Fw: Menomics ( 5)

From: Van oost Kenneth (kennethvanoost@belgacom.net)
Date: Mon 23 Dec 2002 - 17:41:37 GMT

  • Next message: Van oost Kenneth: "Fw: Menomics ( 6)"

      What does indeed ' making an autonomic choise ' means after all, if it means
      putting back in perspective that the verdict has been pronounced that one
      will die from some deadly disease twenty years from now !?
      Ain 't it true that we can 't pecisely talk about some aspects of the life of the
      sick !? Models of what will be required, of what can be a reasonable decision
      arent ' there. Can we wait until the moment we' re forced to admit that none of
      our proposed solutions serves the patient's needs !?
      Should we, under the pretext of defending privacy and freedom, deny what
      people actually need !?
      Can we justify our actions if we always return to the idea that everything
      progressively evolves !? But that ain 't certainly not the description of what
      is going on_ we think that this is the trail that must be followed in every case,
      that within the Darwinian abstraction the essence, or one essential charac-
      tersitic, is found.

      It's a question of fact!
      While just Dawinism is now just ment to settle the score about what has
      always been a platonic abstraction, we musn 't indulge ourselves into indi-
      vidualism either_ as individuals, we have to play it hard !
      In terms, Darwinism acknowledge that every individualistic variation is none-
      theless a specific deflection, and so, after all, not- definable and thus in such
      a manner, so to speak, quite part of evolution.
      In truth, individualism_ should, consequently, be understood as equal to
      mutation or coincidence. You could even say individualism is Darwinism !!
      To which it could be objected that, if we were to look a little closer, that there
      we deal with Lamarckism !

      How else could we name ' individualism ', how can we be surprised if that is just
      the thing that has been giving to us from the start, has been waiting to revive,
      like it did !?
      So that, as for as man is concerned, he just can live off the idea_ just being
      there, Dasein, without a care about involving others in his world.
      We had been at peace with this ever since evolution started, not so much
      of making this the sole point of view on the world, but to make the world
      itself following out of it.

      So it ain 't no longer the Darwinistic notion of the survival of the strongest that
      is ruling the world of today. It is the trail of the weakest that must be follo-
      wed_ the trail has never been left, though, but manifested itself in an under-
      handed way. By that we should understand that the emergence of a con-
      science ( the idea of meaning representin' itself ) indeed determined collec-
      tiviness. It is so to say, how determinant this is_ consciousness retreated
      into the bastion of collective works ans sealed the access to it.
      From that date on, the individualistic point of view was irrelevant.
      Inscribed as it were in any particular environment possible in which its
      replication or mutation could be explained as a result of the entirely
      changing history, individualism kept silent and lurked patiently around
      the corner.

      Its restating began with Descartes ( I think, therefor I am). Where, all of
      a sudden does the modern pathetic- like distinction comes from !?
      The world belonged to collectiviness ! Even in its first starts individualism
      had to surrender to the laws of nature:- the immense benefits of collec-
      tiviness will have rushed to burst it in advance. In this, Stephan Jay Gould
      formed Full House- idea makes one thing certain_ all the more natural is
      the precise advantage of simple to complex. For such is the chemistry,
      the physics, the mathematics and for such is individualism because it
      indulged itself in the next step of evolution_ collectiviness !
      But all what would be finally there is no longer_ to the point that neural con-
      nections even grow tigher, stronger in constituting high levels of variation,
      or as we will see, more necessary !

    =============================================================== 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 2.1.5 : Mon 23 Dec 2002 - 17:24:04 GMT