| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Immortalist" |
| Date: |
19 Apr 2004 01:28:06 PM |
| Object: |
Empedocles of Acragas - Evolutionary Theory B.C. |
Empedocles of Acragas 495-435 B.C. (in Sicily), postulated that the universe
was composed of four basic elements -- earth, air, fire, and water. These
elements were stirred by two fundamental forces, which Empedocles called
Love and Strife. ("Attraction" and "repulsion" might be better modern terms
for what Empedocles actually meant.)
Together these two principles govern the totality of existence while
bringing about cyclical changes, depending on whether Yin or Yang assumes
dominance. This is not unlike Empedocles who contends that the history of
the universe is cyclic and eternal and the primary moving factors are Love
and Strife.
The constant interplay of these elements, alternately attracting and
repelling each other, had formed the universe. Empedocles claimed that the
Earth had given birth to living creatures, but that the first creatures had
been disembodied organs.
These organs finally joined into whole organisms, through the force of Love,
but some of these organisms, being monstrous and unfit for life, had died
out.
The theory seems a bit bizarre today, but Empedocles had come up with a sort
of evolutionary theory: past natural selection is responsible for the forms
we see today.
Empedocles also ascribed the origin of the life of today to the interplay of
impersonal forces, in which chance, not the gods, played the major role. He
may have been influenced by existing accounts of mythological creatures that
seemed to be "put together" out of the parts of different animals, such as
centaurs, sphinxes, and chimeras. But perhaps he had also seen deformed
animals, or examined "monstrous-looking" fossil bones.
According to Empedocles, all matter periodically contracts and expands.
Under the power of Love everything unites until there is only "The One" - a
divine and homogeneous sphere. Then the sphere dissolves under the rising
power of Strife and the world is established in a series of stages until it
reaches a state of complete dissolution. History then reverses itself, and
the universe gradually returns to the state of the irreducible sphere. This
cosmic cycle rolls on repeatedly without beginning and without end.
In his own words: "I will tell a two-fold story. At one time they [the
elements] grew to be alone from being many, and at another they grew apart
again to be many from being one. Double is the generation of mortal things,
double their passing away: one is born and destroyed by the congregation of
everything, the other is nurtured and flies apart as they grow apart again.
And these never cease their continual change, now coming by Love all into
one, now again all being carried apart by the hatred of Strife. Thus insofar
as they have learned to become one from many and again become many as the
one grows apart, to that extent they come into being and have no lasting
life; but insofar as they never cease their continual change, to that extent
they exist forever, unmoving in a circle. [...]
And in addition to them nothing comes into being or ceases. For if they were
continually being destroyed they would no longer exist. And what would
increase the size of the universe? And whence might it come? And where
indeed might it perish, since nothing is empty of them? But these themselves
exist, and passing through one another they become different at different
times - and are ever and always the same." (Simplicius, Commentary on
Physics, 31.30 ff)
This can be wrapped up in precise scientific terms. The last passage
expresses the idea that the sum of all things in the universe is constant.
Since we know that matter can be transformed into energy this is not quite
correct, but we may disregard this subtlety because Empedocles made no
distinction between matter and energy. The basic idea still holds in view of
Einstein's principle of mass-energy conservation. Moreover, Empedocles'
cosmology can be thought of as an anticipation of modern cosmology if we
identify the state of complete unity with the hypothetical state of all
matter being condensed into energy at the moment of the Big Bang. Since our
universe is presently expanding, according to Empedocles, we would then live
in the age of (rising) Strife.
Empedocles seems to have devoted special attention to the study of living
organisms. Plants first sprang from the earth before it was illumined by the
sun; and then came animals, which were evolved out of all sorts of monstrous
combinations of organisms by a kind of survival of the fit; for those only
survived which were capable of subsisting. In this theory Empedocles
expressly includes man.
The cause of growth in animals and plants is fire striving upwards impelled
by the desire to reach its like, the fire which is in the sky. Blood is the
seat of the soul, because in blood the elements are best united.{23} It is
by reason of the movement of the blood that inspiration and respiration take
place through the pores which are closely packed together all over the body.
Psychological Doctrines. Sense-knowledge is explained by the doctrine of
emanations and pores. Like is known by like, that is, things are known to us
by means of like elements in us, "earth by earth, water by water," etc.{ In
the case of sight, there is an emanation from the eye itself, which goes out
to meet the emanation from the object. Thought and intelligence are ascribed
to all things, no distinction being made between corporeal and incorporeal.
