Kriminel said to dmb: So Dave, you think ideas and societies do not evolve? Or do they evolve on the basis of some supernatural principle?
dmb says: Neither. I'm following James and Pirsig in saying that mechanistic explanations of evolution are empty and the idea that it is all driven by the desire for mere survival is a ridiculous concept. But denying the fact of evolution or attributing it to supernatural forces is even more ridiculous, of course, and I'm certainly not suggesting any such thing. [Krimel] What would a "mechanistic" explanation of evolution involve? It sounds awful like we should all be down on it but just which evil bastards are proposing such a thing. Every time you mention James's name my short creep up my butt. It's like you read him in sentences and think you get it. The quote you used get's trotted out a lot apparently but it comes from a review that has little or nothing to do with evolution. In his collected essays there follows one on Herbert Spencer that should be more to the point. I would have read it but I was too busy trying to find the relevance of the earlier quote to the point you tried to make or to anything at all. dmb replied: Huh? Isn't eugenics based on classic social darwinism, a.k.a. amoral survival of the fittest? [Krimel] No, eugenics is based on animal husbandry. [dmb] As I understand it, evolution is driven by the desire for betterness and survival is just one particular species of better. Better is a relational concept of course. [Krimel] Evolution is a response to change nothing more. Attaching personal preference for what is "better" is juvenile. You know when you talk like this it make me want to provide remedial lessons. If you don't want lesson quit talking like you need them. [dmb] There is something we desire beyond the preservation and perpetution of existence. In a million billion tiny ways everything moves toward bettterness, single celled organisms and philosophers are going to be dealing with entirely different kinds of better, but this is what drives evolution in any context. [Krimel] Change drives evolution. Chance drives evolution. Betterness is in the eye of the beholder. [dmb] I think of it as an impulse to transcend any given situation that doesn't seem quite good enough, whether that means moving away from physical danger or inventing a new metaphysics. Betterness is a vague word, but there is a clear and basic idea in it. It implies a will at work in all these tiny particular cases, not a blind mechanism. [Krimel] Whether or not pie is better ala mode or with cheese may involve "betterness" but this is of no consequence to evolution. Evolution is about how what is left over gets left over. [dmb] A positivist might see volition as some kind of miracle, but I don't. It seems quite natural and completely ubiquitous. It makes a heck of a lot more sense because evolutionary theory has to account for improvement, not just change and variety. There is an apparent direction that can't be explained in terms of mechanisms, functional fit or random mutations. [Krimel] Again you invite a lecture. Please read a book on the subject and stop talking this trash. Improvement? In what? moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
