John:
Fascinating! As it turns out, Leo Perutz's 1933 novel "Saint Peter's
Snow" is an important one for me -- since it apparently describes the
invention of LSD 5-years before it was first "officially" synthesized
at Sandoz in Basle (yes, as it turns out, I'm the "historian" of LSD.)
Ever have the chance to read it . . . ??
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Saint-2DPeters-2DSnow-2DLeo-2DPerutz_dp_1611458862&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8gWMLyW-4S0F8shA4pIvFIhkqtYAHRv8FfknvF-8PBc&s=jUCqzAP--Vu_4--9pqCh13JqvmXDTHfk0_hisiklZNw&e=
As you likely know better than I, Hungarian Jews (if that's
appropriate in your case), are a very special group. To some extent,
they might be described as "Khazars" (i.e. neither Sephardic or
Ashkenazi &c), somehow related to the Khazar Empire in Central Asia --
as written about by Arthur Koestler in his last novel "The Thirteenth
Tribe" (1976).
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Thirteenth-2DTribe-2DArthur-2DKoestler_dp_0945001428&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8gWMLyW-4S0F8shA4pIvFIhkqtYAHRv8FfknvF-8PBc&s=sJVEoiN5J576BZzOysp6BHoAOIue7vFZb2mtgy1FefU&e=
Some other Hungarian "Khazars" who I've crossed paths with are
Intel-founder Andy Grove (who I met, plus had many dealings with his
company) and atom-bomb inventor Leo Szilard (who I've deeply
researched). Quite a story, which has recently resurfaced in various
disputes about Jewish *genetics* . . . !!
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Khazars&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8gWMLyW-4S0F8shA4pIvFIhkqtYAHRv8FfknvF-8PBc&s=fJxVLwSImaJW6ZBLP3YITakQcYy8zRSj5Hz1S7jJ2O0&e=
Yes, I expect that your interests have a great deal to do with your
early experiences (as, indeed, have all of us). There's no doubt that
"biography matters" a lot.
Thanks,
Mark
Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
> I was born in Budapest, Hungary. My mother's family is from Prague, Cz and
> Budapest, Hungary. I am related to Max Perutz, the Nobel Laureate, and to
> Leopold Perutz, the novelist, on that side of my family. My father's family
> is from Gyngyos, Hungary. We emigrated to the US in 1948 through my
> grandparents initiative in franking their NY congressman gain entry to the
> US; we had originally had exit visas to go to Honduras. I had grandparents
> and great grandparents living in the States who had emigrated in the 1930s.
> I grew up on Long Island, New York, the product of an excellent formal
> public educational system. I say 'formal' because I spent my weekends in
> Manhattan with my Viennese grandparents who took me to museums, theater,
> opera for my entire growing up years. We spoke Hungarian exclusively at
> home; my maternal relatives spoke German, but I was not encouraged to
> learn, I assume because of the 'stigma' of the post-WWII environment. I
> attribute my insatiable and ecclectic curiosity and career in biomedical
> research to that overall experience. My son Daniel is a well-known novelist
> whose first novel, The Last Flight of Poxl West was about my maternal
> family fleeing Nazi Germany.
>
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> John:
>>
>> We have much work to do and I, for one, look forward to your participation
>> in the upcoming discussions . . . !!
>>
>> Your Facebook post from Feb 1, 2017 says that you are an immigrant from a
>> Communist country (along with assorted "political" remarks &c). Would you
>> care to tell us a bit about your early life . . . ??
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>> Mark, I hope that we are 'kayaking' and not just 'yaking' which I don't
>>> think we are, but I liked the pun, so there.....again I will interject
>>> within your last email:
>>>
>>> I have had some preeminent people tell me that I am basically full of
>>>
>>>> shit....You?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> [The Editors at a couple of conventional Evolution journals have said so
>>> in
>>> more civil language. And I just assume they're keeping their finger in the
>>> dyke because there's more and more of us who think that Darwin was wrong.
>>> As for my colleagues, they're either politely hear me out or turn a deaf
>>> ear. I gave my homily to a group of MDs and PhDs who do developmental
>>> biology a few years back and a friend was sitting in the audience, so I
>>> asked him what he thought of the lecture. His PC answer was that what he
>>> heard was some saying 'brilliant', others saying 'huh?'. But I guess I
>>> hang
>>> my hat/head on the fact that I have published more than 80 peer-reviewed
>>> articles, which counts for something, at least in the realm of grant
>>> funding and patenting. And the fact that the model is predictive for
>>> dogmas
>>> in biology gives me courage to keep on keeping on. One of my first
>>> research
>>> Fellows back in the day challenged me to come up with some physiologic
>>> trait that would be predicted by the cell-molecular approach, particularly
>>> as it pertains to the evolution of endothermy. So we came up with the
>>> attached hypothesis as to why we males carry our testes on the outside of
>>> our bodies fyi.....that's never been explained before. Not even close.
>>> It's
>>> testable and refutable....]
>>>
>>> I'm mostly interested in "outlying thinkers," so what would matter is what
>>> your *cell biology* colleagues think of your work. From what I can tell,
>>> you don't profess any particular "expertise" outside of that area -- so
>>> speculations about "Gaia" &c are just that (and, from what I can tell,
>>> quite conventional).
>>>
>>> [Well actually I just use cell biology as a tool. My formal training is in
>>> endocrinology/reproductive endocrinology, and my career as a funded
>>> investigator has been as a lung biologists. Besides which, I am a PhD,
>>> which I think gives me license to 'philosophize'. Lovelock and Margulis
>>> were geochemist and biologist, so why did they have license to hypothesize
>>> Gaia? Because, just like why dogs lick their genitals, because they could]
>>>
>>> By using terms like "entropy," you have placed yourself in an earlier
>>> *paradigm* (i.e. the PRINT world), which hasn't dominated human life for a
>>> long time, having been superseded by ELECTRICITY in the 19th-century. My
>>> guess is that your science is "old-fashioned" in that respect and I'd be
>>> interested in how that plays with your colleagues. Nothing in the
>>> universe
>>> is "deterministic" (i.e. *efficient* causality) anymore for physicists,
>>> for
>>> instance. Maybe biology never made that leap.
>>>
>>> [I like Schrodinger's concept of negentropy, as expressed in What is Life?
>>> 1944. And the Reviewers seem to be OK with it too. As for my science being
>>> old fashioned, you might have said the same about Gallileo riffing on
>>> Copernicus. In point of fact, we do cutting-edge epigenetic research in my
>>> lab, funded by the NIH, so no, my science is anything by old fashioned.