Thought, therefore, like all other vital activities, depends on the mixture
of the four elements. Yet Empedocles seems to contrast the untrustworthiness
of sense-knowledge with knowledge acquired by reflection, or rather with
knowledge acquired by all the powers of the mind. He did not conceive the
soul as composed of elements; he did not consider it as an entity apart from
the body; he merely explained its activities by the constitution of the
body. In his sacred poem, however, he adopted the doctrine of
transmigration, borrowing it from Pythagorean and Orphic tradition, without
making it part of his scientific theories. "Once ere now I was a youth, and
a maiden, a shrub, a bird, and a fish that swims in silence in the sea."
Concerning the Gods. Empedocles sometimes speaks as if he held the common
polytheistic belief. Sometimes, on the contrary, as in verses 345 to 350, he
describes the Deity almost in the words of Xenophanes: "He is sacred and
unutterable mind, flashing through the whole world with rapid thoughts."
Still, Empedocles apparently found no means of introducing this concept of
the Deity into his account of the origin of the universe.
Historical Position. While Empedocles holds a recognized place among the
Greek poets, and while Plato and Aristotle appear to rank him highly as a
philosopher, yet scholars are not agreed as to his precise place in the
history of pre-Socratic speculation. Ritter classes him with the Eleatics,
others count him among the disciples of Pythagoras, while others again place
him among the Ionians on account of the similarity of his doctrines to those
of Heraclitus and the early Physicists. The truth, as Zeller says, seems to
be that there is in the philosophy of Empedocles an admixture of all these
influences, -- Eleatic (denial of Becoming, untrustworthiness of the
senses), Pythagorean (doctrine of transmigration), and Ionic (the four
elements and love and hatred, -- these being an adaptation of Heraclitean
ideas). It would be a mistake, however, to underestimate the originality of
Empedocles as a philosopher. It was he who introduced the notion of element,
fixed the number of elements, and prepared the way for the atomistic
mechanism of Leucippus. The defects, however, of his metaphysical system are
many, chief among them being, as Aristotle remarked, the omission of the
idea of an intelligent Ruler under whose action natural processes would be
regular instead of fortuitous.
Empedocles was remarkably ahead of his time. He made several noteworthy
statements, such as that the moon would shine by reflected light and that
solar eclipses are caused by the interposition of the moon. He held that
light takes time to travel, but so little time that we cannot observe it. He
also discovered at least one example of the centrifugal force: if a cup of
water is whirled round at the end of a string, the water does not flow out.
In addition, Empedocles conceived of a fanciful version of the theory of
evolution which included the idea of survival of the fittest. He stated that
in prehistoric times strange creatures had populated the world of which only
certain forms had survived. Though, it must be granted that Empedocles'
vision is somewhat crude and bizarre, compared to the painstaking
investigation that led Darwin to the same conclusion two thousand three
hundred years later.
It is remarkable how many of Empedocles' ideas have turned out to be
correct. In addition to his belief in the finite velocity of light he also
developed a crude evolutionary theory based on the survival of the fittest.
He also had a form of the law of conservation of energy and had a theory of
constant proportions in chemical reactions. His ideas, although they had
little influence on the development of science, can be seen in the light of
our current scientific knowledge to be quite incredible. If we have to
explain how such prophetically correct ideas could have such little
influence we have to agree with the philosopher Hans Reichenbach who, in a
book published in 1957, said (see [1]):-
.... a good idea stated within an insufficient theoretical frame loses its
explanatory power and is forgotten.
http://www.thebigview.com/greeks/empedocles.html
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/empedocl.htm
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Empedocles.html
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/presoc/emp.htm
http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/emped.htm
http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/hop04.htm
http://www.xenodochy.org/rekphd/chapter1.html
.
|
|
| User: "Luke Sineath" |
|
| Title: Re: Empedocles of Acragas - Evolutionary Theory B.C. |
19 Apr 2004 06:01:35 PM |
|
|
... a good idea stated within an insufficient theoretical frame loses its
explanatory power and is forgotten.
Yep, it's amazing how much the Greeks came up with...they thought up nearly
everything.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Empedocles of Acragas - Evolutionary Theory B.C. |
19 Apr 2004 11:22:18 PM |
|
|
"Luke Sineath" <l.v.sineath45688@att.net> wrote in message
news:jTYgc.4389$um3.120490@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
... a good idea stated within an insufficient theoretical frame loses
its
explanatory power and is forgotten.
Yep, it's amazing how much the Greeks came up with...they thought up
nearly
everything.
I don't know if you could say they thought up everything but they considered
alot of things other cultures or societies around them wouldn't allow to be
talked or thought about.
