Joe:
I hear you! Marshall McLuhan converted to Catholicism in 1937 (at the
age of 25), moving into what was then called the "Catholic
Renaissance" in the Anglophonic world -- spearheaded by those like
G.K. Chesterton and Hiliare Belloc (or "Chesterbelloc" as G.B.S. Shaw
called them.) Of his six children, only the oldest, Eric, kept his
faith (and of his four children, none have.) This is the result of a
series of paradigm-shifts -- with profound effects on our *perception*
(not "sensation," as correctly separated by Gregg), which is the
psychological faculty that underlies the impact of "symbols."
In the midst of all this massive technological change, Max Weber (of
"cultural determinism" fame), suggested, in his 1917 "Science as a
Vocation" lecture in Munich, that the world had become "disenchanted"
and, even though the Churches remained, all that was left were our
"personal daemons." He didn't know it but he was talking about the
effects of ELECTRICITY (beginning in the mid-1800s.)
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Science-5Fas-5Fa-5FVocation&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=SrpTddpRjUzo69haLeousX7Z8pFaqIOs7rUigbeqy88&s=FJRqVR5ShDza30DV9fLt7e2XxG1ipma68i1PxkSJ6ho&e=
This translated into the sweeping urge for "mysticism" (and
hallucinogenic drugs &c), or what philosophy calls "phenomenology"
(and "existentialism" &c.) The Catholic Church was also caught up in
all this, supporting a Jesuit examination of the "psychology of the
mystics" in Louvain (yes, also the task William James was engaged in,
as was Carl Jung), along with the theological expression of
"personalism." This trend is what drove Vatican II, as well as the
naming of a series of mystics as "Doctors of the Church" and,
ultimately, making the Mass quite irrelevant to your children (among
many others.)
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Psychology-2DMystics-2DDover-2DWestern-2DPhilosophy_dp_0486436942&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=SrpTddpRjUzo69haLeousX7Z8pFaqIOs7rUigbeqy88&s=ezmWkY70BMswUWdNZswmWhfP51YdQZ9vThMdOjYVjP0&e=
Who needs it when you can just pop an "entheogen" . . . ??
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Entheogen&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=SrpTddpRjUzo69haLeousX7Z8pFaqIOs7rUigbeqy88&s=IPgvtwRmY8TqOk5xINjtsRAS539uoQSRVHLhk52XWlE&e=
But that was then and this is now. The question is what will the
*current* paradigm-shift -- from fantasy-inspiring TELEVISION to
memory-inducing DIGITAL -- bring to us (i.e. how will it compel us to
"evolve")? Yes, "evolution" (in this case technological evolution,
which is the basic driver of change in human "behaviors and attitudes"
that most ignore), marches on. That's what I'm spending my time here
trying to help us all sort-out . . . <g>
Mark
P.S. This Friday, Brian Kemple (a Center Fellow and John Deely's
semiotics PhD), will be presenting a paper at the ALI World Congress
in Huntington, LI. It is titled "Mediated Disclosures: Human Persons
and Their Technological Environments." Btw, my presentation will be
called "Alchemy and the Robots."
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.aquinasschoolofleadership.com_events&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=SrpTddpRjUzo69haLeousX7Z8pFaqIOs7rUigbeqy88&s=Y1wCNIEi0kGlAAY2MrIMQ9_bp5si97Nke4CPcoITYRM&e=
P.P.S. Thanks for the heads up on Eva Jablonka's "Evolution in Four
Dimensions." Interestingly, she says "And everyone will readily agree
that our symbol-based culture is changing through time: we only have
to think of what has happened to technology during the last hundred
years to be convinced." (p. 190) However, treating this as "symbol
systems," while academically acceptable, is putting the cart before
the horse, in *causal* terms.
Alas, McLuhan does not appear in the book and, as best I can tell, no
one else dealing with "technological evolution" and its effects on
humans does either (plus "semiotics" is only mentioned once and T.
Sebeok is the only semiotician referenced). After all, these are
biologists and perhaps the editors at MIT have forgotten about Leo
Marx and his 1994 "Does Technology Drive History?" . . . !!
