If DNA is a linguistic illusion, how does one explain the genomic traits of families and species?
It's all very confusing, I don't deny it, probably because "they" like it to be so. In the "real" world (of action), shape and behaviour are closely tied together; that is, in the active milieu of social and physical interactions.
I happened to read that Prince Philip became allied to Kurt Hahn owing to a school he established in Salem, Germany. Forced to flee the Nazis, Hahn established first Gordonstoun, then the international colleges cited previously (see Princess Leonor of Spain).
Prince Philip went to Gordonstoun and thrived in the rough milieu of physical activities that honed skill and courage and discipline.
The point is that DNA is like the scholastic side of studies without the connection to a natural world of roughness and hardship to imbue strength and valour (here the Moray Firth and sailing).
The end result of that track is to become robots a LA Putin (despite his physical pursuits!)
The real problem.with advance is this becomes tied to words and numbers. The same applies to the determining of protein shape by algorithm (see prev on Oxford cyber-bio research). Proteins fold as a spontaneous function, and the entire process of morphogenesis is a spontaneous function.
The entire process is shape-dependent and behavioural. Families are shape-dependent (physique) and behavioural.
The fact is that we live in a highly convincing illusion of words and numbers, of which DNA is a principle component (neo-Darwinism, prev.)
Information, as previously noted, is tied to sameness. The sameness leads to distance from nature, which is the metamorphosis of line in families and species.
The differences in nature are tied by the similarities of metamorphosis. Therefore in nature Man is allied to the horse - through line. It is the similarity of differences.
DNA, because it is pure information, is thoroughly imbued by linguistic illusions (such as phenotype and memes). This is the world we live in; the world of the linguistic politician and spokesman.
If we"re talking shape and behaviour, then we're talking families and the milieux they inhabit. The milieu is simply the next stage of development to the development of a family, akin to a tribe.
The natural state of development in this sense is to have aristocratic lineages, especially of landowning gentry. In America, the rough equivalent would be ranchers.
The real point is that a milieu is nothing to do with DNA; it's to do with the shapes of things, both animate and inanimate. Obviously, this is bound to include ecology, which is the higher level of development of living things.
The strength and discipline of development of individuals occurs within such milieux. It is a world of differences and similarities of line.
That world of strength is the contrary to DNA because of the linguistic trap that accompanies information. It is a very convincing illusion (of words and numbers, or ones and zeros).
The illusion is almost as described in Jirel Meets Magic (prev), where a dual-tone note is reflected and repeated endlessly to create a discordant reality ().
That discordant illusion of endless coridors is akin to a sterile hospital (see prev on Musk). It harbours weakness, while the fecundity of nature harbours strength (Prince Philip, I read, in the four weeks he was in hospital, was trying to get out so he could die at home.)
A hospital and anything of that order such as a scientific lab, is a manifestation of pure order (sun). Once these things dominate the all-important balance and symmetry are lost.
We are led by a certain type of linguist who makes of that world a linguistic illusion. As Radin has said (prev), in tribal societies there are two main types of individuals; the introspective/neurotic shaman, and the everyday man or man and woman of action.
Neither of these are actively prevalent in modern societies. This points to their essentially illusory natures, both psychically (shaman) and physically (the man of action.)
The counteraction to the linguistic illusion, it is also true to say, are the old aristocratic families of Europe and Russia. In America, the Western ranchers and cattlemen.
I'm not really arguing this from a right-wing perspective, more from a linguistic-phobic perspective of extreme cynicism. Our fantasms are somewhat allied to Howard's sorcerous ones.
