Dear Lawry,
Your 27/6 17:51 -0400 post should be an
evaluation of my analogy
"Biological/Social/Intellectual evolution can be seen as a
process by which weak Dynamic forces at a subatomic/subcellular/individual level
discover stratagems for overcoming huge static inorganic/biological/social
forces at a superatomic/supercellular/collective
level"
(That's what I asked for at
least.)
You write "Static patterns can
control systems at all levels, big or small, individual or collective. A
subsystem may be the place where dynamic change is launched upon the larger
system to which it belongs, or dynamic change can be initiated at the level of
the system-as-a-whole, and imposed upon its parts, including those parts that
would prefer to remain static."
This seems to me to only list logical
alternatives without evaluating which is most real or most Meaningful (in your
experience). I am not clear how your "systems" relate to my
"levels", either.
Do you understand biological patterns
to be a subsystem of social patterns and social patterns to be a subsystem of
intellectual patterns or the other way round? Or, if you understand
"systems" to be on one level only: What is the source of the Dynamic?
Why would either a subsystem or the system-as-a-whole "want" to change
if it is subject to the same laws as the rest of the level?
Do you mean to say that
biological/social/intellectual evolution can be driven by Dynamic forces at any
level below or on the biological/social/intellectual level itself?
That would mean that biological
evolution (the breaking up of biological patterns of value and the creation of
new and better ones) can be driven by biological organisms' drive to
live?
That would mean that social evolution
(the breaking up of social patterns of value and the creation of new and better
ones) can be driven by the human drive for status (depending on furthering the
collective "good")?
That would mean that intellectual
evolution (the breaking of intellectual patterns of value and the creation of
new and better ones) can be driven by individuals' drive for truth (true
representation of an external or internal world)?
Maybe that's right, but I am not sure
if that accounts for the creation of better static patterns of
value, patterns of value that create more freedom from the next lower level. The
drive to live would need to have some "consciousness" of the inorganic
level to "know" how to distance itself from it. The drive for status
would need to have some "consciousness" of the biological level and
the drive for truth some "consciousness" of the social level. In other
words: these drives would derive some itself (part of the "drive")
from a lower level.
I don't think that accounts for how
biological/social/intellectual evolution originate. They can't originate in
their own level, because that does not exist yet. They can't originate in the
next lower level, for that is what they are freeing and distancing themselves
from. So they must originate two levels lower.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
Nusselder
|
- MD Relations between levels Wim Nusselder
- Re: MD Relations between levels Dan Glover
- Re: MD Relations between levels Wim Nusselder
- RE: MD Relations between levels Lawrence DeBivort
- Re: MD Relations between levels Dan Glover
- Re: MD Relations between levels Dan Glover
- Re: MD Relations between levels Wim Nusselder
- Re: MD Relations between levels Wim Nusselder
- Re: MD Relations between levels Wim Nusselder