It was all the hills and valleys and isolated areas which created a
pluralism of approaches and ideas. It was hard to have a federal authority
and so many ideas went their way.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Empedocles of Acragas - Evolutionary Theory B.C. |
19 Apr 2004 06:38:21 PM |
|
|
Luke Sineath <l.v.sineath45688@att.net> wrote:
... a good idea stated within an insufficient theoretical frame loses its
explanatory power and is forgotten.
Yep, it's amazing how much the Greeks came up with...they thought up nearly
everything.
But nothing resembling evolution.
For a theory to be evolutionary, you need to have the following criteria
met (as whiggishly imposed in terms of modern evolutionary theory):
1. Species must be held to transform into new species in some manner
2. The process must be time-directional, not cyclical
3. Adaptation, if a feature of the theory (as in the Empedoclean
version) must apply continuously, not once in the beginning and never
thereafter
There are a number of theories or models that go by the name
"evolutionary" and so far as I can tell none of them were proposed by
the Greeks. There is no idea of common descent, of transmutation, of
ongoing selection, either "natural" or "sexual", of biogeographic
distribution, or of heredity in the sense now applied (of course
Epicurus did have a notion of heredity, as did Aristotle, but the
latter's was entelechical and formal, whiel the former's was a mere
notice that things resembled parents, hardly a theory).
The notion that it was all discovered by the Greeks is down to Samuel
Butler's _Luck or Cunning_ or Henry Fairfield Osborn's _From the Greeks
to Darwin_. Both were neo-Lamarckians, and Butler in fact was motivated
because of an imagined slight from Darwin.
I have a page up at the Talkorigins.org site on Darwin's Precursors:
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwin-precursors.html>
Butler, Samuel. 1886. Luck, or Cunning, as the Main Means of Organic
Modification? An attempt. London, 1887: Trübner & Co.
Osborn, Henry Fairfield. 1894. From the Greeks to Darwin: An outline of
the development of the evolution idea, Columbia University Biological
Series. I. New York: Macmillan.
--
John Wilkins
john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au http://www.wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Empedocles of Acragas - Evolutionary Theory B.C. |
19 Apr 2004 11:37:45 PM |
|
|
"John Wilkins" <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gcjbi2.1wmspj34hhm0qN%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au...
Luke Sineath <l.v.sineath45688@att.net> wrote:
... a good idea stated within an insufficient theoretical frame loses
its
explanatory power and is forgotten.
Yep, it's amazing how much the Greeks came up with...they thought up
nearly
everything.
But nothing resembling evolution.
True. Well the love and strife and change and all was a kinda evolution. But
as for your conditions for some class of ideas being an evolution any Greek
or Roman sports enthuisiest would understand with competitions and playoffs
and team changes and styles. But I agree.
For a theory to be evolutionary, you need to have the following criteria
met (as whiggishly imposed in terms of modern evolutionary theory):
Not so says many people much more up there than you lowely news group
surfer, but I don't know if I agree with them yet. First here are just two
of the new books you might have a hard time refuting:
A challenger of the orthodox "neo-Darwinist" interpretation of evolution,
microbiologist Margulis has made her professional mark touting an
alternative: symbiogenesis. She and coauthor (and son) Sagan have presented
their ideas in earlier popular works (What Is Life?, 1995), but never as
vigorously as in this volume. Essentially, the debate between neo-Darwinists
and Margulis hinges on the definition of a species, and the manner in which
a new one appears. To Margulis and Sagan, the neo-Darwinist model, which
asserts random gene mutation as the source of inherited variations, is
"wildly overemphasized," and to support their view, they delve deeply into
the world of microbes. They detail the anatomy of cells with and without
nuclei, positing a process of genome ingestion that creates a new species.
Surprisingly, the upshot of Margulis' theories is the rehabilitation of Jean
Baptiste de Lamarck, whose theory that supposedly acquired traits are
hereditary has been ridiculed for 150 years. Polemical and provocative,
Margulis and Sagan's work should set many to thinking that evolution has not
yet been completely figured out.
Acquiring Genomes: The Theory of the Origins of the Species
by Lynn Margulis, Dorion Sagan, Ernst Mayr
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465043925/qid%3D1082435549/
Darwin himself recognized that a crucial missing piece to his theory of
evolution was a mechanism for heredity. Genetics seemed to solve the puzzle,
evolution's so-called neo-Darwinian synthesis being championed most notably
by the great biologist Ernst Mayr (What Evolution Is [BKL D 1 01]). Yet this
orthodoxy has had its doubters, and their stories unfold in this work. The
joining of two organisms to produce a new species, symbiogenesis, is the
fuel for skeptics. Ryan recounts how their arguments have fared for the past
century. Darwinists consistently rejected symbiogenesis until circa 1960,
when it became undeniable that some structures of the cell, such as
mitochondria, had once existed independently. Ryan's discourse dwells much
on the theorized evolutionary past of the cell, and on experts such as the
most famous champion of symbiotic evolution, microbiologist Lynn Margulis,
whose most recent popular work is Acquiring Genomes [BKL Je 1 & 15 02]. Ryan
peppers his presentation with eclectic characters--Who would expect
anarchist Prince Peter Kropotkin to figure in symbiosis? With an accessible
reportorial style, Ryan enlivens a minority view of evolution.
