From: "James Kennedy" <jameske3001-AT-clara.co.uk> Subject: Re: Lambda and the List Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 13:31:48 +0100 Zatavu, I think that you are jumping the gun a little bit to claim that Lamarckian inheritance has no place in biology for the reason that it is as yet unknown as to what extent, if any, that culture is the result of genetics, or whether there are unknown biological variables by which culture could be effected. Nietzsche placed a lot of emphasis on the importance of creativity in his works, and it is certainly well known in Psychological fields that creativity has a genetic component. However, this does not yet confirm a link between culture and biology directly for despite the fact that genetics bears a relation to creativity it does not necessarily bear any relation to what is created. In this way, creativity is to be considered in current theory as a ground upon which culture is superimposed. Nevertheless, it remains the case that in the light of a genetic basis of creativity that there may be further developments in biology that shed light on the issue. As for Lambda's attacks, well I don't think they achieve anything of any worth for me but he seems adamant on continuing them. It may be that he delights in it and so it has worth for him. jameske ----- Original Message ----- From: <zatavu-AT-excite.com> To: <nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 8:30 PM Subject: Lambda and the List > I think Lambda has more than proven his complete lack of worth, let alone is > complete ignorance. Lamarckian evolution? Giraffes have long necks because > they kept stretching them to get more leaves? Lamarckian evolution makes > sense in explaining cultural evolution, but it is pure foolishness in > biology and has been proven wrong definitively. Who still thinks this? How > can one's thinking be stuck in the early 19th Century? And this is just one > thing. He attacks people he doesn't even know, accusing them of being things > when he doesn't know who they are in the first place. He engages in ad > hominem attacks on people who he doesn't even know personally and whose > words he does not even bother to actually read or try to understand. In > fact, his ability to understand, based on his writings I have read to date, > is most clearly in doubt. He makes comments about other > thinkers/philosophers that are nonsense, and he interprets anything he > quotes in such a way that what the writer actually said is lost. Take the > quote he gave about philosophy being nauseous. He mistakes the ideas being > nauseous with the writing itself and the personality of the person being > nauseous. One doesn't have to be a jackass to make philosophy nauseous. In > fact, writing and acting this way only works to obfuscate what you are > trying to say (if anything). Indeed, this is the tactic of those who in fact > have nothing to say. Lambda certainly does not. All he can do is parrot > Nietzsche - and he has only learned to parrot out of context, and only the > bad words (so to speak). In that respect, he is a true parrot, not knowing > what he is saying, but only saying things to get a reaction. I don't talk to > parrots. It is a waste of time. And for that reason, I find it highly > unlikely that, from now on, I will respond to Lambda ever again. Unless, of > course, he does decide to engage in true discourse. There is even a > posibility for Lambda to mature, as hard as it may be to imagine at the > present time. Perhaps I am merely being a naive optimist in hoping this. But > then, I am in good company. Who was a more naive optimist than Nietzsche? > > Troy Camplin > > > > > > _______________________________________________________ > Say Bye to Slow Internet! > http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html > > > > --- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > --- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005