>>> I've just looked at the data from a different perspective, kinda like
>>> Einstein, travelling in tandem with a lightbeam. I know that the
>>> physicists
>>> think that all is probability, but Einstein said that G_d does not play
>>> dice with the Universe......so he must have thought that some aspects of
>>> physics were deterministic, like the mass of a neutron, for example.
>>> Besides which, if ever get more widely recognized, I maintain that we got
>>> the how and why of our existence backwards, and since our system of logic
>>> is founded on our sense of self to a large degree, perhaps that's why we
>>> keep going through ups and downs as a society.......I maintain that the
>>> closer we get to the Implicate Order, the smoother the 'ride' will be. As
>>> for biology never making he leap to a probabilistic perspective, that's
>>> been tried by many (LL Whyte, Prigogine, Polanyi, Wilson) but they make a
>>> systematic error in seeing life as a 'snapshot', or synchronically, when
>>> in
>>> fact evolution is diachronic (see attached). Seen across space-time life
>>> is
>>> both deterministic and probabilistic depending upon what aspect of the
>>> process is being examined. Quantum Mechanics is highly relevant to
>>> biology,
>>> but it has to be applied at the cellular-molecular level from the origin,
>>> not 1:1 realtime. The example I use is that of the effect of gravity,
>>> which
>>> refers all the way back to the origin of life as unicells. When the cell
>>> is
>>> dissociated from gravity experimentally the ability to communicate with
>>> the
>>> environment is lost, i.e. the cell is comatose]
>>>
>>> Gregg, on the other hand, professes expertise in Psychology and, in fact,
>>> is explicitly trying to upend that entire field. He is so outrageous that
>>> he claims that he has "solved the problem of Psychology" . . . !!
>>>
>>> [Well and my frustration with Gregg is that in his TOK the joints between
>>> the levels are mechanistic, if only he would see it as I do......he sort
>>> of
>>> does in that he refers to it as metaphysics, but it's not philosophy when
>>> you(I) apply the cellular-molecular template.]
>>>
>>> That is a different kind of "outsider" from the sort you present -- albeit
>>> no doubt the basis for friendship and collaboration.
>>>
>>> [Yes, largely because the psychologist credo is that you can just talk
>>> your
>>> problems away, but I maintain that that's just kicking the can down the
>>> proverbial road. In reality, if we were to embrace a novel way of thinking
>>> about the how and why of our existence, particularly our mortality, which
>>> I
>>> addressed in my last give and take, that we would be able to move forward,
>>> but that's a 'bridge too far' for Gregg. When I get into this head space I
>>> think of Heliocentrism and The Enightenment.......we've had a reboot
>>> before
>>> by displacing our 'home' from the center of the Solar System. Now I think
>>> we need to do the same for ourselves by displacing ourselves from the
>>> center of the Biosphere in order to be better stewards of ourselves, other
>>> organisms, and the planet]
>>>
>>> Is your 16th/17th-century paradigmatic approach, with its *determinism*,
>>> likely to come back under DIGITAL conditions? I sorta doubt it but look
>>> forward to exploring that possibility once Gregg returns and we pick up
>>> some of the underlying issues . . . <g>
>>>
>>> [I'm talking about a fundamental change in human logic.....I don't think
>>> that digitizing affects that...it just exacerbates the
>>> underlying/overarching problem IMHO. The problem with the Titanic was in
>>> the hull design, not the arrangement of the deck chairs]
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> P.S. The "Dark Ages" is a slander (and a stupid one at that). My guess is
>>> that you didn't mean to insult anyone but are just repeating what you have
>>> heard. No offense but until you know more about history, it might make
>>> sense to "curb your enthusiasm."
>>>
>>> [Dark Ages is a convention....and I don't appreciate the ad hominem stuff.
>>> I happen to know plenty about history, so I don't think that's my problem]
>>>
>>> P.P.S. The relationship between culture and technology (indeed, also
>>> psychology) remains to be discussed on this list. I appreciate that -- in
>>> the context of your understanding of *causality* -- "facilitate" seems
>>> reasonable. However, the question whether that "context" is itself
>>> reasonable remains to be seen, as we will discuss over time.
>>>
>>> [To think that technology would affect human kind at the level I am going
>>> to is, in my opinion, ludicrous, and misses the whole point. I don't think
>>> that, for example, the invention of the wheel altered the trajectory of
>>> human consciousness, it merely affecting the rate of change]
>>>
>>> P.P.P.S. The question of whether *anything* is "infinite" in this world
>>> would also be an interesting topic to discuss. Georg Cantor was told in
>>> no
>>> uncertain terms by Cardinal Franzelin, who he deliberately sought out,
>>> that
>>> there is no "actual infinite" in this life. I would tend to agree. The
>>> notion of an "actual infinite" is, of course, a theological question,
>>> which
>>> requires some expertise in that area to even discuss competently.
>>>
>>> [1/0 ?]
>>>
>>> P.P.P.P.S. No one believes (or should believe) that "science" can *ever*
>>> explain everything (even asymptotically) anymore -- once again pointing to
>>> your old-time PRINT approach to these things. "Logical positivism" was
>>> the
>>> refuge of *print* under *electric* conditions and its attempt to "unify
>>> science" clearly failed. It won't work for social science, in particular,
>>> so, to the extent we're talking Psychology hereabouts, I suspect that
>>> other
>>> approaches will be required.
>>>
>>> [So picture yourself saying that science will never explain everything in
>>> 14th Century Florence, and then you are told that the world is
>>> round......does your statement still apply? I don't think so, but I don't
>>> want to sound dogmatic, just open minded and forward thinking]
>>>
>>> I honestly don't think you see what it is that I am saying with regard to
>>> my perspective. The idea, for example that we misconstrue consciousness as
>>> brain/mind rather than as our sense of being aware of our being because of
>>> the iterative process of internalizing the external environment and making
>>> it useful physiologically, the aggregate of that being Consciousness. That
>>> alone is a game changer to my way of thinking......Perhaps it would help
>>> to
>>> cite my co-author Bill Miller, who says that the concept we are promoting
>>> is 'like turning your sock inside out'.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 8:34 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> John:
>>>>
>>>> I have had some preeminent people tell me that I am basically full of
>>>>
>>>>> shit....You?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I'm mostly interested in "outlying thinkers," so what would matter is
>>>> what
>>>> your *cell biology* colleagues think of your work. From what I can tell,
>>>> you don't profess any particular "expertise" outside of that area -- so
>>>> speculations about "Gaia" &c are just that (and, from what I can tell,
>>>> quite conventional).
