Re: circular logic

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Sat Dec 01 2001 - 19:53:51 GMT

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: Theorists See Evolutionary Advantages In Menopause"

    Received: by id TAA26428 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sat, 1 Dec 2001 19:54:43 GMT
    Message-ID: <002101c17aa2$0520a280$eea4bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: circular logic
    Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 20:53:51 +0100
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    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: Wade Smith <>

    Hi Wade
    You wrote,
    > Evolution has selected species with proclivities for imitative
    > behaviors, yes. But imitation is _not_ a process of evolution,
    > and I haven't a clue why anyone would suppose it could be,
    > unless they are lamarckians, huh?
    > Therefore, if memetics is applying the evolutionary paradigm to
    > culture, imitation should not be a consideration. Again, unless
    > lamarckianism enters their purview.

    << I would like to clear up some points here, if I may !
    For as far I can recall, I checked my files about Lamarckism briefly, I
    do not see any direct reference to imitation.
    The nearest I got was in Wilkins " The appearance of lamarckism in the
    evolution of culture " and it was not Lamarckism but neo- lamarckism.
    Neo- lamarckian processes are rather processes whereby a chef following
    [ imitates] a recipe, and then rewrites the recipe on the basis of
    the qualities of the meal so created.

    This kind of Lamarckism ( type2) does implies a kind of volitional or inten-
    tional aspects like Joe Dees did mention, and you wrote rightly that
    intention is often laid aside as in ' should've's', but the mistake often
    by people who have read Lamarck in a translation is that should- have
    implies the strong notion of ' desire '.
    But Lamarck never spoke about desires, always about needs, les besoins,
    a simplistic translation would be ' the need for the I should ' ve's '.
    That is a complete other version of the facts, but I see that should- have,
    in a " stronger " version can be translated as ' need ',but...

    Should have implies a demand, something to have you don 't really need,
    something to have to get an advantage, to be the better of someone.
    The need for the I should have implies a desperately need for something
    you really need, the notion ' intention ' is not the wish or the desire as
    but is seen here as the proper workingmechanism to obtain their goal, IMO,
    most of the time related to direct survival of the organism, where IMO the
    should have survives at the cost of others.
    And again IMO, in culture both mechanisms work, we compete with
    eachother for free sex, work, free time, money, etc but when we get into
    trouble by those same mechanisms we go for the individualistic mode.

    Than we go from the collective kin, Darwinian natural selection modius
    over to the more individual, more Lamarckian way of life. Than we ask
    ourselves the questions, and most of the time they are thrown upon us,
    what do we need to survive. And more than often the need to survive
    is far more greater than the desire.
    The need is organism- bound, the desire is " spielerlei ", something neural
    to ease the pain. The desire to stay socially alive with a GSM- phone in
    our hand is far more slim than the need. We don 't need the phone to stay
    socially alive, we compete on a desire- level.

    So, to end, you wrote in a previous post that imitation should not be a
    consideration if memetics is applying the evolutionary paradigm to culture.
    So, in a kind of circular logic, are you saying here that, if we in memetics
    apply the use of imitation we pursue a more Lamarckian way than the
    pre- supposed Darwinian- way !?
    You just have become a friend of mine, if so !



    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 Dec 01 2001 - 20:00:53 GMT