From: Steve Wallis (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri 08 Apr 2005 - 23:47:24 GMT
I think you hit a nail on the head with your concern
about looking for the "wrong marker." I am reminded of
Kuhn's account of early reasearchers in the field of
electricity seeking to understand electricity by
weighing bit and pieces of material on their blances
to find how much electricity was contained within
them... by weight.
It is easy to say that some things are known while
others are unknown - the trick (I suppose) would be in
deciding to measure new things, or deciding how
existing measures could be used to infer what those
other markers are.
--- Kenneth Van Oost <email@example.com>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Scott Chase <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> You wrote,
> > I'm thinking that Durkheim believed that socifacts
> > emergent properties, where collective
> > are more than a sum of individual representations.
> > This might be a little vague, but he might have
> > at collective phenomenon as resulting from the way
> > individual phenomenon were arranged or organized.
> > There's a danger of vitalism when one takes holism
> > extremes though.
> This boils down to my own long time hobby- horse_ we
> look at
> the wrong marker !
> With what we end(ed) up with [ the collective
> represented behavior/
> gesture/ performance/ word/ etc_ which thus
> apparently has been
> selected and evolves, and what is represented as
> Darwinian evolution]
> in IMO the wrong marker.
> The individuak, yet straighted by society over a
> serious amount of time,
> is the object we have to look at NOT what is
> collectively represented
> as the proper behavior to follow; the right gesture
> to make; the neat word
> to say.
> PC is a collective represented ( wanted) form of
> living together, NOT the
> will of all individuals involved.
> This boils down I know into a paradox_ Darwinian
> evolution/ selection
> paradigma's are involved ( the majority of the
> population is all for PC, so
> the rest must comply willingly or fight back in
> proper yet selected ways)
> where IMO, no Darwinian ( internal) process is
> needed to come to a
> conclusion ( for the individual)_ where thus a
> memetic ( Darwinian- like)
> proces is pre- supposed in the mind to set memes
> apart ( for or against
> PC) to get to the initial point.
> But what if the individual ( personal) memeset is
> working totally on its
> own, with no outside connection or attachment !?
> What then !?
> What if collectiviness is just a result of how
> individual stances were
> arranged and organized !?
> Darwinian processes of selection and evolution would
> be involved,
> but were to be NOT the motor behind the scheme !?
> 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.
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
Steve Wallis, PhD student at Fielding Graduate University (with a focus on human systems and complexity theory).
Check out http://www.easygenius.net for an appreciative way to learn about yourself and others.
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 2.1.5 : Sat 09 Apr 2005 - 00:05:21 GMT