Re: [xmca] "Inner Form" of Word, Symmetry, Ivanov Bateson?

[Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>]

On 31 May 2011 00:03, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu> wrote:

> Huw,
>
> I think you win the prize for maximal name-dropping in a single sentence.
> How about you now unpack that, serially, for those of us operating with only
> half a brain?
>
>
Here's a quick first go at unpacking it.  :)

In 'Steps to An Ecology of Mind', Bateson described processes of biological
adaption in terms of an example of a giraffe and, in particular, it's
heart.  Part of this interest appears to have been notions of plasticity.
Of being able to reach beyond a 'comfort zone' and being predisposed to this
kind of plasticity.  If I remember correctly, the example given was of a
modestly sized giraffe that was able to mate with, or compete for a mate
with, stronger giraffes (stronger in the sense of a given genetic
predisposition to strength).  The plasticity effectively allows the giraffe
to adapt his/her biology ontogenetically (through, say, increased muscle
mass by exercise).  Now we have a situation where a humble sized giraffe
with good potential is able to mate with a range of giraffes including the
super-sized variant.

The strong Lamarkian assertion is that things we learn ontogenetically can
be passed on to off spring.  Traditional Darwinian theory doesn't allow for
this, the evolution is in one direction, and the adaption is achieved
through mutation and "random" cross-seeding.

However, in the same way that Waddington demonstrated with fruit fly
ontogenetic change/adaption that is carried over into offspring, we can
follow the thread of this feedback using these concepts.  Waddington showed
that by intervening in fruit fly pupae development, and thereby encouraging
particular wing formation changes to arise, that later generational
offspring 'inherited' this change in wing construction.

We can conceive, logically, of the possibility of this occurring with the
aid of the concept of variety.  An organism can be conceived of an unfolding
variety, starting from its genetic code, which we can take as expressing its
phylogeny.  The interpretation of this genetic code, the unfolding process
of a living organism, comprises its ontogeny.

Now, the genetic code, in addition to the environment in which it is
interpreted, expresses the organism's developmental variety, the different
ways in which the codes can be made sense of.  So in order to see an
'inherited' ontogenetic attribute it is not necessary to change the genetic
code, rather it may suffice to change the interpretation of the code
provided that the code has sufficient expressive variety to encapsulate the
adaption.

Hence the idea of the plasticity of the giraffe, and its increased potential
to pass on ontogenetically derived 'tips' to its offspring.  This comprises
of a more directed form of evolution which, I believe, is missing from the
classic Darwinian formulation (although I'm guessing that this is all par
for course in biological/DNA research etc).

There is more logic to this Lamarkian-like process, which I could describe a
bit more (it's a bit late here).  Though this may elaborate sufficiently?

Huw


> Martin
>
> On May 30, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote:
>
> > With respect to inner form, the pieces that I find intriguing are
> Bateson's
> > take on Lamarkian-like development in conjunction with Waddington's
> > discoveries and Beer's approach to requisite variety.
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca