Hi Kenneth, Hi All,
The article you quoted from, sounded a bit similar at least, or am I wrong ?
(subjective reading, so to say) Well, in fact I feel encouraged by this.
As said before, I found that my idea is working quite well on the biological and
the social level and more or less on the intellectual level - for immanent
reasons it is difficult here - while I assert most subjects of psychology to be
non-intellectual ones, i.e. biological and social. Why?!
To apply my idea to the inorganic level makes, admittedly, more problems.
Kenneth Van Oost wrote: (quoting from the memetics site)
> > Robert L. Carneiro
[...]
> > Students of social evolution are concerned not only with the general
> > course
> > it has followed, but also with the mechanisms that have brought it about.
> > One such mechanism comes into play when the quantitative increase in some
> > entity, usually population, reaching a certain threshold, gives rise to a
> > qualitative change in the structure of a society. This mechanism, first
> > recognized by Hegel, was seized on by Marx and Engels. However, neither
> > they
> > nor their current followers among anthropologists have made much use of it
> > in attempting to explain social evolution. But as this paper attempts to
> > show, in those few instances when the mechanism has been invoked, it has
> > heightened our understanding of the process of social evolution. And, it
> > is
> > argued, if the mechanism were more widely applied, further understanding
> > of
> > the course of evolution could be expected to result.
[...]
Johannes Volmert wrote on Sat, 25 Nov 2000
[...]
> What I try to figure out is the structure of Pirsig-levels, which I intend to
> dissect in smaller steps, called dimensions (working- concept only).
> Every of these dimensions represents a single step of additional quality. These
> dimensions have IMO a certain but nevertheless limited capacity. At the
> beginning of a new dimension/a new quality, there is a strong tendency to avoid
> (...I guess to avoid sharing with other organisms ALL dimensions, so at least
> one dimension).
> Next the 'systems' (your candidate- the votes please :-) ) start the cooperative
> strategy, because when they cannot avoid anymore they have to change strategies.
> And when a dimension is starting to be rather 'crowded' - so q-evolution
> conditions get harder - all involved 'valuebeings' tend to oust other riveling
> 'valuebeings', which in turn increases the possibilty of a new dimension. This
> is the moment when dynamic quality - once a large enough number of valuebeings
> reaching 'zones' of destabilisation - is doing it's best job.
[...]
What do you think?
Looking forward to replies,
wish you well,
JoVo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:53 BST