Re: Shotgun wedding for evolution and culture

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Mon Mar 11 2002 - 19:48:10 GMT

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "An Old One :Re: Rogue Males by Lionel Tiger"

    Received: by id TAA03481 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 19:46:16 GMT
    Message-ID: <000901c1c935$cbc01f60$90a0eb3e@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: Shotgun wedding for evolution and culture
    Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:48:10 +0100
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Precedence: bulk

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Steve Drew <>
    Me :_
    > > Probably, all of this can be easily explained in more Darwinistic terms,
    > > but I am not that sure that natural selection prompted the life I had to
    > > live after my parents died. Memetic engineering and The Self- Building-
    > > Project- via- Memes concept of which I am still the only experiment
    > > has nothing to do with Darwinism... IMO !
    > To memes are a combination of of Darwin and Lamark. The memes can undergo
    > Darwinian transformation but they can also reproduce Via Lamarkism. i.e.
    > through the same generatin or back through to previous generations, from
    > child to parent.

    Hi Steve,

    First of all, that of trespassing my turf, I was kidding around, though, but
    I think you knew that already !
    But I am glad to know there is someone out there with the same cautionly
    notions about the argument that Darwinism provides a rationale for all
    I like very mush the above, because it comes close to my own indictive
    ideas. Can you say more about you thoughts on this !?
    Here are mine,

    " Genetics is a Darwinic element, it is the hardware. The software are
    the memes, then what I call Lamarckian (re)actives. It is the sensibilité,
    the urge towards complexity, the from without stimili which allows the
    organism to select and to let it react.
    Then the system is ordered, regulated, provided/ filled with definitions/
    stipulations/ conditions/ properties/... which in their turn provoke, each
    in their interest, a Lamarckian (re)active which once again gets corro-
    borated into the Darwinian idea of selection and variation, until there
    originates a fractal structure_ a system of developing hardwiring."

    The brain is Darwinian, the mind is Lamarckian_ " the goals which we
    sanctify for ourselves, our position as an individual in society, the aims
    which our parents/ environment throw upon us and the representation
    of this is than undermind or in other cases fortified by the " purposeful-
    ness " of our being. "

    > I think we are still at the level of understanding the gene meme divide
    > this reflects in the Darwin Lamark divide. Biologist aren't that keen on
    > Lamark.

    << Yes, of course, but IIRC Darwin himself was looking for some kind
    of eugenics, IMO still a Lamarckian- trait ! OTOH, with the current
    knowledge about the human being, eugenics are moving far away from
    the destructive notion which it had at the beginning of the 20 th. century.
    If we continu, we will end up with a Lamarckian- sense of evolution,
    although it will be explained as a Darwinian mutation due to the fact
    that we will choose/ select for the ' better ' variations to ease cultural/
    social/ political/ ... development.

    The core of the ' problem ' lies not, IMO by the biologists, but in the
    other scientific areas, where like Jones said, " there is a remarkable
    willingness to accept Darwinian explanations "_ where IMO are none!

    The problem is the viewpoint, the perspective where from the observer
    is looking out. His/ her view is scattered because they are looking at/
    for collective/ group behavioral traits and habits where in fact those are
    just the result/ the re- combination of many unique ones.
    In theories about crowd- behavior this kind of arguments are used as
    explanations for the observed behavior ( " a group induced shifts towards
    caution/ risk not due the situation itself but due to the initial
    of most group mem(e)bers " ). The majority wins in a sense, but the
    win is NOT an induced group- behavior ! ( But most theories, to come
    with a satisfying theory of culture are not well thought throu ' IMO)



    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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 11 2002 - 19:56:50 GMT