Darwin's Blind Spot: Evolution Beyond Natural Selection
by Frank Ryan
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0618118128/qid=1082435641/
####################################################
Here is what was said ten years ago and has been formalized with many proofs
to twist your arm up behind your back.
"It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before
Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is
wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target:
the dogma of Darwinian evolution.
Margulis has been right about what is wrong before. She shook up the world
of microbiology in 1965 with her outrageous thesis of the symbiotic origin
of nucleated cells. To the disbelief of traditionalists, she claimed that
free-roaming bacteria cooperated to form cells. Then in 1974, Margulis again
rattled the cage of biology by suggesting (jointly with James Lovelock) that
atmospheric, geological, and biological processes on Earth are so
interconnected that they act as a single living, self-regulating
system-Gaia. Margulis was now denouncing the modern framework of the
century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from
an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations.
Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but
few have been so blunt. Disagreeing with Darwin resembles creationism to the
uninformed; therefore the stigma that any taint of creationism can bring to
a scientific reputation, coupled with the intimidating genius of Darwin,
have kept all but the boldest iconoclasts from doubting Darwinian theory in
public.
What excites Margulis is the remarkable incompleteness of general Darwinian
theory. Darwinism is wrong by what it omits and by what it incorrectly
emphasizes.
A number of microbiologists, geneticists, theoretical biologists,
mathematicians, and computer scientists are saying there is more to life
than Darwinism. They do not reject Darwin's contribution; they simply want
to move beyond it. I call them the "postdarwinians." Neither Lynn Margulis
nor any other postdarwinian denies the true ubiquity of natural selection in
evolution. Their disagreement is with the very sweeping nature of the
Darwinian argument, the fact that in the end it doesn't explain much, and
the emerging evidence that Darwinism alone may not be sufficient to explain
all we see. The vital questions the postdarwinians raise are: What are the
limits to natural selection? What can't evolution make? And if blind natural
selection has limits, what else is operating within or beyond evolution as
we understand it?
According to the ordinary contemporary Darwinian biologist, there is nothing
we see in nature that cannot be explained by the elemental process of
natural selection. In academic jargon this stance is called selectionism,
and the position is nearly universal among biologists working today. Because
this stance is more extreme that what Darwin himself believed, it is
sometimes called neodarwinism.
In the pursuit of artificial evolution, the limits (if any) to natural
selection, or to evolution in general, take on practical importance. We'd
like an artificial evolution that generates neverending diversity, but so
far, that isn't so easy to do. We'd like to extend the dynamics of natural
selection to very large systems with many levels of scale, but we don't know
how far natural selection can be extended. We'd like an artificial evolution
that we could control a bit more than we control organic evolution. Is that
possible?
Questions like these have prompted the postdarwinians to reconsider
alternative theories of evolution-many that existed before Darwin-that were
eclipsed by the dominance of Darwinism. In a kind of intellectual survival
of the fittest, contemporary biology places very little importance on these
"inferior" beaten theories, so they survive only in marginal out-of- print
books. But the ideas of these creative theories are suited to a new niche
called artificial evolution and are cautiously being resurrected for
examination.
The most stellar naturalists, geologists, and biologists of Darwin's time
hesitated (despite Darwin's constant badgering) to accept his general theory
in full when it was published in 1859. They accepted his transmutation
theory-"descent with modification," or the gradual transmutation of new
species from preexisting species. But they remained skeptical of his
selectionist reasoning-that tiny random improvements were all there was to
it-because they felt Darwin's explanation did not accurately fit the facts
of nature, facts with which they were intimately familiar in a way that is
rare today in this era of specialization and indoor laboratories. But since
they could offer neither compelling disproof nor an alternative theory of
equal quality, their forceful criticisms were buried in correspondence and
scholarly disputes.
Darwin didn't offer a concrete mechanism by which his proposed natural
selection would take place, either. He was ignorant about genes, for
starters. The first fifty years following the publication of Darwin's tour
de force were ripe with supplemental theories of evolution, until Darwin's
dominance was clinched by the discovery of genes and later DNA. Almost every
radical evolutionary conviction circulating today has as its source some
thinker in the years after Darwin but before acceptance of his theory as
dogma.