>>>>
>>>> By using terms like "entropy," you have placed yourself in an earlier
>>>> *paradigm* (i.e. the PRINT world), which hasn't dominated human life for
>>>> a
>>>> long time, having been superseded by ELECTRICITY in the 19th-century. My
>>>> guess is that your science is "old-fashioned" in that respect and I'd be
>>>> interested in how that plays with your colleagues. Nothing in the
>>>> universe
>>>> is "deterministic" (i.e. *efficient* causality) anymore for physicists,
>>>> for
>>>> instance. Maybe biology never made that leap.
>>>>
>>>> Gregg, on the other hand, professes expertise in Psychology and, in fact,
>>>> is explicitly trying to upend that entire field. He is so outrageous
>>>> that
>>>> he claims that he has "solved the problem of Psychology" . . . !!
>>>>
>>>> That is a different kind of "outsider" from the sort you present --
>>>> albeit
>>>> no doubt the basis for friendship and collaboration.
>>>>
>>>> Is your 16th/17th-century paradigmatic approach, with its *determinism*,
>>>> likely to come back under DIGITAL conditions? I sorta doubt it but look
>>>> forward to exploring that possibility once Gregg returns and we pick up
>>>> some of the underlying issues . . . <g>
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>> P.S. The "Dark Ages" is a slander (and a stupid one at that). My guess
>>>> is
>>>> that you didn't mean to insult anyone but are just repeating what you
>>>> have
>>>> heard. No offense but until you know more about history, it might make
>>>> sense to "curb your enthusiasm."
>>>>
>>>> P.P.S. The relationship between culture and technology (indeed, also
>>>> psychology) remains to be discussed on this list. I appreciate that --
>>>> in
>>>> the context of your understanding of *causality* -- "facilitate" seems
>>>> reasonable. However, the question whether that "context" is itself
>>>> reasonable remains to be seen, as we will discuss over time.
>>>>
>>>> P.P.P.S. The question of whether *anything* is "infinite" in this world
>>>> would also be an interesting topic to discuss. Georg Cantor was told in
>>>> no
>>>> uncertain terms by Cardinal Franzelin, who he deliberately sought out,
>>>> that
>>>> there is no "actual infinite" in this life. I would tend to agree. The
>>>> notion of an "actual infinite" is, of course, a theological question,
>>>> which
>>>> requires some expertise in that area to even discuss competently.
>>>>
>>>> P.P.P.P.S. No one believes (or should believe) that "science" can *ever*
>>>> explain everything (even asymptotically) anymore -- once again pointing
>>>> to
>>>> your old-time PRINT approach to these things. "Logical positivism" was
>>>> the
>>>> refuge of *print* under *electric* conditions and its attempt to "unify
>>>> science" clearly failed. It won't work for social science, in
>>>> particular,
>>>> so, to the extent we're talking Psychology hereabouts, I suspect that
>>>> other
>>>> approaches will be required.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>
>>>> Mark: I will attempt to navigate through your last reply by interjecting
>>>> in
>>>>
>>>>> brackets....
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks! In Gregg's "dimensions of complexity" hierarchy the
>>>>> highest-level
>>>>> is "culture" -- which I'm suggesting is *caused* by our technological
>>>>> inventions (acting as forms) -- so I suspect that the topic of
>>>>> "physiological stress" and why it is caused now needs to be explored.
>>>>>
>>>>> [I have a different take on culture, having interpolated Niche
>>>>> Construction
>>>>> into the unicell (Torday JS. The Cell as the First Niche Construction.
>>>>> Biology (Basel). 2016 Apr 28;5(2).), offering the opportunity to then
>>>>> integrate organisms within niches as ecologies, which scales all the way
>>>>> from the unicell to Gaia. Along the way, culture is a manifestation of
>>>>> exponential niche construction, or anthropomorphized
>>>>> institutions......so
>>>>> I
>>>>> would suggest that technological inventions 'facilitated' culture, all
>>>>> due
>>>>> respect. As for why physiologic stress is caused, perpetual
>>>>> environmental
>>>>> change is a Given; life must change accordingly or become extinct. In
>>>>> actuality, the ability of life to sense change in the environment,
>>>>> external
>>>>> and internal alike using homeostasis as its 'feelers' is how the cell(s)
>>>>> know that change has occurred, and because they are servoed to the
>>>>> environment, equipped with the capacity to change as I had described
>>>>> earlier, the organism is constantly in flux, but trying to maintain the
>>>>> equipoise that it generated at its origin as its 'Garden of
>>>>> Eden'.......like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, running as fast
>>>>> as
>>>>> she can to remain at rest, like a catalyst mediating a chemical reaction
>>>>> (literally), or the eternal Burning Bush, never burning up ]
>>>>>
>>>>> When you say "caused by the breakdown in cell-cell communication as a
>>>>> result of the loss of bioenergetics, which is finite" you seem to be
>>>>> alluding to what is called *efficient* causality -- which is the one
>>>>> most
>>>>> associated with "positive" science originating in the paradigm from the
>>>>> 16th/17th-century (also where "energy" was primary) -- right?
>>>>>
>>>>> [Len Hayflick, a preeminent cell biologist has stated that the amount of
>>>>> bioenergetics within the cell is finite (Hayflick L. Entropy explains
>>>>> aging, genetic determinism explains longevity, and undefined terminology
>>>>> explains misunderstanding both. PLoS Genet. 2007 Dec;3(12):e220). But to
>>>>> think that our lives are finite is missing the big picture point of
>>>>> epigenetics. We are actually immortalized by being the 'vehicles' for
>>>>> the
>>>>> transit of environmental information to the organism so that it can make
>>>>> the existential decision to either remain the same or change in sync
>>>>> with
>>>>> the environment. I have also considered the possibility that because our
>>>>> microbiome is 70-90% of our holobiont being, that unless we are cremated
>>>>> or
>>>>> buried in a concrete crypt, our microbiome goes back to the earth when
>>>>> we
>>>>> are buried, back into the aquifer, ingested by plants and animals and
>>>>> 'reincarnated' in others who drink and eat us. There's experimental
>>>>> evidence, for example, that when we are buried our microbiome leaves a
>>>>> 'footprint' called the necrobiome, indicating that our microbiome
>>>>> remains
>>>>> intact, so we live on through our microbiome!]
>>>>>
>>>>> But that paradigm was "overthrown" in the 19th/20th-century (and, yes,
>>>>> that's why Kuhn wrote his 1962 "Scientific Revolutions" book). Today
>>>>> science has no positive grasp on causality, instead substituting
>>>>> "probability," which comes with its own train-load of problems. Indeed,
>>>>> one of the pioneering AI researchers, Judea Pearl, has been trying
>>>>> (without
>>>>> much luck) to somehow rescue a sense of "cause," since its absence is
>>>>> seriously getting in the way of building human-like robots . . . !!
