Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA05864 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:44:51 +0100 From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> Subject: RE: Dawkins etc Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 14:15:50 -0400 Message-ID: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMAAEPJCFAA.firstname.lastname@example.org> 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) In-Reply-To: <001401c135c1$dd4484e0$3325f4d8@teddace> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
What I am trying to find out is just what you mean physically by
"morphologically." You said initially it operated in a manner akin, if I
understand you correctly, to electromagnetism or gravity, but without saying
how it was different. How does 'similarity of form' of organisms give rise
to _any_ 'resonance'? If you just say it does so 'morphically', as below,
you really haven't explained what you are referring to, other than to say
that 'morphism' is 'morphic.' Can you explain what you mean without using
the term 'morphic' and without metaphors or analogies that you then discard?
I am trying to be quite precise here so that we don't go around in circles,
and do not mean this to sound sharp or overly demanding.
Ted and my fellow list-mates, I am recapping here for a couple of reasons:
1. The on-going discussion on 'MR' seemd to have leapt to questions beyond
these too rapidly (or maybe I simply missed Ted's answers earlier -- in
which case I do apologise for the repetion here) and I am still trying to
figure out if there is anything to the notion. If there is, then of course
it may have significance for memetics.
2. I am interested in 'MR' as a meme in and of itself. It has been
persisent, and Ted has advanced it patiently and nimbly. Even if there is
no substance to the notion (I await Ted's response to my above questions on
this), then we can certainly examine the memetic representation for clues
about its ability to persist. For example, does some of its success lie in
the juxtaposion of two equal abstractions, 'morphic' and 'resonance'? Does
the abstraction of one shield the other from substantive inquiry? Of
course, I look forward to Ted's responses to my above questions.
Ted, I do hope you will focus on my questions in my first paragraph, first.
Without understanding the answers, it is very hard for me to take 'MR'
seriously or go further in the discussion.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 12:19 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Dawkins etc
> Hi Lawrence.
> > Good morning, Ted,
> > I'm asking a somewhat simpler question: Are you saying that _organisms_
> > 'resonate' with previous similar organisms electromagnetically, or
> > gravitationally?
> Organisms resonate morphically, according to similarity of form, not
> similarity of charge, as in electromagnetic resonance.
> > While masses attract each other gravitationally, does this
> > mean that they 'resonate' in any way? And if you call this 'resonance',
> > you saying that gravity somehow links the organisms in a way
> that affects
> > their physiologic evolution?
> While there's a certain overlap in the concepts of attraction and
> what makes MR comparable to gravity and electromagnetism is that they all
> involve action at a distance.
> Of the four "fundamental" forces, only electromagnetism has any kind of
> significant application in the range of sizes covered by organisms. EM is
> the "glue" that holds the body together. But neither this nor
> chemistry nor
> simple mechanics can explain why organic structures take the particular
> forms they do. If organisms resonate with each other based on
> form instead
> of charge, then they fall under the influence of whatever preceding
> organisms they most closely resemble, giving them a kind of "holistic
> 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 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 : Wed Sep 05 2001 - 19:49:35 BST