From: Michael Hamilton (thethemichael@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Jun 15 2005 - 14:51:25 BST
Hi everyone,
Just a quick comment on this exchange: if we'd only put BOTH elements, that
is to say, BOTH dynamic innovation and the static latches that preserve said
innovation, ON THE SAME FOOTING, then you could have saved a lot of words
and debate by realising that you're both correct. Without the individual
response to DQ advocated by Platt and Ham (and Rand), there would be no
innovation. Without the public/social network of shared ideas and concepts
advocated by Paul and JoVo, these innovations could not be preserved, and
moreover, could not be used as a springboard for further innovation in
response to DQ.
What Paul and JoVo are stressing is that springboard effect, i.e. that an
individual is very poorly equipped to innovate in response to DQ without the
network of socially inherited patterns gained from the surrounding cultural
environment.
But, taking Platt and Ham's protests into account, it becomes clear that
EVERY part of that network of socially inherited patterns was once a dynamic
innovation by an individual or group of individuals. Hence, the network
cannot exist without the efforts of individuals throughout history, but
conversely, these indivdual efforts were make possible by the network.
That's DQ/SQ interaction, that magical thing we call evolution.
Regards,
Mike
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 15 2005 - 15:49:33 BST