>>>>>
>>>>> [In my reduction of biology/evolution I came to the realization that a)
>>>>> there are First Principles of Physiology- negentropy, chemiosmosis and
>>>>> homeostasis- and that the first two principles are deterministic,
>>>>> whereas
>>>>> homeostasis is probabilistic, conferring Free Will because we are free
>>>>> to
>>>>> be any of a number of states of being depending upon which one provides
>>>>> the
>>>>> least 'friction', i.e. allows for the cell to remain at equipoise. The
>>>>> atom
>>>>> is similarly in homeostatic balance, the proton and electron balancing
>>>>> one
>>>>> another. But based on the Pauli Exclusion Principle, the first three
>>>>> values
>>>>> for electron spin are deterministic, whereas the fourth is time-based
>>>>> and
>>>>> probabilistic. So both the animate and inanimate are both deterministic
>>>>> and
>>>>> probabilistic. I think that in both cases the probabilistic component
>>>>> accommodates Heisenberg, but in the case of life, it resolves the
>>>>> duality
>>>>> in an on-going manner as evolution.]
>>>>>
>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>>>>> zon.com_Book-2DWhy-2DScience-2DCause-2DEffect_dp_046509760X
>>>>> &d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HP
>>>>> o1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=a_atcpO9RlELX5il
>>>>> A4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=Emly2WgLo3WjMuPtYW9EV87r_u5PhT
>>>>> wjCgKcq0iqYEY&e=
>>>>>
>>>>> I've suggested (in private email) to Gregg that he invented "dimensions
>>>>> of
>>>>> complexity" (which he admits doesn't exist in "complexity science") to
>>>>> build his ToK for *exactly* this reason: we don't know what "causality"
>>>>> means anymore. This requires us to go-back-to Aristotle's "four causes"
>>>>> and to sort through how they function in today's "culture." And, to do
>>>>> that, we will need to use McLuhan to get there.
>>>>>
>>>>> [All due respect, but I have suggested to Gregg that the 'joints' in his
>>>>> TOK are the mechanisms that interconnect the 'levels', so there is a
>>>>> causal
>>>>> explanation IMHO.....is this reasonable to your way of thinking....not
>>>>> trying to be a d___k about it because I have interjected a novel way of
>>>>> thinking about the nature of life that could re-establish causation,
>>>>> alleviating the angst of the probabilistic 'Cosmic Chill', supplanting
>>>>> it
>>>>> with causal "Cosmic Thrill' of knowing that we are stardust, a la
>>>>> Sagan.]
>>>>>
>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
>>>>> pedia.org_wiki_Four-5Fcauses&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=a_atcpO9RlELX5ilA4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=-
>>>>> 7U_EBV5O7yj1-5bSUIawFTpdgmSgwl0Tz8tNYTCX84&e=
>>>>>
>>>>> Much work to be done . . . <g>
>>>>>
>>>>> [Am I helping? or just moving the deck chairs? For me, the cell's eye
>>>>> view
>>>>> is enabling, but that's just me]
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. Some would suggest that there is a "higher-level" than culture and
>>>>> call it "civilization" -- as written about extensively by Arnold Toynee
>>>>> &al. For what it's worth, at my Center, we have termed the top-level
>>>>> "spheres" to reflect the global changes caused by *electric*
>>>>> technologies,
>>>>> beginning with the Telegraph in the mid-1800s. These "dimensions"
>>>>> require
>>>>> an appropriate *metaphysics* which is grounded in a thorough retrieval
>>>>> of
>>>>> what we once understood about causes -- all four of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> [I would agree that civilization is a higher level than culture,
>>>>> particularly if it further facilitates the ability of Man to 'evolve' in
>>>>> the face of environmental change as the 'rule of thumb'. Of course I
>>>>> hate
>>>>> that aphorism because as you probably know, it comes from the king of
>>>>> England ruling that you could only beat your wife with a rod no thicker
>>>>> than your thumb]
>>>>>
>>>>> P.P.S. In the West (as civilization or sphere), the ur-text is the
>>>>> Bible.
>>>>> And in the East, it is the Yijing (aka "I Ching"). There is simply no
>>>>> way
>>>>> to think about this level of *organization* without a comprehensive
>>>>> "education" in these texts. No, this is not needed to understand
>>>>> cell-cell
>>>>> communication but, as we know, that's not the full ToK story. I began
>>>>> my
>>>>> study of the Bible in 1970 (at the age of 22), when I went to University
>>>>> of
>>>>> Chicago Divinity School (looking for a draft deferment), majoring in the
>>>>> "Old Testament." I remember once floating in a salt-water pool in
>>>>> Tiberias, Israel, listening to jokes about how "Jesus got nailed on his
>>>>> boards," with some Jewish friends who declared that I was "more Jewish"
>>>>> than they were. In fact, I'm Catholic but my children *are* Jewish.
>>>>>
>>>>> [I personally find religion to be the mother of all 'just so stories',
>>>>> particularly since stumbling on to the realization that life originated
>>>>> as
>>>>> an ambiguity and deception is the way we cope with that ambiguity (I
>>>>> know,
>>>>> I'm repeating myself, but it bears repeating IMHO] In my head, there is
>>>>> a
>>>>> process by which we move further from belief and closer to knowledge
>>>>> using
>>>>> science as the leverage. BTW I don't think we'll ever get to the
>>>>> Implicate
>>>>> because it is an asymptote, but its the journey, not the destination
>>>>> that
>>>>> counts]
>>>>>
>>>>> P.P.P.S. The "secularization" that dominated our 20th-century lives is
>>>>> over. Kaput! The new *digital* paradigm in which we have already
>>>>> living
>>>>> for 20+ years could be summarized by "Less work: More religion." This is
>>>>> what Jurgen Habermas, yes, a Marxist, calls the "Post-secular Age." As
>>>>> work shifts to the robots and people wind-up with a massive increase in
>>>>> their "leisure," many of them will move to lives of religious activity,
>>>>> including "monasteries" and a huge increase in "contemplation" -- all of
>>>>> which means that we are already living in a very different "culture"
>>>>> from
>>>>> the one we grew up in. Yes, it will be a challenge for ToK to explain
>>>>> why
>>>>> that happened.
