a tribe of intelligent Negroes or Bushmen. They would not
> necessarily be stupid, but merely intelligent by instinct. They
> would be ignorant, and therefore unconscious of themselves and
> the world. Beginning life on a much lower cultural level, they
> would differentiate themselves only slightly from the primitive
> races. This possibility of regression to the primitive stage is
> explained by the fundamental biogenetic law which holds good not
> only for the development of the body, but also in all probability
> for that of the psyche.
>
> According to this law the evolution of the species repeats itself
> in the embryonic development of the individual. Thus, to a
> certain degree, man in his embryonic life passes through the
> anatomical forms of primeval times. If the same law holds for the
> mental development of mankind, it follows that the child develops
> out of an originally unconscious, animal condition into
> consciousness, primitive at first, and then slowly becoming more
> civilized." (eq)
>
This assertion of a 'loop' where we repeat X (but there is a hierarchy as
well and so a spiraling process) is an interpretation that is a property of
the METHOD of analysis, meaning that the 'repeat X' exists within the
METHOD, it is a conclusion that we would 'logically' come-to from the method
of analysis alone, regardless of 'fact'.
<Snip>
>
> >I find Chris Lofting's account of the difference between Lamarckian
> >views of evolution and Darwinian views totally opaque.
> >
> I don't know if it was just me, but I had difficulties parsing
> his posts. The one Ted Steele related topic on the immune system
> jumped out at me though.
Many do (have problems parsing) so I just keep rephrasing etc perhaps one
day you will 'get it' :-)
> >
> > The two
> >theoretical views are not a matter of semantic or dichotomous
> >definition; they are two quite different models of how biology occurs,
In response to the above from John Wilkins, in *expression* these models
are seen as different and that seems to be where you are IMHO 'stuck'. When
you look BEHIND the expressions we find common ground, a SAMENESS, in that
their perspectives are like windows onto a development process. YOU CANNOT
ESCAPE YOUR BIOLOGY! You can try and deny it, claim that mind is 'free' of
brain and has nothing to do with neurology (get drunk sometime...), but the
principles of evolution with its emphasis on SAMENESS and DIFFERENCE affect
us at all levels and as we have developed we lose sight of the sameness and
focus on the differences -- that is what differentiation does -- but over
time we 'return' to the beginning in the form of RE-intergration and that is
where we discover the sameness BEHIND differences and in particular the use
of metaphors to particularise our neurology's favouring of processing
objects and relationships.
From a developmental perspective (using the template distinctions) Darwin
moves from a reactive bind to bound to bond to blend and at that point the
development becomes PROACTIVE but follows the same pattern except that the
main emphasis from an observer's point of view is in the spaces INBETWEEN
species and that is what Lamarck saw and so led to the belief in acquired
characteristics; structural changes in one generation.
> >and they are not in the sort of opposition that textbooks often suggest.
damn right, and if you read *carefully* the emails I made that point (my
original email re Darwin/Lamarck was about the use of OR in one of the
articles you mentioned about to be published where I emphasised that there
is cooperative emphasis that emerges in dichotomisations that most seem to
have not reached yet).
> >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).
Again, my point "if relevant definitions are clear enough" IOW if they are
described in the lexicon of Darwin rather than Lamarck; we seek to maintain
the purity of our perspectives since our perspectives are, from a
neurological position, OBJECTS, self-contained, encapsulated, and so we will
use properties of the underlying patterns which for objects includes the
favouring of purity, of 'them' vs 'us'. This is denial and is VERY useful in
that we use it in Physics to 'ignore' wind resistance! However, it has its
'down' side where everything is seen as in a single context and since there
is in fact a hierarchy present in the neurology so perspectives can become
'warped'.
Our ideas take on the SAME characteristics as our typing of personalities;
ideas have personality simply because we use the SAME methods of analysis!
DO you understand any of the above? if not, in what way *specifically* do
you find problems -- list them please as this is useful in proving me wrong.
:-)
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
===============================================================
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 - 20:33:22 BST