Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA23466 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 7 Jul 2000 16:54:15 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Jung and Haeckel and a response to JW. Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:09:01 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIAEDCCHAA.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: <MailDrop1.2d7j-PPC.1000707130132@mac463.wehi.edu.au> 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 John Wilkins
> Sent: Friday, 7 July 2000 1:02
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Jung and Haeckel and a response to JW.
>
>
> I still can't parse this, so I have no idea what you are saying. But if
> you are telling us that Darwinism and Lamarckism have some deep
> identity, I must disagree entirely. The fundamental point of Darwinian
> evolution is that variations that are random with respect to the
> selective gradients in play are sorted out through generations by
> selection. The fundamental point of (one of three types of) Lamarckism
> is that variants arise non-randomly relative to the fitness functions
> that are or are about to come into play. Gary Cziko aptly (forgive the
> pun) summarised the difference as Selection versus Instruction.
>
IMHO you are missing the point big time! It is the METHOD of analysis we are
dealing with and these favour (a) Darwin leaning to chance, randomness and
(b) Lamarck leaning to determinism.
For Darwin the determinism starts in the genes. For Lamarck it starts 'out
there'. These approaches are in fact elements from a continuum we use to
make maps of reality. This continuum, or more of a spiral of development
that repeats upon completion of a rotation, has a 'start' position that
favours interpretations based on reactive processes in a hostile context (or
even no awareness at all of context but a sensitivity to it that eventually
turns into a selection process that becomes more and more 'cooperative').
As you move along this development process so you shift from reactive to
proactive and this shift is, I suggest, due to the internalisation of a
'map' of the context thus enabling prediction and so proactive behaviours.
This proactive level, when observed and interpreted as if the 'start'
position will favour interpretations of proactiveness and so DETERMINISM as
'root'.
Darwin 'saw' the reactive side, Lamarck saw the proactive side and Cziko's
distinctions are acceptable in that SELECTION is REACTIVE to start with
whereas INSTRUCTION allows for a more PROACTIVE start.
> The other two variants of Lamarckism are soft-inheritance (the passing
> on of adaptations within a generation to later generations), which also
> falls under Instruction and progressive or directional evolution.
The PROACTIVE viewpoint. Underlying both Darwin and Lamarck's points of view
are neurological/psychological processes that act to 'colour' the
interpretations since the interpretations will always conform to the general
method we use 'in here'.
That may cause you to feel 'uncomfortable' but that is the way it seems to
be:-)
> >
> >> >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).
>
> But there *are* dichotomies to be found.
SO? I AM SAYING THAT THIS IS FUNDAMENTAL but the method has properties we
confuse with the objects analysed.
Your dont seem to be *thinking* JW, you just seem to be reacting. May I
suggest that you go through the emails again, slowly, especially the
neurology material. Perhaps you will then start to 'get the idea' and I
think you may find it of interest/use. :-)
<snip>
> I have the same trouble reading you as I do semiotics - after struggling
> through much of the language (much of which is idiosyncratic and
> non-standard) I either find falsehood or truisms.
My emphasis is on SEMIOSIS (the emergence of meaning) rather than SEMIOTICS
(the 'science' of Signs). My comments re Peirce etc is more on HOW the
concepts he came up with could be as they are. I do not function from a
formal 'semiotics' base, I work on what is BEHIND, the operations of the
neurology/psychology.
Hence I suspect that
> your language is not doing you any favours,
Sure. I can be intense and may use terms that you interpret differently,
that is what these sorts of lists are founded on, resolving
misinterpretations :-)
as I am sure there is more
> to your ideas than this. I think it was Einstein who once said that any
> idea you cannot express in simple language and less than 100 words is
> one you don't understand yourself. By that measure, I do not understand
> anything I say. Learn from my example.
This is unnecessary JW in that I DO understand. Einstein may have said this
but he did not practice what he preached! All of the text produced from 1900
to 1920s etc is excessive simply because he was discussing very 'new'
concepts as I am. Get some of his original papers etc. Not simple and more
than 100 words.
Take the time to re-read the emails and THINK rather than react; my prose
may be 'intense' but it is readable, it just takes a few attempts! Try it,
you may find it of 'interest'.
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 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 16:55:58 BST