>>>>>
>>>>> [I'm reminded of the joke about the drunk at the end of the bar who
>>>>> yells
>>>>> out 'All lawyers are assholes', and a guy at the other end of the bar
>>>>> yells
>>>>> back 'I resent that remark. It is an insult to us assholes]. In that
>>>>> vein,
>>>>> I understand how civilization might default back to religion as we did
>>>>> in
>>>>> the Dark Ages, but I am more in favor of recognizing our fundamental
>>>>> relationship with the physical world, and that what we call G_d is the
>>>>> Singularity, which is a secular idea that overarches Original Sin......I
>>>>> hate that precept because it leads to a fear-based worldview like that
>>>>> of
>>>>> the Church or Communism. We know scientifically that fear literally
>>>>> breeds
>>>>> fear....that stress causes elevated cortisol in the mother, which gives
>>>>> rise to depression in the offspring, which then experiences elevated
>>>>> cortisol, etc etc etc. That downward spiral kills hope and creativity,
>>>>> fostering negative thinking and fear. So I would like to think that in
>>>>> the
>>>>> post-secular world we have the option of understanding our inner
>>>>> workings
>>>>> as a continuum with the Cosmos, and that the gift of life is in our
>>>>> ability
>>>>> to circumvent the Laws of Physics in order to invent and problem
>>>>> solve......that is the true nature of Man, if only we are open to what
>>>>> we
>>>>> already know, and can exploit for the betterment of our species,
>>>>> unctiousness aside]
>>>>>
>>>>> We makin' any headway? Or am I just spinin' my wheels? I ask because I
>>>>> see
>>>>> the light at the end of the tunnel......but it's useless without others
>>>>> willing to discuss a Plan C.....Plan A being Creationism, Plan B being
>>>>> Darwinism....I don't think that in general people are considered
>>>>> alternatives to A or B, assuming that we know all we know, and that
>>>>> there's
>>>>> nothing else, which is unfortunate. I have had some preeminent people
>>>>> tell
>>>>> me that I am basically full of shit....You?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:24 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> John:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks! In Gregg's "dimensions of complexity" hierarchy the
>>>>>> highest-level
>>>>>> is "culture" -- which I'm suggesting is *caused* by our technological
>>>>>> inventions (acting as forms) -- so I suspect that the topic of
>>>>>> "physiological stress" and why it is caused now needs to be explored.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you say "caused by the breakdown in cell-cell communication as a
>>>>>> result of the loss of bioenergetics, which is finite" you seem to be
>>>>>> alluding to what is called *efficient* causality -- which is the one
>>>>>> most
>>>>>> associated with "positive" science originating in the paradigm from the
>>>>>> 16th/17th-century (also where "energy" was primary) -- right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that paradigm was "overthrown" in the 19th/20th-century (and, yes,
>>>>>> that's why Kuhn wrote his 1962 "Scientific Revolutions" book). Today
>>>>>> science has no positive grasp on causality, instead substituting
>>>>>> "probability," which comes with its own train-load of problems.
>>>>>> Indeed,
>>>>>> one of the pioneering AI researchers, Judea Pearl, has been trying
>>>>>> (without
>>>>>> much luck) to somehow rescue a sense of "cause," since its absence is
>>>>>> seriously getting in the way of building human-like robots . . . !!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>>>>>> zon.com_Book-2DWhy-2DScience-2DCause-2DEffect_dp_046509760X
>>>>>> &d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HP
>>>>>> o1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=a_atcpO9RlELX5il
>>>>>> A4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=Emly2WgLo3WjMuPtYW9EV87r_u5PhT
>>>>>> wjCgKcq0iqYEY&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've suggested (in private email) to Gregg that he invented "dimensions
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> complexity" (which he admits doesn't exist in "complexity science") to
>>>>>> build his ToK for *exactly* this reason: we don't know what "causality"
>>>>>> means anymore. This requires us to go-back-to Aristotle's "four
>>>>>> causes"
>>>>>> and to sort through how they function in today's "culture." And, to do
>>>>>> that, we will need to use McLuhan to get there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
>>>>>> pedia.org_wiki_Four-5Fcauses&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>>>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>>>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=a_atcpO9RlELX5ilA4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=-
>>>>>> 7U_EBV5O7yj1-5bSUIawFTpdgmSgwl0Tz8tNYTCX84&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Much work to be done . . . <g>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S. Some would suggest that there is a "higher-level" than culture and
>>>>>> call it "civilization" -- as written about extensively by Arnold Toynee
>>>>>> &al. For what it's worth, at my Center, we have termed the top-level
>>>>>> "spheres" to reflect the global changes caused by *electric*
>>>>>> technologies,
>>>>>> beginning with the Telegraph in the mid-1800s. These "dimensions"
>>>>>> require
>>>>>> an appropriate *metaphysics* which is grounded in a thorough retrieval
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> what we once understood about causes -- all four of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.P.S. In the West (as civilization or sphere), the ur-text is the
>>>>>> Bible.
>>>>>> And in the East, it is the Yijing (aka "I Ching"). There is simply no
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> to think about this level of *organization* without a comprehensive
>>>>>> "education" in these texts. No, this is not needed to understand
>>>>>> cell-cell
>>>>>> communication but, as we know, that's not the full ToK story. I began
>>>>>> my
>>>>>> study of the Bible in 1970 (at the age of 22), when I went to
>>>>>> University
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> Chicago Divinity School (looking for a draft deferment), majoring in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> "Old Testament." I remember once floating in a salt-water pool in
>>>>>> Tiberias, Israel, listening to jokes about how "Jesus got nailed on his
>>>>>> boards," with some Jewish friends who declared that I was "more Jewish"
>>>>>> than they were. In fact, I'm Catholic but my children *are* Jewish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.P.P.S. The "secularization" that dominated our 20th-century lives is
>>>>>> over. Kaput! The new *digital* paradigm in which we have already
>>>>>> living
>>>>>> for 20+ years could be summarized by "Less work: More religion." This
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> what Jurgen Habermas, yes, a Marxist, calls the "Post-secular Age." As
>>>>>> work shifts to the robots and people wind-up with a massive increase in
>>>>>> their "leisure," many of them will move to lives of religious activity,
>>>>>> including "monasteries" and a huge increase in "contemplation" -- all
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> which means that we are already living in a very different "culture"
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> the one we grew up in. Yes, it will be a challenge for ToK to explain
>>>>>> why
>>>>>> that happened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>>>>>> zon.com_Awareness-2DWhat-2DMissing-2DReason-2DPost-2Dsecular
>>>>>> _dp_0745647219&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
>>>>>> 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>>>>> a_atcpO9RlELX5ilA4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=oKSiJicoDfZ5DB
>>>>>> i-buQPxCI8ws_F7TIZx7iOCi8mUe4&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In response, I am not very familiar with scripture, so not well versed
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the Book of Revelation......a reflection of my poor education?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for --> What you didn't address is the biological process for
>>>>>>> *destroying* "equipose" (i.e. "progress," "communism" &c) and its
>>>>>>> relationship to "mutation" (and/or other processes, like cancer, for
>>>>>>> instance) . . . !!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I understand your question correctly, my conceptualization of
>>>>>>> evolution
>>>>>>> is based on cell-cell communication as the basis for development and
>>>>>>> phylogeny mediated by soluble growth factors and their eponymous
>>>>>>> receptors. Such interactions are known to determine the patterns of
>>>>>>> growth
>>>>>>> and differentiation that occur during embryogenesis, culminating in
>>>>>>> homeostasis at the time of birth, and subsequently during the life
>>>>>>> cycle
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> the organism. Death/senescence is caused by the breakdown in cell-cell
>>>>>>> communication as a result of the loss of bioenergetics, which is
>>>>>>> finite.
