 |
|
Current group: sci.archaeology
Re: genes and language (Homer, Richard Dawkins)
|
|
| | From: | Franz Gnaedinger | | Subject: | Re: genes and language (Homer, Richard Dawkins) | | Date: | 16 Jan 2005 23:42:13 -0800 |
|
|
 |
Peter T. Daniels got me wrong many times over the past
weeks. In his latest reply to me he even placed me in
the same boat as a Canadian psychologist and Princeton
professor who wrote that the builders of the early
civilizations such as ancient Egypt were not conscious
in the human sense. Omigod. By Nut, Isis and Nephtys.
I am struggling against such prejudices since I was
a boy. Will I have to go on for ever? for the rest of
my life? Well then, I am ready, and got arguments for
a long time to come, but I shall argue in a way that
I and hopefully some of my readers will enjoy.
Animals got no language? I shall tell you about Nera,
a dog from India, who understood human language very
well and could speak with her white eyebrows in her
black face, and how she gave an open-air concert,
playing orchestra and conductor in personal union.
Hereupon I shall tell you how I observed a cat
reasoning, pondering a question of daily survival
and making her decision, much as a human does.
>From there I shall draw a line to human reasoning
and human language.
I'll teach you by means of telling examples, as did
the ancient Egyptians, who knew that the mind loves
to learn by drawing its own conclusions. They were
more conscious in the human sense than many of our
teachers and professors who stuff the mind of their
pupils with theorems and choke them with abstract
propositions, depriving them of a chance to learn
in a natural and pleasing way.
-
Franz Gnaedinger www.seshat.ch
> Genes and language, part 9 (the end, or rather
> a new begin ...)
>
> Let me go on drawing parallels between Homer's gods
> and the genes as understood by Richard Dawkins.
>
> Homer's deities have to cooperate, no matter how sly
> and greedy for power they are, and so have the genes,
> no matter how selfish they are.
>
> Darwin saw life as a permanent struggle, while we owe
> Lynn Margulis and others the insight that life is also
> based on symbiosis and cooperation. Language (in the
> wider sense of my framework of a general theory) comes
> from cooperation based on mutual dependence. Now, as
> the genes are obliged to cooperate, we may look out
> for a possible communication among the genes themselves.
>
> A recent article inScience (as I recall) proposed to
> see DNA as a language following its own rules. A brief
> outline of that article given in sci.lang electrified
> me: as genes depend of each other we can well expect
> some form of communication among them, a language that
> materialized first in RNA, then in DNA ...
>
> I see a Golden Age of linguistics dawning. Linguistics
> may become a key discipline of the Information Age,
> in high demand not only in the humanities, but also in
> informatics, biology, genetics, medicine, agriculture
> and terra forming. Imagine new therapies provided by
> an understanding of the communication among cells, among
> bacteria, and among genes, body and mind (as explained
> here in my series of 9 messages), or of soil improvement
> and transforming Mars into a habitat, which also require
> the understanding of communication among bacteria.
> -
> Regards Franz Gnaedinger www.seshat.ch
> -
> (Coming next: waking calls for Peter T. Daniels)
>
>
> > Genes and language, part 8
> >
> > Let me now ponder the possibility of messages from
> > genes to mind. Upon reading Richard Dawkins's book
> > "The Selfish Gene" I was reminded of Homer's gods.
> > The gods originally have been worshipped forebears,
> > which live on in our genomes (as explained in part 1),
> > and so I dare assume a natural link between gods and
> > genes. Considering Homer's gods one may find that
> > many of their miraculous abilitites, such as flying,
> > and talking over long distances, became realities
> > in modern civilization. Richard Dawkins speaks of
> > "extended phenotypes": the genes express themselves
> > in material culture, beyond the body limits. Homer
> > may confirm that concept: his gods and goddesses
> > were anticipating what we realized in modern times
> > (airplanes, rockets, Gemini and Apollo programs;
> > telephone, radio, television, the Web).
> >
> > The concept of extended phenotypes may also be of
> > interest for archaeology. Propagating is the genes'
> > first priority. Accordingly, the Goddess and her
> > abounding fertility played a most important role
> > in early times (have a look at the books by Marija
> > Gimbutas). The Goddess of many shapes was followed
> > by Zeus, the supreme god in Homer's pantheon: always
> > chasing women, founding lineage over lineage ...
> >
> > Nobody believes in Hera and Zeus anymore. Nobody prays
> > to them, hoping to change and improve his or her own
> > fate. We find Greek mythology poetic, if not childish.
> > We left that stage of mental evolution way behind us.
> > However, when we look at the Greek pantheon as extended
> > phenotypes of our genes and the possibilities they both
> > evoke and provoke, it may all appear in a new light ...
|
|
|
| | |
|
 |