[Humanist] 25.846 recursive-reflective

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Mon Mar 26 08:00:34 CEST 2012


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 25, No. 846.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org

  [1]   From:    Martin Mueller <martinmueller at northwestern.edu>           (42)
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 25.843 recursive-reflective again

  [2]   From:    Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>          (30)
        Subject: co-evolution

  [3]   From:    Jascha Kessler <urim1 at verizon.net>                        (52)
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 25.843 recursive-reflective again


--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:49:32 +0000
        From: Martin Mueller <martinmueller at northwestern.edu>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 25.843 recursive-reflective again
        In-Reply-To: <20120325075646.270582752F9 at woodward.joyent.us>

I wonder whether the simple 'iterative' doesn't describe the phenomenon
well enough. You have a project, and you go through some routines. Yu need
to do thing over again, but just as you never step into the same river
twice, the iteration is different, both in terms of the data you work with
and in terms of the tools you use and how you use them.



--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 15:10:32 +0100
        From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>
        Subject: co-evolution
        In-Reply-To: <20120325075646.270582752F9 at woodward.joyent.us>

Allison Muri's suggestion of "co-evolution" in Humanist 25.843 is, I 
think, the term I will use. As it happens this term has already been in 
circulation outside biology for quite some time. Bruce Mazlish used it 
in the subtitle of his 1993 book, The Fourth Discontinuity: The 
Co-Evolution of Humans and Machines, but as far as I can determine he 
does not discuss it, though he does talk about the metaphor of 
evolution. JoAnne Yates' 1993 article, “Co-Evolution of 
Information-Processing Technology and Use: Interaction between the Life 
Insurance and Tabulating Industries”, The Business History Review 67.1: 
1-51, defines the term “to denote contemporaneous and interacting 
developments of a technology and its use…” (p 5 fn 9); she points to 
Joel Baum's and Jitendra Singh's 1994 collection, Evolutionary Dynamics 
of Organizations, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

So, in the end, it was a matter of finding where the idea had started 
and in what fields it has surfaced.

One aspect of it is very old and has to do with Doppelgängers, magic 
mirrors and the like; the literature in which one finds the ancient 
Greek katoptron and Latin speculum has plenty of this sort of thing. But 
the transformations that recur, if I remember correctly, are one-offs. I 
gather that this is what Käte Meyer-Drawe is up to in Menschen im 
Spiegel ihrer Maschinen (2007). I am dealing with a developmental 
process, however, and so the biological-ecological metaphor is just right.

But I now wonder, did Stuart Brand discuss his use of the term in 
the Co-Evolution Quarterly?

Many thanks to everyone who pondered this on my behalf.

Yours,
WM
-- 
Professor Willard McCarty, Department of Digital Humanities, King's
College London; Professor (fractional), University of Western Sydney;
Editor, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews (www.isr-journal.org); Editor,
Humanist (www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist/); www.mccarty.org.uk/



--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 12:33:19 -0700
        From: Jascha Kessler <urim1 at verizon.net>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 25.843 recursive-reflective again
        In-Reply-To: <20120325075646.270582752F9 at woodward.joyent.us>


Evolution as a "co-"?  I have been under delusion or have been illuded to
assume that organisms that remain unreflected, simply fall into
nothingness.  A few remain to be, say, more virulent or successful, thanks
to a chance mutation that accept in certain amounts a new protein...?
Ms Muri's hypothesis is hopeful in its take on processes.  Evolution may
not be all that positive, except that what lives has been successful
forever, as it were.

Jascha Kessler


-- 
Jascha Kessler
Professor of English & Modern Literature, UCLA
Telephone/Facsimile: 310.393.4648
www.jfkessler.com
www.xlibris.com





More information about the Humanist mailing list