>>>>>>> Mutations occur when the organism is under physiologic stress, causing
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> production of Radical Oxygen Species due to shear stress to the walls
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the capilllaries.....such Radical Oxygen Species are known to cause
>>>>>>> gene
>>>>>>> mutations and duplications. But it should be borne in mind that those
>>>>>>> genetic changes are occurring within the context and confines of the
>>>>>>> homeostatic regulation of the cell-cell interactions. The cells will
>>>>>>> remodel themselves until a new homeostatic set point is reached,
>>>>>>> constituting what we
>>>>>>> think of as evolution. So if evolution is thought of as 'progress',
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> how it has transpired...perhaps you could find an explanation for
>>>>>>> communism
>>>>>>> based on this mechanism of evolution. As for cancer based on the same
>>>>>>> mechanism, if the cell-cell interactions cannot re-establish
>>>>>>> homeostasis,
>>>>>>> one of the cells will proliferate to fill form a 'new' organism in
>>>>>>> order
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> fulfill its mission of homeostasis within the organismic construct. I
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> attached
>>>>>>> paper of us on the topic fyi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 5:44 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was off kayaking (and eating lobster salad at Pop's restaurant)
>>>>>>>> yesterday, so I'll take your comments one-at-a-time (the last of
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> in a private email).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> #1 "Communism" has nothing to do with "cooperation." Instead, it was
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> expression of the Protestant *evangelical* expectation of an
>>>>>>>> Armageddon
>>>>>>>> that would end human biology once-and-for-all. Marx was a hired-gun
>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>> F.
>>>>>>>> Engels (paid for by his father's factory), who was actually
>>>>>>>> responsible
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> all this nonsense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Engels was raised in Barmen, Germany, where his youthful experiences
>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>> of itinerant preachers raising the roof with "Repent the End is Near"
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> whereas Marx came from Trier, where he identified with the local
>>>>>>>> farmers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Communism" is a fundamental *rejection* of "equipose" and instead an
>>>>>>>> attempt to end this world with a "material" version of the 2nd
>>>>>>>> Coming.
>>>>>>>> How
>>>>>>>> familiar are you with the Book of Revelation . . . ??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Furthermore, what we would now call "human" didn't exist until
>>>>>>>> roughly
>>>>>>>> 500BC (and then only in a few places), or what Karl Jaspers called
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> "Axial Age." Hunter Gatherers were the same species but not at all
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> same "phenotype" that is today encountered by anyone who understood
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> term. This is the topic of Jaynes and Donald, which I will wait for
>>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>>> to return to elaborate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
>>>>>>>> pedia.org_wiki_Axial-5FAge&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4
>>>>>>>> uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgj
>>>>>>>> O2gOz4-A&m=GHCgWRTvDK4nxxOO9mUcZOXeKqbTrkLmHYR2JQzUcdQ&s=k-1
>>>>>>>> yHhOxtVZDQg50L5F8zha5fvPEThxP1XM1qLGmLwA&e=
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> #2 As an "outlying thinker," you will need to learn about Leibniz.
>>>>>>>> All
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> due time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>>>>>>>> zon.com_Leibniz-2DIntellectual-2DMaria-2DRosa-2DAntognazza_
>>>>>>>> dp_1107627613&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
>>>>>>>> 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>>>>>>> GHCgWRTvDK4nxxOO9mUcZOXeKqbTrkLmHYR2JQzUcdQ&s=aSiHYiwqsVcVrV
>>>>>>>> R5hyEV7NBzagdNR_GJoX2mOvp4VEQ&e=
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> #3 Without McLuhan, there is no "up-to-date" regarding technology.
>>>>>>>> Also
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> topic for future elaboration.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>>>>>>>> zon.com_Understanding-2DMedia-2DExtensions-2DMarshall-
>>>>>>>> 2DMcLuhan_dp_1584230738&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4
>>>>>>>> uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgj
>>>>>>>> O2gOz4-A&m=GHCgWRTvDK4nxxOO9mUcZOXeKqbTrkLmHYR2JQzUcdQ&s=
>>>>>>>> QWaAiedWWRHK_bXLzdPPeeVtFOcVHHiFpuDwZGwgB1k&e=
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --> What you didn't address is the biological process for
>>>>>>>> *destroying*
>>>>>>>> "equipose" (i.e. "progress," "communism" &c) and its relationship to
>>>>>>>> "mutation" (and/or other processes, like cancer, for instance) . . .