No one was more sensitive to the weaknesses of Darwinian theory than Darwin
himself. As an example of trouble, Darwin volunteered the astounding
multifaceted sophistication of the human eye. (Every critic of Darwin since
has also used his example.) The exquisite design of interacting lens, iris,
retina, etc., seems to defy the plausibility of Darwin's "slight,
incremental" chance improvements. As Darwin wrote to his American friend Asa
Gray, "About the weak points I agree. The eye to this day gives me a cold
shudder." The difficulty Gray had was imagining how any portion of an
unfinished eye, a retina without lens or vice versa, would be useful to its
possessor. Since nature cannot hoard innovations ("Hey, this will come in
handy in the Cretaceous!"), every stage in development must be immediately
useful and viable. Breakthroughs have to work the first time. Even clever
humans can't design in such a consistently demanding manner. Therefore
nature appears superhuman in its ability to create.
Imagine, says Darwin, that we extrapolate the tiny microevolutionary changes
we see in domesticated breeding-a pea with extra-large pods made larger, or
a short horse bred shorter. Imagine if we extend those slight changes caused
by selection over millions of years; we add up all the minute differences
until we see major change. This is what makes coral reefs and armadillos out
of bacteria, Darwin said-accumulated microchange. Darwin asks that we extend
the logic of microchange to cover the grand scale of Earth and Time.
The argument that natural selection can be extended to explain everything in
life is a logical argument. But human imagination and human experience know
that what is logical is not always what is so. To be logical is a necessary
but insufficient reason to be true. Every swirl on a butterfly wing, every
curve of leaf, every species of fish is explained by adaptive selection in
neodarwinism. There seems to be absolutely nothing that cannot be explained
in some way as an adaptive advantage. But, as Richard Lewontin, a renowned
neodarwinist, says, "Natural selection explains nothing, because it explains
everything."
Biologists cannot (or at least they have not) ruled out the role of other
forces at work in nature producing similar effects in evolution. Therefore,
until evolution is duplicated under controlled conditions, in the wild, or
in a lab, neodarwinism remains a nice "just-so" story-more like history than
science. Philosopher of science Karl Popper said bluntly that neodarwinism
is not a scientific theory at all, since it cannot be falsified. "Neither
Darwin, nor any Darwinian, has so far given an actual causal explanation of
the adaptive evolution of any single organism or any single organ. All that
has been shown-and this is very much [sic]-is that such an explanation might
exist-that is to say, [these theories] are not logically impossible."
Life has a causality problem. Any coevolved organism seems to be
self-created, making causality onerous to pin down. Part of the search for
more complete explanations of evolution is a search for a more complete
logical understanding of spontaneous complexity and the rules by which
entities may emerge from a web of parts. The quest for artificial
evolution-so far done primarily in computer simulations-is very much tied
into a new way of establishing proof in science. Previous to the advent of
ubiquitous computers, science consisted of two facets: theory and
experiment. A theory would shape an experiment, and then the experiment
would confirm or disprove the theory.
But computers have birthed a third way of doing science: by simulation. A
simulation is at once both a theory and an experiment. By running a computer
model, such as Tom Ray's artificial evolution, we are trying out a theory
and also running something real and accumulating falsifiable data. It may be
that the dilemma of ascertaining causality in complex systems will be
bypassed by these new methods of understanding, wherein one studies the real
by modeling working surrogates.
Artificial evolution is at once a theory and test for natural evolution, and
something original in itself.
continue...
http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch19-a.html
In some cases the genetic strands of two symbiotic partners may fuse. One
proposed mechanism for the informational coordination needed for this kind
of symbiosis is the known intercell gene transfer, which happens at a
terrific rate among bacteria in the wild. The know-how of one system can be
shuttled back and forth between separate species. A new bacteriology views
all the bacteria of the world as a single genetically interacting
superorganism that rapidly absorbs and broadcasts genetic innovations among
its members. Interspecies gene transfer also occurs (at an unknown rate)
among more complex species, including humans. Species of every sort are
constantly swapping genes, often with naked viruses as the messengers.
Viruses themselves are sometimes taken in symbiotically. A number of
biologists believe that large chunks of human DNA were inserted viruses. A
few even think that it's a loop-that many human disease viruses are escaped
hunks of human DNA.
If true, the symbiotic nature of a cell provides a couple of lessons. First,
it gives an example of a significant evolutionary change that lessens
immediate benefits to the individual (since the individual disappears), in
contradiction to classical Darwinian dogma. Second, it gives an example of
evolutionary change that is not amassed by slight incremental differences,
also in contradiction to Darwinian dogma.