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Technology-2DHistory-2DDilemma-2DTechnological-2DDeterminism_dp_0262691671&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=SrpTddpRjUzo69haLeousX7Z8pFaqIOs7rUigbeqy88&s=VQVCOPLP5L_BcFxkBDu99qj9lT0ImhUhkhNqfrNNxog&e=
Quoting Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>:
> Hi folks. Second email, mainly in response to John's comments and
> references. A bit lengthier, so feel free to ignore if this isn't of
> interest. I'm still learning and processing John's perspective, so
> forgive me if my response seems a bit facile. While I'm not (yet)
> convinced that Mind and Culture can be "reduced" to John's
> biological explanatory approach and modification of Darwin --
> especially as a recovering "cultural determinist"(!) -- I'm
> impressed with the arguments John has advanced and some of the
> research I've been reviewing. Regardless of where any of us land on
> these issues, I think it's extremely helpful to be challenged in our
> thinking.
>
>
> The salient point I want to make here is that I'm seeing now the
> relevance of what John's arguing about epigenetic phenomena and even
> the behavioral manifestations that can be transmitted
> inter-generationally, but not through standard genetic
> interpretations obviously. There are several innate characteristics
> of species that are transmitted genetically, but even there we have
> evidence of environmental influences. How that information gets
> translated back to the source (biologically speaking) certainly
> deserves to be examined far more seriously and extensively. I'm
> looking at Jablonka's work on this too, and have a fascinating book
> I've been perusing entitled Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic,
> Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of
> Life. Despite the human genome project and the aspirations, I think
> we understand better than ever that it's not simply a matter of
> encoded genes passing on discrete, hard-wired information that then
> produces behavioral expression. It's far more complicated, with
> interactive elements and environmental feedback mechanisms at the
> very least among non-human species. It gets even more complicated
> with more advanced species like primates and then even further with
> the cultural species Homo sapiens sapiens.
>
>
> In short, with respect to humans, while both genes and culture can
> transmit latent information, the symbolic systems that humans use
> are far more flexible and, er, "adaptive," than genetic systems. Yet
> I appreciate too the implications of culture & physical envt as
> having direct links to biological phenomena and perhaps even to
> John's argument about cell-cell communication. My struggle remains
> that in light of both the vastness and mutability of symbolic
> systems, there's no obvious or even necessary transmission of fixed
> ideas, habits, or patterns that will be passed down automatically
> from one generation to the next. The Catholicism in my family, for
> example, which lasted for several generations, effectively has ended
> with me (in fact, while respectful of their dad shuffling off to
> mass on the occasional Sunday, our five adult boys have zero
> interest in attending!). And while my wife adamantly opposes tattoos
> for both religious and aesthetic reasons, that hasn't stopped four
> of the five boys from getting them. How this ultimately has a
> genetic basis, however, goes well beyond my aging brain. But I'm
> trying! For me, though, that's where the justification hypothesis
> and the J-I-I dynamic helps me understand behavioral variation in
> credible, testable ways -- even if I remain unclear on how these
> cultural phenomena relate to John's paradigm. Yet perhaps we will be
> able to come up with an ever-more integrated theory of complexity
> that allows us to map these multiple levels onto one another and
> concretely measure the feedback measures of mutual influence (and
> here I'm thinking of John's lovely comment about his experience
> while driving back from the beach last week!). As a mathematician
> friend of mine commented when I was sharing some of what we're doing
> commented: "Joe, I'm not sure how we could ever subject all of this
> to Monte Carlo simulations!" Yet, to his credit, we're going to keep
> trying! We still need a better model though, so that's one of the
> grand objectives I hope we'll all keep working on here. Respectfully
> yours, -Joe
>
>
> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>
> Associate Academic Dean
>
> King’s University College at Western University
>
> 266 Epworth Avenue
>
> London, Ontario, Canada N6A 2M3
>
> Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439F
>
> Fax: (519) 433-0353
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> ______________________
> eiπ + 1 = 0
>
> ________________________________
> From: tree of knowledge system discussion
> <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 4:56:18 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Interesting Parallel Discovery
>
> Joe, see Jablonka E, Lamb MJ, Lachmann M (September 1992).
