On 5 Aug, 14:34, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > I guess but doesn't the word evolution conjour up betterment? > > You may even call a good person, the very best one you know an > evolvued being, but you certianly would not give the very worst person > you know the same label. >
I think that usage is not particularly scientific but more colloquial. Deane answer, below, is more the scientific view. Also, we must remember that "good person" couldn't possibly apply to those that are not "Homo Sapiens", yet evolution applies to ALL species. Thus, even if I train my dog to have perfect "Western" table manners, it's still not a 'good person'--might be a great dog and a helluva canine, but not a good person. And, of course, table manners are no show of evolution despite the fact that there are people who display them who feel that they are "a product of better breeding"; whereas, in truth, it might just be better 'training' (i.e., table manners is little more than 'stupid human tricks' and certainly doesn't demonstrate whether or not a person is 'good' or have any bearing on their evolution). As an aside to this and to link them together in a sideways kind of way, I suppose the habit that Englishmen have of 'holding the knife with the right hand' whether or not the individual is using it, MAY actually BE good evolution, as it affords them a better chance at defending themselves if attacked whilst eating!! > On 5 Aug, 13:22, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 5 Aug, 11:26, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > I think I disagree. > > > > In my little part of the world it seems that people are haveing less > > > to do with each other, I barely know my neigbours, we are still > > > fighting in Afganistan and Iraq, religious fundematlisim may be on the > > > rise. > > > > No I see little evidance of any evolution of relationships, and see > > > some for the opposite. > > > Could not the concept of 'evolution' be movement in either a positive > > or negative direction? And your experience is simply evolution in a > > negative direction. Remember: it's a spectrum!! > > > > On 3 Aug, 13:46, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > All aspects of human civilization—language, art, aesthetics, > > > > technology, architecture, organizations, governments—depend upon > > > > essential human relationships for their evolution and expression. > > > > > * Question: What is actually evolving? > > > > > * Answer: The quality and quantity of relationships between people, > > > > assuming the form of shared meanings, agreements, relationships and > > > > groups of relationships. The cultural domain is inter-subjective, > > > > because it exists between subjects, yet is often not objectively > > > > identifiable. But the fact that these shared spaces of meaning are not > > > > objectively identifiable does not hinder us from experiencing them as > > > > being real. As such, the subjective world includes not only individual > > > > consciousness but the inter-subjective domain of relationships as > > > > well, making the interior universe much more substantial. These > > > > relationships are real, yet they exist in the internal universe. The > > > > evolution of this internal universe accounts for the fact that women, > > > > children, and minorities now experience and possess more freedoms than > > > > in any time in written history. > > > > > What do YOU think? > > > > > For more: > > > > http://www.i-awake.net/2010/08/spiral-dynamics-introduction.html-Hidequoted > > > > text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
