List, On the biosemiotics forum last year I posted on what I perceived as the potential importance of "knowing how to be" and here is an interesting link that might provide further support for this idea: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140805132526.htm
Could this be further evidence suggesting that even atoms, molecules and subatomic particles also have to "know how to be?" Knowing how to be... the great law of the void, the universe, male/female, space/time, and being. sj -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Jarosek [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 22 November 2013 3:46 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [biosemiotics:3941] Re: Quantum Revolution in Biology may Could "knowing how to be" be the most important, universal missing ingredient? A few simple, direct examples: 1) The field of memetics is one scientist's attempt (Richard Dawkins) to somehow account for the impact that is "knowing how to be" - only he didn't frame it in that context. Imitation (as memetics describes it) is indeed one way of "knowing how to be", but it is a subset of umwelt cues. Imitation is neither an "instinct" in the DNA nor a subroutine in a "brain-as-computer". Imitation relates to every organism's most primal impulses... "how do I fit in here? What are the things that matter?" 2) The odds of someone selecting a particular career, whether they become professionals or work-class, policemen, scientists, nurses or salesmen, is contingent on the people that they surround themselves (class, status, etc) - every person has to learn how to be; 3) A human infant raised among wolves knows how to be a wolf, insofar as his mind-body predispositions can resonate with wolf mind-body predispositions (pragmatism), and in doing so, becomes a "feral child"; 4) A nonhuman infant (like a cat or a dog) raised among humans knows how to be a human, insofar as its mind-body predispositions can resonate with human mind-body predispositions (again, pragmatism and how entities define the things that matter), and in doing so, becomes a domestic animal; 5) A stem cell raised among liver cells will know how to become a liver cell. A stem cell raised among neurons will know how to be a neuron. Can we see where we are going with this? Could it be that even atomic and subatomic particles have to "know how to be?" And once we embark on this kind of trajectory, once we establish how mind-bodies relate to their umwelts, what other questions do we become compelled to address? What about the nature of infinity? Void? Space? Developments in complexity theory, systems science, etc, would get some traction from incorporating "knowing how to be" into their framework. I just received an email in my inbox linking to a video of Kevin Richardson's amazing relationship with lions... lions also have to know how to be... as does Kevin Richardson. "Knowing how to be" is perhaps the most important casualty of the established, mainstream paradigm and the "objectivist" agenda. sj
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