> "Evidence, mechanisms and models for the inheritance of acquired
> characteristics". J. Theor.
> Biol.<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_J.-5FTheor.-5FBiol.&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=hP66pxXomUz9Ben-8k0p5WMCEqosNlDQBW352dlsox0&s=g0IHqzkX2WaUgzmW8-a_IMuHMa_a__Vr5Q9Gen0Mitw&e=> 158 (2):
> 245–268.
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 12:57 PM,
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> John:
>
> Thank you for your reply/response. I understand the Storr article
> and thank you for providing that link. I remain (so far) skekptical
> that epigenetic “marking” is a permanent feature hereditarily.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Waldemar
>
> Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD
> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
> 503.631.8044
>
> Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 16, 2018, at 10:18 AM, JOHN TORDAY
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Waldemar, thanks for the correction regarding workers and drones. As
> for the persistence of epigenetic inheritance, if the perturbation
> persists the trait will also persist. And it can become
> a true DNA mutation under physiologic stress if the insult persists
> based on the effect of Radical Oxygen Species on gene mutations
> (Storr, S.J., C.M. Woolston, Y. Zhang, and S.G. Martin. 2013. Redox
> environment, free radical, and oxidative DNA damage. Antioxid Redox
> Signal 18:2399–23408). It's also referred to as the Baldwin
> Effect. John
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Waldemar Schmidt
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> John:
>
> A minor correction, if you will.
> Honey bee drones are not sterile and don’t collect nectar and pollen.
> That task is performed by the “worker” bees - who, presumably,
> collect the environmental conditions leading to epigenetic changes.
> Epigenetic influence on genetic expression is time limited, as
> opposed to “genetic” information, does not seem to last more than 4
> generations.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Waldemar
>
> Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD
> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
> 503.631.8044
>
> Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 16, 2018, at 8:01 AM, JOHN TORDAY
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Hi Joe, I haven't read The Singular Universe, but have read Smolin's
> book The Life of the Cosmos, in which he uses Darwinian evolution
> theory to explain Black Holes and other Cosmologic phenomena. I
> found that quite remarkable both because we Biologists haven't been
> able to explain the mechanisms of biology using Darwinian evolution,
> and because Smolin is merging the animate and inanimate into one.
> Oh, and btw, are you familiar with the 'dust up' between Einstein
> and Bergson circa 1922, Einstein insisting that time isn't real,
> Bergson stipulating that time is essential to understanding
> physiology? At any rate, my 'aha' moment occurred when I realized
> that time is an artifact of descriptive biology. That is to say, in
> the emerging discipline of epigenetic inheritance, previously known
> as Lamarckian, the organism is an agent for collecting epigenetic
> data, which it carries back to its germ cells- egg and sperm-
> modifying them 'epigenetically' by changing the way in which DNA is
> translated into RNA and protein, beginning with the zygote, or
> fertilized egg, the embryo, the offspring, the life cycle, and back
> again to the zygote. In other words, it is the unicellular state
> that is being selected for, which is striving to maintain its
> identity in an ever-changing environment by modifying its offspring
> to interface with the environment in order to collect epigenetic
> 'data' to inform the unicellular state of the organism. It's what is
> called the Red Queen phenomenon, like the character in Alice in
> Wonderland who is 'running as fast as she can to remain in place'.
> This perspective on the biologic imperative as 'stasis' is
> counterintuitive, yet once it is realized it explains why it is that
> we must return to the unicellular state over the course of the life
> cycle, for example. Mechanistically, the cell cytoskeleton exists in
> three discrete states- homeostatic, mitotic and meiotic. Those
> states are determined by a specific gene, Target of Rapamycin, which
> is interconnected with all of the structures and functions of the
> cell, controlling which state the cell exists in. Seen in this way,
> time is an artifact in biology, as it is in physics, both of which
> are striving to attain the Singularity that existed prior to the Big
> Bang. Biology recapitulates its 'Big Bang' from one life cycle to
> the next; physics does so through the expansion and contraction of
> the Universe.