>>>>>>>> !!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> .....Oh, and no, I have not read Leibnitz, just little snippets here
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> there.....to be honest, as long as the thinking is related to biology
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> Lego Blocks (descriptive) it is unfortunately immaterial to my way
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> thinking because it reflects the logical construct being used......I
>>>>>>>>> liken
>>>>>>>>> it to the difference between Newtonian Gravity theory v
>>>>>>>>> Einsteinian,
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> former describing the attraction of bodies, the latter that gravity
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> due
>>>>>>>>> to the distortion of space-time. Like Twain said,“The difference
>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>> the *almost right* word and the *right* word is really a large
>>>>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>>>>> ’tis
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”😀
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 6:26 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mark, nice to meet a true 'son of Madison'. I only knew transients
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Michigan State and University of Chicago in my brief post-doctoral
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> stint. I
>>>>>>>>>> worked with Jack Gorski, the biochemist who discovered the estrogen
>>>>>>>>>> receptor.......my work on the effect of cortisol on lung
>>>>>>>>>> development
>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>> buoyed by such science for the next 20 years. Madison was an
>>>>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>>>>> transition from my MSc/PhD in Experimental Medicine, taught by the
>>>>>>>>>> discoverers of cortisol, aldosterone and prolactin, and Hans Selye,
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> clinician-scientist who coined the term 'stress' while at McGill, a
>>>>>>>>>> bastion
>>>>>>>>>> of Eurocentnrism, back to the US en route to Harvard (from which I
>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>> thrown out after 15 years of hard labor), which may explain my own
>>>>>>>>>> worldview academically, which is quite eclectic, but in a very
>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>> way from yours. I have spent 50+ years doing the science of the
>>>>>>>>>> establishment, chasing my tail studying physiologic mechanisms and
>>>>>>>>>> chasing
>>>>>>>>>> my intellectual tail, always in the hope of 'linearizing' the story
>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>> latching on to a tale that would take me from the superficial and
>>>>>>>>>> mundane
>>>>>>>>>> to the fundamental......what else would I have expected, given
>>>>>>>>>> that a
>>>>>>>>>> simple molecule like cortisol could flip a switch and save life at
>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>> inception- the implementation of cortisol for prevention of the
>>>>>>>>>> death
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> preterm infants was profoundly inspiring, to this day. But as I had
>>>>>>>>>> said,
>>>>>>>>>> it made no 'logical' sense that hormones would or should have
>>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> do with lungs....but now it makes all the sense in the world; I
>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>> hadda
>>>>>>>>>> turn the whole process around 180 degrees, at least for my own
>>>>>>>>>> 'sanity'.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So to your question about the biological relevance of Communism, I
>>>>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>>>> with the premise that multicellular organisms evolved through
>>>>>>>>>> metabolic
>>>>>>>>>> cooperativity, so 'from each according to their abilities, to each
>>>>>>>>>> according to their needs' makes sense as an operational principle.
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>> that all fell apart in the transition from Hunter Gatherers to
>>>>>>>>>> agriculture
>>>>>>>>>> and ownership of land, acting as a driver for human avarice and
>>>>>>>>>> greed
>>>>>>>>>> instead of cooperativity. There is a biological underpinning to
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> transition from hunting/gathering to agriculture due to the ready
>>>>>>>>>> source
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> food year round increasing subcutaneous fat, producing the hormone
>>>>>>>>>> leptin,
>>>>>>>>>> which promotes the 'arborization' of the brain, the formation of
>>>>>>>>>> ever-increasing numbers of synapses. That mechanism usurped the
>>>>>>>>>> gut-brain
>>>>>>>>>> mechanism by which food would distend the gut, increasing leptin
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> ghrelin production by the gut, affecting brain development along a
>>>>>>>>>> different trajectory from the steady infusion of leptin provided by
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> fat
>>>>>>>>>> depot. There are those who say that the dominance of the CNS over
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> gut
>>>>>>>>>> brain has been our undoing, and I think that's correct in that the
>>>>>>>>>> CNS
>>>>>>>>>> mechanism tends to lend itself to neuroticisms that the gut-brain
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> due to the abstractions of the CNS vs the pragmatism of the gut, if
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>> my drift. Along these lines, there was an interesting paper
>>>>>>>>>> (Cochran
>>>>>>>>>> G,
>>>>>>>>>> Hardy J, Harpending H. Natural history of Ashkenazi intelligence. J
>>>>>>>>>> Biosoc
>>>>>>>>>> Sci. 2006 Sep;38(5):659-93) the hypothesis of which was that
>>>>>>>>>> Ashkenazi
>>>>>>>>>> Jews
>>>>>>>>>> have higher IQs, but an excess of neurodegenerative diseases, and
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> is an example of balancing selection, too much of a good thing
>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>> thing, myelinization of neurons increasing IQ but too much leading
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> pathology.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But I digress. Not to 'chest beat' too much on my part, but I find
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> energizing in my 8th decade to think that a) maybe we got it wrong,
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> b)
>>>>>>>>>> how can we 'fix' it, given what we're doing to ourselves and our
>>>>>>>>>> planet.
>>>>>>>>>> As
>>>>>>>>>> I had said previously, my sense is that what I have stumbled onto
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> realization that what we think of as evolution are all
>>>>>>>>>> epiphenomena........the so-called complexity of life is actually a
>>>>>>>>>> by-product of the core mission of life, to maintain and sustain its
>>>>>>>>>> originating ability to remain at equipoise, like the Red Queen,
>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>> sounds counterintuitive because we are using the wrong intuition.
>>>>>>>>>> BTW,
>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>> idea that Quantum Mechanics is highly relevant to biology, but
>>>>>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>> integrated with it for lack of the right perspective, i.e. that the
>>>>>>>>>> Cosmos
>>>>>>>>>> and biology emerged from the same Singularity/Big Bang, so that's
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>> in which Pauli, Heisenberg, non-localization, coherence have to be
>>>>>>>>>> viewed
>>>>>>>>>> biologically......then it works, at least in my simplistic way of
>>>>>>>>>> understanding those two domains. And that sits at the core of the
>>>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>> in the sense that our system of logic is founded on the way in
>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> understand how and why we exist; given that, if we got it
>>>>>>>>>> backwards,
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> course we would have inherent problems in our personal comportment
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> of the societies that we constitute. We're still stuck with
>>>>>>>>>> Descartes
>>>>>>>>>> (witness Hameroff and Penrose fixated on microtubules in the brain,
>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>> there are microtubules in the viscera too!) and Michaelangelo's
>>>>>>>>>> Vitruvian
>>>>>>>>>> Man when we should be devising ways of reintegrating our big brains
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> more holistically win-win way. Have you read Jeremy Rifkin's "The
>>>>>>>>>> Empathic
>>>>>>>>>> Civilization". In it he makes this same plea, if only.....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again, hubris and braggadocio aside, what I have offered is a
>>>>>>>>>> step-wise,
>>>>>>>>>> scientifically-based means of devconvoluting our own evolution in a
>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>> that is 'testable and refutable', linking physics and biology
>>>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>>>> mechanistically for the first time. That relationship is
>>>>>>>>>> buildable- I
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> suggested merging the Elemental Periodic Table with a Periodic
>>>>>>>>>> Table
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> Biology to form an algorithm for all of the natural
>>>>>>>>>> sciences....what
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> dynamic search engine that would be. I just have to figure out how
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> mathematically express evolution....Work in Progress. But of
>>>>>>>>>> course I
>>>>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>>>> curious as to how all of this 'fits' with what makes the hair on
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>>>>> of *your* neck stand up? Because CRISPER and AI aren't our
>>>>>>>>>> salvation,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> they're just more of the same ambiguity/deception paradigm as far
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>>>> concerned......John
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Mark Stahlman <
>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> John:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is *all* very exciting -- as in skin-tingly, even more than
>>>>>>>>>>> head-shaking (and, yes, mine was going up-down, not side-to-side)
>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>> <g>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I grew up in Madison, where both of my parents were on the UW
>>>>>>>>>>> faculty.
