Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA01207 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Thu, 20 Dec 2001 11:15:33 GMT Message-ID: <001701c18947$d6bd5460$18a2bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <email@example.com> References: <200112131218.fBDCIr116706@sherri.harvard.edu> Subject: Religious Thought and Lamarckism Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:16:16 +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 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
You wrote on 13 December 2001,
Mate selection _seems_ not to be blind to the future, but, it's also
largely a function of responses and behaviors that were selected for, not
In the context that Lamarckism is equal to design, design as a force,...
that in Lamarckism there is somehow a goal....
I went up the hill and came down the mountain with this,
In, lets say, the Christian belief exalation, justice, the notions about
the good, the right,... seem to have a ' goal ' -affect_ our social
is in a sense based upon such.
One theory goes that man became selfconcient ( the same point in time when
we were teared off from the animalworld) at the time when he asked
himself questions. That should have been happening about 70.000 years
ago in the period of the last ice-age.
The desperate question about the use and the sense of it all during such
hard times would have give rise to an early religious realization.
From than on ' humanity' starts.
This seems, atleast to me, to indicate that since than man still asks
the same old questions, what's the use, what's the purpose, what's the goal
In the context of such assumption we could easily argue that all what man
since than did, made, heard, have seen and listened to is somehow related
to answer that question_ that is, in all what we do, a ' religious ' bias is
present. That in order to get to our 'goal ' we must take all the hazzard
steps of life and evolution. That seems to me a reasonable conclusion.
But, if we take the above for granted, and we state that the main (f)actor
of religion is its notion of being one's motor for working for his and other
ones future, can 't we than not say that Lamarckism is somehow religious
in its doing !?
After all, Lamarckism thanks its popularity just of having the ' goal
within, the same aspect of religion !? Does Lamarckism have a religious
Historical it would make sense, Lamarck lived and worked in a vey
religious- time period, even Darwin 50 years later had to be aware.
It would also thrown a new light upon why America is more Lamarck-
orientated than Darwinian. America's belief in justice, rightness,... does
have a religious, universal bias. America sets for itself the goal of
justice, democracy and freedom for all_ is than the way in how they think,
religious and therefor Lamarckian !?
Is, tout court, religious thinking Lamarckian !?
And is, that thought extented to the context that all we do, make,...etc
has its purpose for reaching our final goal, " thinking " Lamarckian !?
After all, Lamarck wrote, IMO, not about biology, but about psychology !!
Mate selection would than be indeed not blind to the future, but in way
" designed " by religious thought and behavior and therefor Lamarckian.
If indeed religion stipulates still; indeed did provide us, with the
ways of thinking and behavior concerning sex and partnerchoise ( monogomy)
are these things than not Lamarckian in their origins !?
Is this a reason why Lamarckism seems to pop up in cultural evolution !?
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 : Thu Dec 20 2001 - 11:21:57 GMT