Everything is inherited, except that which inherits it?

Everything is inherited, except that which inherits it?

The statement itself seems to be a reasonable enough deduction in and of itself, as that which inherits, - the given, cannot be the same as the thing or notion yielded unto it.

In terms of who and what we are then, everything we observe about ourselves can be reduced to an inheritance of one kind or another. Except that is, our individuality, as that to me is the thing inheriting and not the thing being inherited [as per the opening notion].

_

:-k

Let me babble a little. Initially I had no idea on how to respond to this post but at the same time found it fascinating. I am inclined to agree with the original notion.

I have a slightly different way of understanding this notion - it put my mind to the idea of intelligent imitation. The idea of intelligent imitation is that throughout life we look at the way other people behave and the things they do like work, leisure and the like. We choose the things that we see around us that we value, and then imitate these things. We imitate these things a little different than the original person or thing. We are individuals that imitate what we inherit from our surroundings. Our individuality is in this sense, the thing that is doing the inheriting.

:-k

Is ‘valuing’ always required, and is it fundamental or an abstraction? In other words do the simplest of creatures value and can they even think to such a degree. I think we learn by mirroring if that’s what you mean, but we also learn via instinct, so nature sometimes takes over [especially for infants] and THEN we know how to do something.

Right! In fact here we don’t even need to notions like individuality, after all, if we attempt to define that, we would be describing something else. ~ an inheritance and not the inheritee if you will. All we need to do here is agree/disagree with the principle that you cannot only have inherited things I.e. without something which is inheriting that. If you agree, then individuality = true. …and is fundamental.

_

@Amorphos - you are going to make me work for this one, lol. I like it.

:smiley:

Is valuing always required? Not at all; there have been times where peer pressure has caused imitations. Is valuing fundamental or an abstraction? Off the top of my head I would say it is an abstraction. I would surmise the simplest of creatures cannot think to such a degree.

“I think we learn by mirroring if that’s what you mean” I do believe the context is the same. Learning via instinct gives me some food for thought - thank you for that. I totally agree with “so nature sometimes takes over [especially for infants] and THEN we know how to do something.”

“individuality = true. …and is fundamental”

I agree individuality is true. I can see how individuality could be fundamental especially to biological entities. Individuality is not necessarily fundamental to other entity systems but then I can see that is not what you are talking about here so I will leave well enough alone.

You make me use my head Amorphos - I was questioning everything I was typing - I am still not sure whether I am one hundred percent happy with my posts.

:-k

Encode_decode
Your posts are fine, they make me think too, and so the whole wheel of knowledge turns…

Its kinda key tho [sry to hurt your head lol] I think that to know a thing it must be experienced, the tree in the forest is being heard without the presence of humans. Where there is time, there will be the personification of time [father time in druidism], where there is motherhood and femininity or masculinity and fatherhood, there will be the personifications of those things. In nature the masculine and feminine are arrived at, so to me that suggests that, as like the trees in the forest do make a sound when falling, the generality of feminine/masculine will be personified. To experience there must be an identifier, then for that [identifier] there needs a persona ~ the individual to wit inheritance is yielded.

A further simplification is if we use the metaphor of two torches. If we take two observers [each like a torch shining a beam], then the act of observing makes it so that the observed is the objects in the eye of the observer. They can only know themselves by informing one another of their objectivity. Its like, ‘hey you’re a torch, yes, and you are too’, > they can only know what that means by the entire experience. The identity is there [the object] but is only revealed by inherited information, which primarily would be to us, instincts. I think this must be kinda fundamental akin to a machine and its functions, but humans are far more complex and not to mention collectively both the observer and the observed.

Oh and all of reality is like that [before physics etc].

_

I was hoping “leave well enough alone” would encourage further discourse.

At the time I had the number one in my head. Lots of ones actually. Like your torches. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . Each 1 is individual but by what virtue. They all share the same fundamentality. They inherit the same fundamentality. They are the inheritors. They are individual.

It was something like that.

The ones have reflexive, symmetric and a transitive relations but what can we say of the fundamentality - is the fundamentality just an equivalence relation? And for the fundamentality - what has it inherited? if from nothing else then a definition from the ones maybe - this then would be Self-referential - an ouroboros. Cyclical in its nature - the one is the fundamentality - the fundamentality is the one. This would be indicative of projection in that the one projects itself back to it’s source - This would also be indicative of the source projecting itself onto all of the ones. The source being the fundamentality.

But there is a beautiful difference between your original notion and this ouroboros.