>>>>>>>>>>> Madison West then undergraduate 1966-70, followed by a brief stint
>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>> UofChicago Divinity School (for a rare deferment, when only
>>>>>>>>>>> "ministers"
>>>>>>>>>>> escaped the draft lottery), then back to Madison for a year in a
>>>>>>>>>>> PhD
>>>>>>>>>>> program in Molecular Biology, which was aborted by the collapse of
>>>>>>>>>>> NSF-funding post-Vietnam. Then I moved to NYC in 1972 and started
>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>> early
>>>>>>>>>>> mini-computer software company (while playing "revolutionary" and
>>>>>>>>>>> studying
>>>>>>>>>>> Renaissance history &c) -- which was the basis of my later career
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> Wall
>>>>>>>>>>> Street &c.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Genetics" seemed to me to be barking-up-the-wrong-tree with its
>>>>>>>>>>> over-emphasis on DNA (and "information," trying to equate life to
>>>>>>>>>>> computation) -- which meant I was looking for epi-genetics before
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> quite a thing yet. Marshall McLuhan, as it turns out, is *all*
>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>> psycho-technological environments and our "adaptation" to them
>>>>>>>>>>> (although,
>>>>>>>>>>> for various reasons, he never elaborated a "psychology," which is
>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> are now doing at the Center, with Aristotle's help.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I suspect that what you mean by "consciousness" -- say at the
>>>>>>>>>>> cellular-level -- is what Aristotle meant by the "soul" (aka
>>>>>>>>>>> *entelechy*)
>>>>>>>>>>> and what Leibniz meant by "monad." Have you had a chance to look
>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>> Leibniz in this way?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Throughout, this "being-at-work-staying-itself" (as Joe Sachs
>>>>>>>>>>> translates
>>>>>>>>>>> it), is in conflict with the urge to dissolve that "individuality"
>>>>>>>>>>> (i.e.
>>>>>>>>>>> Freud's "oceanic feeling" and the various "mysticisms") by trying
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> "be-something-else-destroying-yourself" which, in theological
>>>>>>>>>>> terms,
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> called *gnosticism* (aka "self-deification.") Btw, this was
>>>>>>>>>>> Plato's
>>>>>>>>>>> "World
>>>>>>>>>>> Soul" and it was directly in conflict with Aristotle (yes, his
>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>> famous
>>>>>>>>>>> student), much as Spinoza's *pantheism* was in conflict with
>>>>>>>>>>> Leibniz.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This anti-balance, get-me-outta-here, clean-things-up urge (shown
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> Voltaire's satire of Leibniz's best-of-all-possible-worlds) --
>>>>>>>>>>> giving
>>>>>>>>>>> rise
>>>>>>>>>>> to English "Puritanism," and thus the USA-as-proto-Eden (being
>>>>>>>>>>> celebrated
>>>>>>>>>>> today, as it was in Joni Mitchell's "Woodstock" lyric, "We gotta
>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>>>>>> to the Garden"), as well as "Communism" (via F. Engels and his
>>>>>>>>>>> German
>>>>>>>>>>> "puritanism"), speaking of ironies -- likely also has a
>>>>>>>>>>> "biological"
>>>>>>>>>>> explanation, which I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts about
>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>> linked to "mutation") . . . !!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> P.S. Eventually, we'll also have to drag the Chinese into all this
>>>>>>>>>>> and,
>>>>>>>>>>> in particular, Daoism and the Yijing -- since, in the world today,
>>>>>>>>>>> theirs
>>>>>>>>>>> is a much more dynamic (and coherent) "sphere" than the West, in
>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> *balance* we are describing is institutionalized in the Communist
>>>>>>>>>>> Party
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> China (once again, noting the irony involved) -- all of which
>>>>>>>>>>> developed
>>>>>>>>>>> under *very* different psycho-technological conditions, with a
>>>>>>>>>>> writing
>>>>>>>>>>> system (i.e. the key to human self-aware "consciousness")
>>>>>>>>>>> radically
>>>>>>>>>>> unlike
>>>>>>>>>>> our alphabetic one.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> P.P.S All of this is what some call "outlying thinking" (without a
>>>>>>>>>>> "home"
>>>>>>>>>>> since the 13th-century). I remember one day when I was
>>>>>>>>>>> participating
>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>> National Academy of Science meeting when the chairman described me
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> group as a "very unusual scholar" (and, no, I wasn't invited
>>>>>>>>>>> back).
>>>>>>>>>>> Aristotle was Greek but he wasn't Athenian -- which meant that he
>>>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> leave twice, his Lyceum school was outside the city-walls and in
>>>>>>>>>>> 307BC
>>>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>>> followers were banished, taking up in Rhodes and then largely
>>>>>>>>>>> disappearing. Likewise, Leibniz was almost completely expunged
>>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>>> death, then mocked by Voltaire (on behalf of Newton &al) and
>>>>>>>>>>> slandered
>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>> Bertrand Russell. There is something psycho-technological about
>>>>>>>>>>> trying
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> "expel" the approach we are taking -- raising questions, as
>>>>>>>>>>> Spengler
>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> put it about "Man and Technics" as well as the current drive to
>>>>>>>>>>> "merge"
>>>>>>>>>>> humanity with the robots (aka, Ray Kurzweil &al's hoped-for
>>>>>>>>>>> "Singularity.")
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Lonny, interesting comment about what I assume you mean is the
>>>>>>>>>>> ability
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of individuals to 'fit' with their environment, cultural and
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> think that becomes particularly relevant in the context of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> cell
>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> first Niche Construction (see attached), or how the organism
>>>>>>>>>>>> integrates
>>>>>>>>>>>> with its environment as a function of its internal 'resources'
>>>>>>>>>>>> .......or
>>>>>>>>>>>> not. I am thinking of identical twins, for example, whom we know
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> share the same epigenomes. Deconvoluting all of that would surely
>>>>>>>>>>>> help
>>>>>>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>>>>>>> better understand what makes us 'tick'. John
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 7:24 PM, Lonny Meinecke <
>>>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi John and Mark,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am following your discussion with interest... thank you both
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread. I like the term endogenization. A curious thing about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual carrying the environment around inside, is that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> common
>>>>>>>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unlikely to be the same as each private version. These often
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem
>>>>>>>>>>>>> substitutes for the external, when that unaffectable commons
>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> untenable (or inaccessible) to the creatures that must somehow
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dwell
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Lonny
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ############################
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> 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
############################
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
|