Routine symbiosis on a large scale could drive many of the complexities in
nature that seem to require multiple simultaneous innovations. It would
provide evolution with several other advantages; for instance, it would
exploit the power of cooperation, rather than competition, exclusively. At
the very least, cooperation nurtures a distinct set of niches and a type of
diversity that competition cannot produce-such as lichens. In other words,
it unleashes another dimension in evolution by enlarging its library of
forms. Also, a small amount of symbiotic coordination at the right time
could replace an eon of minor alterations. In one mutual relationship,
evolution could jump past a million years of individual trial and error.
http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch19-c.html
The bodies that genes wear play an incredible role in the gene's evolution.
When two chromosomes recombine in sex they do so not in nakedness but
clothed inside a gigantic egg cell. The overstuffed egg has a great deal of
say in how the genes are implemented. The yolky cell is chock-full of
protein factors and hormonelike agents, and controlled by its own
nonchromosomal DNA. The egg cell directs the chromosomal genes as they begin
to differentiate, guiding them, orienting them, and orchestrating the
construction of their baby. It is no exaggeration to say that the final
organism reproduced is partly under the control of the egg cell, and out of
the control of the genes. The state of the egg cell can be affected by
stress, age, nutrition, etc. (There is one claim that Down's Syndrome,
common in babies born to older women, happens because the two chromosomes
responsible for the birth defect become physically entangled by lying so
close to each other for so many years in the mother's egg cell.) Even before
you are born-indeed from the moments of conception onward-forces outside of
your genetic information form you genetically. Hereditary information does
not exist independently of its embodiment. The origin of an organism's
inheritable body, or morphogenesis, is due then to a partnership of
nongenetic cell material and hereditary genes-body and genes. Evolution
theory, and in particular evolutionary genetics, cannot understand evolution
in full unless it remembers the complicated morphology of life. Artificial
evolution will only take off when it is embodied.
Each biological egg cell, like most nucleated cells, carries several
libraries of DNA information outside of the chromosomes. Most disturbing to
standard theory, the egg cell may be constantly swapping bits of code within
itself, between the files of its in-house DNA and the files of inherited
chromosomal DNA. If information in the house DNA could be shaped by the
experience of the egg cell, then transmitted to the chromosomal DNA, it
would transgress the stern Central Dogma, which states that in biology
information can only flow from the genes to the cellular body-not vice
versa. That is, there is no direct feedback from the body (phenotype) to the
gene (genotype). We should be suspicious of any rule such as the Central
Dogma, Darwinian critic Arthur Koestler pointed out, because "it would be
the only example found in nature of a biological process devoid of
feedback."
There are two lessons in morphogenesis for creators of artificial evolution
http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch19-f.html
But hey what do I care I am probably plonked because you already seem like
an emotional little boy like fucked fat assed fred and his lies called a
story. Grudge holdin prejudace suckas can suck me anyway. But if not your
cool. I love watching you traditional evolutionists get grilled byt he lates
info that makes you look like a Greek fool. Its the thrill of the science
season like throwin christians to the lions the crowd cheers and Darwin
spins in his grave. But if not I take it back! You might understand the
latest theories I don't know yet. But if you don't respond I'd rather spread
your ***** cheeks and impale you without grease baby.
1. Species must be held to transform into new species in some manner
2. The process must be time-directional, not cyclical
3. Adaptation, if a feature of the theory (as in the Empedoclean
version) must apply continuously, not once in the beginning and never
thereafter
There are a number of theories or models that go by the name
"evolutionary" and so far as I can tell none of them were proposed by
the Greeks. There is no idea of common descent, of transmutation, of
ongoing selection, either "natural" or "sexual", of biogeographic
distribution, or of heredity in the sense now applied (of course
Epicurus did have a notion of heredity, as did Aristotle, but the
latter's was entelechical and formal, whiel the former's was a mere
notice that things resembled parents, hardly a theory).
The notion that it was all discovered by the Greeks is down to Samuel
Butler's _Luck or Cunning_ or Henry Fairfield Osborn's _From the Greeks
to Darwin_. Both were neo-Lamarckians, and Butler in fact was motivated
because of an imagined slight from Darwin.
I have a page up at the Talkorigins.org site on Darwin's Precursors:
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwin-precursors.html>
Butler, Samuel. 1886. Luck, or Cunning, as the Main Means of Organic
Modification? An attempt. London, 1887: Trübner & Co.
Osborn, Henry Fairfield. 1894. From the Greeks to Darwin: An outline of
the development of the evolution idea, Columbia University Biological
Series. I. New York: Macmillan.
