Re: [xmca] Lamarckian

Seems about right to me, Mark. A tangled web for sure.
Perhaps you could write a review of The Fall, David, for posting on the xmca
electronic review section?
mike

On 10/26/07, David Cross <davidcross@charter.net> wrote:
>
> Merlin's book is terrific. I am now finishing Steve Taylor's "The
> Fall" ... has anyone read it? I find it extraordinary, and relevant
> to MCA.
>
> David
>
> "What sad times we are living in!
> It is easier to disintegrate an atom than a prejudice".
>
> Albert Einstein
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 26, 2007, at 3:58 AM, <mark@ias-group.com> wrote:
>
> > I will look this one up!
> >
> > Thanks Andy
> >
> > Mark
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net>
> > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 5:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] Lamarckian
> >
> >
> >> Mark, have a read of Merlin Donald's "Origins of the Modern Mind"
> >> for thoughts on the place of tools in Darwinism.
> >> Andy
> >> At 03:55 PM 26/10/2007 +0900, you wrote:
> >>> I discovered a very small yet, very enlightening piece of
> >>> information today while reading Cultural Psychology A Once and
> >>> Future Discipline. In Chapter 7 p. 178 part 2, Cole writes that
> >>> Phylogenetic (Darwinism) change and cultural-historical
> >>> (Lamarckian) change occur at different rates.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I graduated from York University in Toronto, Canada with two
> >>> degrees, in Chemistry and in Biology, specializing in genetics
> >>> and biochemistry. I am no stranger to Darwinism, and I was not a
> >>> fan of Lamarckian. My thinking at that time was that natural
> >>> selection 'survival of the fittest' or as Gould wrote, 'the
> >>> survival of the most adapted' was based on Darwin's theory of
> >>> evolution and our creation of tools such as computers was to
> >>> compensate for our own inability to genetically pass on our own
> >>> acquired knowledge. Lamarckian theories to us geneticists was
> >>> nothing more to us than a disproved theory that acquired
> >>> knowledge could be passed on genetically. We all knew that the
> >>> study of our ancestry through genetics could be done by examining
> >>> the development of the fetus as it passes through the various
> >>> stages of growth. Each stage of growth represented the past of
> >>> our genetics.
> >>>
> >>> This of course brings into arguments such as the recent comments
> >>> from the discoverer of the DNA helix, as Gould points out in his
> >>> book Before Darwin (sorry the date of that book escapes me at
> >>> this point), one of the quotes is in Cole's book p.18. There were
> >>> actually 2 quotes in Gould's book about the genetic history of
> >>> the races and they were both on opposite ends of the spectrum.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> My initial reaction to Cole's comment on p. 179 was one of
> >>> surprise, since I had never thought that of Lamarck in that
> >>> light. It cleared up the cultural-historical picture for me. But
> >>> on the other hand, that the change between genetic and cultural-
> >>> historical occur at different rates is of course true, but unlike
> >>> other species, we can produce the tools to genetically share our
> >>> DNA's information (i.e. our research, our thinking). It's hard to
> >>> imagine if one influences the other vs if one is a result of the
> >>> other. I would think that the sum of the genetic make up of our
> >>> being - influences the tools we make to extend our DNA outward in
> >>> the Lamarckian sense. How we use those tools culturally I don't
> >>> think has any bearing on our genetic development (at least not in
> >>> the short term). Phylogenetic change has directly influenced our
> >>> cultural-historical changes, but I think the tools that have had
> >>> the most effect on our development are the ones which have
> >>> allowed collaboration to occur. I think Lamarckian may have more
> >>> influence on what happens next culturally. And at a much faster
> >>> rate. Our external DNA is becoming more complicated!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Am I on the right track here? If so, I think I'm beginning to
> >>> understand Vygotsky just a little bit more.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Mark
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> xmca mailing list
> >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> >> Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380
> >> 9435, mobile 0409 358 651
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Received on Fri Oct 26 09:03 PDT 2007