>
> Just as a reality check, the same thing occurs in a bee hive, the
> queen bee maintaining the genetic and epigenetic 'history' of the
> colony, the sterile drones flying off daily to nominally collect
> pollen to make honey, all the while providing epigenetic data to the
> queen in the process; at some point in that cycle the hive will
> eventually 'collapse', the queen flying off with the epigenetic data
> from the current environment to recreate the hive elsewhere. There
> are other well-known examples like the slime mold Dictyostellium
> switching between the amoeboid and colonial forms depending on how
> much food is available, and Turitopsis dorneii, the so-called
> 'immortal' jellyfish, thought to be death-less because under stress
> it reverts to its adolescent form, as if it had found the 'fountain
> of youth' NOT. In reality it's just figured out a way to collect
> epigenetic information by changing forms, but the underlying
> principle of interacting with the environment to obtain epigenetic
> data is a constant in all of these conditions. We do the same,
> chucking our bodies at the time of death, but our microbiomes (the
> bacteria that represent 70-90% of our bodies), which is informed
> through epigenetics over the course of our lifetimes, lives on! It's
> been documented as the 'necrobiome', which goes back into the soil
> (unless we are cremated or put into a concrete bunker), back into
> the water supply where it can be assimilated by the flora, eaten by
> the fauna, and re-constituted. The microbiome of the mother is
> located in the uterus, where the child will ingest it when it exits
> via the birth canal at the time of birth!
>
> Aha moment indeed! I think that if we were to understand the actual
> mechanisms of biology we would be less anxious about our lives,
> being able to put things into perspective....just sayin'. John
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 5:58 AM, Joseph Michalski
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> Dear Colleagues:
>
> I understand everyone has busy intellectual agendas, but I thought
> I'd share an interesting parallel discovery from the past weekend
> (beyond the recent discovery of neutrinos from a distant galaxy!).
> My wife and I were flying back from England, reading next to each
> other on the plane. I was reading Roberto Unger and Lee Smolin's The
> Singular Universe and the Reality of Time as part of my efforts to
> understand the cosmos and our broader TOK mission. My wife, who's a
> Sufi Muslim, was reading Sadegh Angha's (41st Sufi Master) The
> Hidden Angles of Life in her efforts to understand the cosmos from a
> religious worldview. Here's what we were reading at the same time
> from our respective books:
>
> Joe, the scientist, read on p. 8: “If, however, everything is
> time-bound (a key argument of the book), that principle must apply
> as well to the laws, symmetries, and constants of nature. There are
> then no timeless regularities capable of underwriting our causal
> judgments. Change changes. It is not just the phenomena that change;
> so do the regularities: the laws, symmetries, and supposed constants
> of nature.”
>
> Farnaz, the spiritualist, read on p. xi: “(T)he laws of physics are
> fundamentally and essentially variable (for example, there is much
> evidence and documentation that most of the constant principles of
> nature and those influenced by gravity are in fact not constant).
> Existence itself is in motion.” (emphasis in the original)
>
> Just some food for future thought. If I arrive at any great insights
> from all of this, I'll be happy to share. At the same time, perhaps
> others on the list have had their own "a-ha" moments in terms of
> understanding the evolving nature of the universe, the constancy of
> change, and the implications that nature's laws might best be viewed
> from a cosmological, historical perspective. Yours kindly, -Joe
>
>
> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>
> Associate Academic Dean
>
> King’s University College at Western University
>
> 266 Epworth
> Avenue<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8AfNzX-V5wQb6xqO7RY-mU_iiFhCjeMO916G82pZoPQ&s=fltdmXpGVvaN1vuGdjm_T_n7rb0WROKJ4p835uWltjI&e=>
>
> London, Ontario, Canada
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8AfNzX-V5wQb6xqO7RY-mU_iiFhCjeMO916G82pZoPQ&s=fltdmXpGVvaN1vuGdjm_T_n7rb0WROKJ4p835uWltjI&e=> N6A
> 2M3<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8AfNzX-V5wQb6xqO7RY-mU_iiFhCjeMO916G82pZoPQ&s=fltdmXpGVvaN1vuGdjm_T_n7rb0WROKJ4p835uWltjI&e=>
>
> Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
>
> Fax: (519) 433-0353
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> ______________________
>
>
> eiπ + 1 = 0
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
