Re: Logic

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Tue Jul 31 2001 - 20:53:53 BST

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: Logic"

    Received: by id VAA22265 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:08:24 +0100
    Message-ID: <001f01c11a02$1ef64f80$9303bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <> <008901c11564$edfedba0$60dab3d1@teddace>
    Subject: Re: Logic
    Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:53:53 +0200
    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

    Hi Dace,

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Dace <
    > Mechanism is far more compatible with creationism than evolution. The
    > of evolution is that the species are not molded externally. Their forms
    > arise from within, over time. Darwin's genius was to salvage the Creator
    > naturalizing him. Though God is blinded (and thus needs a lot longer to
    > create the forms of life) he still has two hands to work with-- the right
    > hand of natural selection and the left hand of material spontaneity (i.e.
    > random, genetic mutation). Like many powerful memes, God doesn't go
    > Darwinism is basically God in drag. Dress him up like Mother Nature and
    > then pretend we've gotten rid of him. As long as we accept external
    > creation-- whether supernatural or natural-- as opposed to self-creation,
    > we're still in the thrall of Authority.

    << Very interesting point this !!
    Our forms arise from within, as in Bergsons ' le moi profond ', as the ' le
    Úlan vital ', as the " sentiment interieur ", as the " need/ urge by Lamarck
    If so, I am all ears !!!
    In a way you dismiss the concept of Darwin because it acts as an outside
    creation- force !? Ok, very well put.
    Self- creation would than be the result of memes, the result of our sensible
    behavior !? I am still listening !!
    Please eleborate this, in detail, further.
    I am very interested in what you have to say about this.
    Maybe we can help eachother,....

    > When our hominid ancestors developed a method of scavenging for meat in
    > hottest part of the day (after most animals have retreated to the shade)
    > they soon began developing sweat glands and losing their hair. The
    > phylogenetic shift occurred in tandem with the behavioral shift. This is
    > the norm, and it suggests that our own actions help determine our
    > We shape ourselves.

    << Yes, I have heard the same argument not so long ago.
    Geological, Natural evolution is a driving force behind the way Nature
    makes natural selection possible, and the second form of evolution would
    be the flexible way in which we adapt to those changes.
    In return we shape lineages and niches for geological changes to occur and
    in that sense we create a world for ourselves.

    If we'd had to wait around for a couple million years
    > for a random mutation to give us the necessary glands under our skin, we'd
    > still be waiting. Since we can't pass on acquired characteristics
    > to our offspring, there must be a kind of nonmaterial, species memory
    > evolves in accord with the shifting behavior of individual organisms.

    << That kind of " nonmaterial, species " bounded memory, would that be
    the memepool !? How do you see the way by which we can dive into it,
    that is, how do we attract info from it !?
    I ' ve got an idea about that, but I like to hear yours first, if you don 't
    mind !!
    No hidden agenda, though !!

    Very best regards,


    ( I am, because we are) virus free

    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 : Tue Jul 31 2001 - 21:17:06 BST