These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving. Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards. If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site, please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.

These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving. Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards. If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site, please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.

Re: [xmca] Lamarckian

From: David Cross <davidcross who-is-at charter.net>
Date: Fri Oct 26 2007 - 04:51:29 PDT

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
Received on Fri Oct 26 04:58 PDT 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 01 2007 - 00:30:01 PDT