my quest for formulating a unified proof linking genetic and epigenetic inheritance through the artifice of the roots of culture and language has been going on for many years. it has crossed me with theologists, scientists, philosophers, doctors, professors, and self-styled or self-proclaimed types of all of the above. the superstructure of this desire has been evident to me for many years, but the flesh of it, the meat and sinews, shows itself to me seductively and in a rather slapdash manner. trying to figure out a way to coalesce everything i have found is like a silhouette painting of a nude woman, or a pair of almond eyes darting away from my direct eye contact, floating above a veil. even my descriptions of the process mislead. words are the most feeble atoms to build a universe from.
i truly and wholeheartedly believe there is a communal pool of memory that has its genesis in our biological predecessors, and the depths and width of that pool is what spawned many of our universal fears, myths, and deistic tendencies. i believe that pool has been passed on, and changed over time; through genetics, through selection, and, i believe, that environmental factors have led to a far deeper exchange of that genetic data than simple Lamarckian model.
i have just come to the conclusion that there is very little difference between my belief and quest, with all it’s scattered informational trappings, and testable proofs on a micro level (but not macro) and the zealous belief of a deist’s immovable faith. the differences that do exist are significant - a pillar in my belief system is something which i strive to prove through fact, not subscribe to faith. while there are some factually blended faiths out there, the majority of them are just faiths. the other major difference is causality. what i am looking for is not greater meaning as to why we are here, or why the universe exists - those are questions i have my own answers to which lie outside the thesis i seek. there is no intercession to the past to change the present, nor any higher order to bargain, plead to, or cajole into making things go your way.
i will have to be very wary of attempts to discredit what i am working on through ad hominem and straw man attacks.
anyone out there know what i am babbling about, or, if you do know, care?
i truly and wholeheartedly believe there is a communal pool of memory that has its genesis in our biological predecessors, and the depths and width of that pool is what spawned many of our universal fears, myths, and deistic tendencies. i believe that pool has been passed on, and changed over time; through genetics, through selection, and, i believe, that environmental factors have led to a far deeper exchange of that genetic data than simple Lamarckian model.
i have just come to the conclusion that there is very little difference between my belief and quest, with all it’s scattered informational trappings, and testable proofs on a micro level (but not macro) and the zealous belief of a deist’s immovable faith. the differences that do exist are significant - a pillar in my belief system is something which i strive to prove through fact, not subscribe to faith. while there are some factually blended faiths out there, the majority of them are just faiths. the other major difference is causality. what i am looking for is not greater meaning as to why we are here, or why the universe exists - those are questions i have my own answers to which lie outside the thesis i seek. there is no intercession to the past to change the present, nor any higher order to bargain, plead to, or cajole into making things go your way.
i will have to be very wary of attempts to discredit what i am working on through ad hominem and straw man attacks.
anyone out there know what i am babbling about, or, if you do know, care?
- Current Mood:
anxious
Profile
delascabezas- The Son of the last of a long line of thinkers.
- delascabezas.com
Comments
Yeah, I don't know what you're talking about.
i have to say while i find your ideas and discussion fascinating, in my gut i have to hope that what you're positing is not true. otherwise i would be doomed to act out some of the very traits that i hate that oppressed, xenophobic asian people have been carrying around (and acting on) for thousands of years.
i have to hope there is an escape and a fresh start for myself.
i'm with you, brother. my father is part scandinavian--hence he rowed, sailed, practiced law and married a red-headed woman. he also loves sod-roofed houses, which are scandinavian, and eats herring like its going out of style. why would he like all of these random scandinavian things if he weren't scandinavian? he wouldn't.
i am glad that you agree, but the reasoning is far more difficult to prove than the supposition based on observation or common sense.
basically, a dual inheritance model flies in the face of occam's razor, which doesn't immidiately discredit its viability, but it starts the trek on a very steep inlcine.
i didn't understand your third paragraph, but that's ok. we can talk more about this when i come home for good in 7 weeks. yay!
If only that was something we could direct......it would def speed up the whole ife process.
I'd say more, but it's 5:15, and I'm headed home.
I would connect the two with the idea that accessing a universal pool in a set manner over a period if time encourages genetic lines to process it in the same manner. Leading to shared proclivities.
while i do agree that the pool of potential is limited by the genetics of the preceeding generation(s), i think that potentiality is linked in a ratio to a percentage of the population which still has some shreds of that communal experience bleeding through their grey matter. the ones with more than shreds are shapers, the rest are all seeking it.
Breaking down into sense:
Given that a result of any chemical reaction is the release or alteration of energy, the biochemical reactions B describes can be no different. Since he described them as a sort of ripple or waves in a pool, i would color that by saying that the energy released is most likely brainwaves, a measurable form of energy, and therefor something controlled by the Laws.
It brings up a ton of questions. What is communal experience? Why does it affect your personality? How does it do so? Why does it matter whether 50 people have it or 50 million people have it, if this is only passed along genetically or epigenetically? Why would communal experience make one a shaper? If some people have zero communal experience what does that mean? Why?
I dunno. I still think the concept has merit, but blogs are probably not the best place to discuss these things ...