On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi folks. I'll weigh in at this point with some observations, hopefully connecting to the broader themes of our list. We are a diverse group that spans the arts & humanities, social and natural sciences. Our passions include the proverbial triad of "the good, the true, and the beautiful," as well as how these various evaluative modes might be integrated and advance a broader, 21st-century enlightenment project. I suspect that many of our biographies intersect with our historical/generational locations and cultural backgrounds to help explain our particular interests in the different fields of knowledge we have pursued. One of the great benefits of the list, then (on which I have previously commented), consists of learning from others who have shared some of their work and thoughts about matters with which we are all less familiar. For example, at present I am currently working on a "deep dive" into John's work, which I find interesting and challenging. Similarly, the other presentations from the ToK conference Gregg organized have already stimulated further cross-fertilization, a more conciliatory understanding of knowledge development, and possibly some collaborative work as well.
Both John and Gregg have offered some rather compelling meta-analytic perspectives on cosmological evolution -- which are open to discussion, critique, and refinement -- while others have contributed more specific theses and observations relevant to their different fields. And I must confess that Dave Pruett ("a former NASA researcher (and) an award-winning computational scientist and emeritus professor of mathematics at James Madison University" - sorry to brag on your behalf, Dave!) has already inspired me to want to develop and offer a capstone course on "the big questions" (e.g., "why are we here" -- which has many different meanings and interpretations!) at my own university. I love how Dave has been able to offer a course that examines the grand cosmological question from both a "mythological" (cultural) and a "scientific" perspective, as he described at the conference. If you didn't see that, then check out his TED talk "Ripples in the Cosmic Web."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=4JoErXyAd98
As Dave briefly mentions, one of our greatest challenges, especially in diverse countries such as the U.S. & Canada, is the search for a common narrative, or what Harari describes as "shared myths" (including science). Gregg's Tree of Knowledge approach (and subsequent work), John's challenge to Darwinian theory (including his paper "The Singularity of Nature"), and Steve Q's sharing of Stephen Pepper's World Hypotheses all challenge us to think and "re-think" what we know. I'm not sharing anything new here, but rather just reaffirming my appreciation for the dialogue and our shared struggle. Glad to see Mark's contributions too, as I believe the critical juncture we have reached involves the intersection of cultural and the rapidity of technological development ("Future Shock" indeed!) that have far outstripped our biological or animalistic evolution, recounted by numerous authors, cultural critics, and scientists alike. Just saw the movie "Hidden Figures" last night, reminding me for the 10,000th time that the tribalism of our species and our core survival strategies (the ways in which we manage and secure resources for ourselves and our kin, for example) have not changed much since the emergence of Homo sapiens. Stated another way, although I'm a student of culture and technology, the evidence does not stack up well for our long-term survival if we are hoping for cultural/technological overrides to systems that have evolved over "big history" and billions of years. "Nothing gold can stay." But we live here and now. Why not keep trying? 😊
Best to one and all, -Joe
Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
Associate Academic Dean
King’s University College at Western University
London, Ontario, Canada N6A 2M3
Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
Fax: (519) 433-0353
Email: [log in to unmask]
______________________
eiπ + 1 = 0
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]edu> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 6:10 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The Science of Anti-Scientific ThinkingYes, I am a Hungarian Jew as you surmised. And an interesting group, given the creativity in both science and the arts. I haven't read Leo Perutz, but will have to do so, so thanks for the heads-up. And I was vaguely acquainted with the theory that we are Khazars, having recently read Robert Byron's The Road to Oxiana, about the Middle-East in the 1930s. My father's father claimed to be able to trace his family in Hungary back to the 1500s, so what transpired between then and the Khazars in the 8th Century is a big gap. No doubt someone will do the genetics so we'll solve the mystery. There was an interesting study from U Utah (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 given Ashkenazi Jews have 10 IQ pts higher than average, but also have excessive neurodegenerative diseases, that the myelinization that promotes intelligence taken to excess is pathologic.
My interests in understanding the drivers of human intelligence run to my interest in the origins of the Holocaust, which I maintain was a result of ignorance and fear, so what ever we can do to inform is all to the better..... John############################
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 2:34 PM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
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.ama zon.com_Saint-2DPeters-2DSnow- 2DLeo-2DPerutz_dp_1611458862&d =DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI 4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1 IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBg jO2gOz4-A&m=8gWMLyW-4S0F8shA4p IvFIhkqtYAHRv8FfknvF-8PBc&s=jU CqzAP--Vu_4--9pqCh13JqvmXDTHfk 0_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.ama zon.com_Thirteenth-2DTribe-2DA rthur-2DKoestler_dp_0945001428 &d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7v CI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HP o1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIY BgjO2gOz4-A&m=8gWMLyW-4S0F8shA 4pIvFIhkqtYAHRv8FfknvF-8PBc&s= sJVEoiN5J576BZzOysp6BHoAOIue7v FZb2mtgy1FefU&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.wiki pedia.org_wiki_Khazars&d=DwIDa Q&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB 9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhK ClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz 4-A&m=8gWMLyW-4S0F8shA4pIvFIhk qtYAHRv8FfknvF-8PBc&s=fJxVLwSI maJW6ZBLP3YITakQcYy8zRSj5Hz1S7 jJ2O0&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. ITo unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
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 theTo unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
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 aboutwrite to: mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R
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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:
[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
write to: mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
write to: mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-
[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-
[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A= 1