Re: Clincher?

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Sat Sep 08 2001 - 21:15:43 BST

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Geographic Determinism"

    Received: by id UAA12675 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 20:37:02 +0100
    Message-ID: <001501c138a3$208b2860$b7a2bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <> <004101c130d4$01b31c80$d386b2d1@teddace>
    Subject: Re: Clincher?
    Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 22:15:43 +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

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Dace <>
    Dace wrote, Chris wrote,
    Your approach is far too black-and-white. MR doesn't contradict natural
    selection. It rounds it out. It restores evolutionary theory to its
    Darwinian moors by incorporating the inheritance of acquired traits. You
    should be aware that Darwin considered the capacity of organisms to shape
    their evolutionary future as being essential to evolutionary theory. As far
    as Darwin was concerned, there is no theory of evolution if the behavior of
    organisms isn't its driving force. He would certainly have been appalled
    at what has been put forth in his name in this century.

    MR isn't going to save a species when the material basis of its existence,
    genetic or environmental, is no longer present.

    Hi Dace,

    I agree with your statement here.
    As far I can remerber the reason why I was and still are interested in
    Lamarck is the notion about the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
    Many who write about Lamarck seem to forget, like Wilkins points
    out correctly, that he never talked about desires but always about needs,
    ( besoin ). And, Wilkins in mind, makes the ' same mistake ' by taking
    over the ' softer ' meaning of besoin, (desire, want, shortage,...) in his
    essay, the Appearance of Lamarckism in the Evolution of Culture.

    Besoin is, I hope you can read and understand French, a very powerful
    word. Besoins means necessity, needy.
    Lamarck talks about les besoins que font agir l' homme même, ils
    agissent par une puissant interne que produisent les besoins.
    Les besoins provoquer l' action des muscles, and he writes.. à la pro-
    vocation de toute cause ' affectente '.

    And in a sense Darwin was right in saying that there was no theory
    of evolution if the behavior of organisms isn 't its driving force, but
    where almost everyone sees this as it were an affect of natural
    selection, it would be better, IMO that is, to go one step back and
    to see what Lamarck has to say... besoins, what people need to sur-
    vive is important. And that, in the way I approach Lamarck, and I
    do read him in French, so no translate- errors can slip in, is IMO,
    still ' a reaction '.
    We ' react ' upon things which change, we ' react ' upon things which
    change along lines of memory and/ or lines of acquired traits.
    And we do that, not along lines of genetic change, but along lines of
    neurological change, along lines of memory, along lines of acquired

    Lamarck writes, " Or, cet ébranlement subit donne lieu à l' instant à une
    reaction qui, rapporteé à toutes parts au foyer commun,..." ( page 518,
    Philosophie Zoologique).
    And yes, to round this up, we have to see Lamarck, approach Lamarck
    as indeed as the origin of the genuine study of mind.
    IMO, Lamarck is and was always misread.
    Lamarckism has to be dealt with as it were psychology, not biology.



    ( I am, because we are)

    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 : Sat Sep 08 2001 - 20:41:50 BST