--
John Wilkins
john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au http://www.wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
.
|
|
|
| User: "SMChristenson" |
|
| Title: Re: Empedocles of Acragas - Evolutionary Theory B.C. |
20 Apr 2004 06:42:56 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:37:45 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
"John Wilkins" <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gcjbi2.1wmspj34hhm0qN%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au...
Luke Sineath <l.v.sineath45688@att.net> wrote:
... a good idea stated within an insufficient theoretical frame
loses
its
explanatory power and is forgotten.
Yep, it's amazing how much the Greeks came up with...they thought up
nearly
everything.
But nothing resembling evolution.
True. Well the love and strife and change and all was a kinda evolution.
But as for your conditions for some class of ideas being an evolution
any Greek or Roman sports enthuisiest would understand with competitions
and playoffs and team changes and styles. But I agree.
Just an inspired myth. But a myth that integrated some guesses, sometimes
wild guesses, about natural forces as causes instead of gods.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Empedocles of Acragas - Evolutionary Theory B.C. |
20 Apr 2004 10:52:38 AM |
|
|
"SMChristenson" <smchris@visi.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.20.11.42.54.520475@visi.com...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:37:45 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
"John Wilkins" <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gcjbi2.1wmspj34hhm0qN%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au...
Luke Sineath <l.v.sineath45688@att.net> wrote:
... a good idea stated within an insufficient theoretical frame
loses
its
explanatory power and is forgotten.
Yep, it's amazing how much the Greeks came up with...they thought up
nearly
everything.
But nothing resembling evolution.
True. Well the love and strife and change and all was a kinda evolution.
But as for your conditions for some class of ideas being an evolution
any Greek or Roman sports enthuisiest would understand with competitions
and playoffs and team changes and styles. But I agree.
Just an inspired myth. But a myth that integrated some guesses, sometimes
wild guesses, about natural forces as causes instead of gods.
Can you describe that process in Greece where the philosophers slowely took
over from the myths? Or got links?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Empedocles of Acragas - Evolutionary Theory B.C. |
20 Apr 2004 11:15:02 AM |
|
|
Immortalist <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
"SMChristenson" <smchris@visi.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.20.11.42.54.520475@visi.com...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:37:45 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
"John Wilkins" <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gcjbi2.1wmspj34hhm0qN%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au...
Luke Sineath <l.v.sineath45688@att.net> wrote:
... a good idea stated within an insufficient theoretical frame
loses
its
explanatory power and is forgotten.
Yep, it's amazing how much the Greeks came up with...they thought up
nearly
everything.
But nothing resembling evolution.
True. Well the love and strife and change and all was a kinda evolution.
But as for your conditions for some class of ideas being an evolution
any Greek or Roman sports enthuisiest would understand with competitions
and playoffs and team changes and styles. But I agree.
Just an inspired myth. But a myth that integrated some guesses, sometimes
wild guesses, about natural forces as causes instead of gods.
Can you describe that process in Greece where the philosophers slowely took
over from the myths? Or got links?
Somewhat old fashioned, but this book is a good source of info :-)
Lloyd, G. E. R. 1970. Early Greek science: Thales to Aristotle. New
York: Norton.
--
John Wilkins
john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au http://www.wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Empedocles of Acragas - Evolutionary Theory B.C. |
20 Apr 2004 10:59:49 PM |
|
|
"John Wilkins" <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gckm7v.z3kxs89554shN%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au...
Immortalist <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
"SMChristenson" <smchris@visi.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.20.11.42.54.520475@visi.com...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:37:45 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
"John Wilkins" <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gcjbi2.1wmspj34hhm0qN%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au...
Luke Sineath <l.v.sineath45688@att.net> wrote:
... a good idea stated within an insufficient theoretical frame
loses
its
explanatory power and is forgotten.
Yep, it's amazing how much the Greeks came up with...they thought
up
nearly
everything.
But nothing resembling evolution.
True. Well the love and strife and change and all was a kinda
evolution.
But as for your conditions for some class of ideas being an
evolution
any Greek or Roman sports enthuisiest would understand with
competitions
and playoffs and team changes and styles. But I agree.
Just an inspired myth. But a myth that integrated some guesses,
sometimes
wild guesses, about natural forces as causes instead of gods.
Can you describe that process in Greece where the philosophers slowely
took
over from the myths? Or got links?
Somewhat old fashioned, but this book is a good source of info :-)
Lloyd, G. E. R. 1970. Early Greek science: Thales to Aristotle. New
York: Norton.
Although there is no exact equivalent to our term science in Greek, Western
science may still be said to have originated with the Greeks, for they were
the first to attempt to explain natural phenomena consistently in
naturalistic terms, and they initiated the practices of rational criticism
of scientific theories. This study traces Greek science through the work of
the Pythagoreans, the Presocratic natural philosphers, the Hippocratic
writers, Plato, the fourth-century B.C. astronomers, and Aristotle. G. E. R.
Lloyd also investigates the relationships between science and philosophy and
science and medicine; he discusses the social and economic setting of early
Greek science; and he analyzes the motives and incentives of the different
groups of writers
http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/backlist/000583.htm
[I was thinking like this to fill in a spot in me data base on my 500 MEG
PocketPC in pocket at ALL times and ready to argue! But I am gonna get a
copy of that book and read it.]
Pre-historic humans were thought to have a pantheon of gods and goddesses
that ruled the world and its inhabitants. During the Golden Age of Greece,
science began to change to rationality and logic. With the fall of Rome and
its government, scientific thought changed again, to the superstitions of
the Middle Ages. At the end of the Middle Ages, the Age of Reason and the
Renaissance began the trend toward the present, the Age of Information.
Science now relies on data that can be reported, duplicated, verified. It is
linearly logical, rational, using numbers to compute, compare and analyze
information. This has not always been so. People use the knowledge they have
to explain the natural and physical world around them. Ancient people and
people without the technology available in the Age of Information developed
stories, myths and legends to explain their world.
The people of pre-history are, by modern standards, thought to have been
very superstitious, with stories and characters to explain their worlds. Our
knowledge of their beliefs has been extrapolated from contemporary,
"primitive" societies and cultures such as the Maori of New Zealand, the
Hmong of Indochina, and the Inuits of Alaska. Anthropologists have examined
oral histories and religious practices of these modern cultures and compared
them to ancient, pre-historical cultural artifacts. Both the modern and
ancient cultures have various, but often similar, stories to explain events
in their world.
The Egyptians, ancient Greeks, and Romans had well self-documented cultures,
with explanations of beliefs as well as stories and myths. Zeus, Jupiter,
Hera and Juno are Greek and Roman gods that most Westerners study at some
point in their educational process. The Golden Age of Greece produced people
who thought about the world rationally. These people developed answers that
relied more on reason and mathematics rather than on answers from the Gods.
The Romans expanded upon Greek ideas and utilized them until their
civilization collapsed from within. The barbarian attacks from without also
contributed to the fall of Rome and the rise of the superstitious Middle
Ages.
The Middle Ages contributed to science via the many alchemists, the last of
whom is said to have been Sir Isaac Newton. Newton, along with Galileo,
Copernicus, Redi, Pasteur and many others, added their contributions to the
body of knowledge that explains the world in rational, logical terms known
to late twentieth century people as science.
These paradigm shifts demonstrate that logic has not always been part of
science. Cultures around the world and across the ages developed many
different explanations for events in the natural world. There are different
cultural explanations of creation. Chinese, Native Americans and Central
Americans explain creation as the mating of the sun and the moon. The
ancient Greeks explained the beginning of the earth with the Olympians Zeus
and Hera. There are many other stories explaining other natural events.
http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/bi/1994/myths_science.html
At the beginning of the article above the second sentence says; "During the
Golden Age of Greece, science began to change to rationality and logic." Now
all this stuff on the internet and not one page amplifies that sentence.
Weird. But it should have said, During the Golden Age of Greece, science
began to change (from mythological influences) to rationality and logic (an
traces of these myths are left in modern science terminology).
But it was just an execise question.
Copy these pages before it vanishes!
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/thales.html
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/lectures/science/history.html
http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/ChildrenMyths.html
http://www.uh.edu/~cfreelan/courses/Lloyd.html
http://www.unesco.org/courier/2001_05/uk/doss22.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/myth
http://users.erols.com/bcccsbs/c4paren.htm#greeks
[ http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Theology-Greek-Gods-Myths.htm ]
Still peeking at your page...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SMChristenson" |
|
| Title: Re: Empedocles of Acragas - Evolutionary Theory B.C. |
20 Apr 2004 10:01:22 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 02:15:02 +1000, John Wilkins wrote:
Can you describe that process in Greece where the philosophers slowely
took over from the myths? Or got links?
Somewhat old fashioned, but this book is a good source of info :-)
Lloyd, G. E. R. 1970. Early Greek science: Thales to Aristotle. New
York: Norton.
The Presocratic Philosophers by Jonathan Barnes, 1979, has been popular
too. At over 600 pp. it's probably one of the more comprehensive books
specializing in this era.
It is a relative thing to say that myth actually gets subjugated. The
Pythagoreans were very religious about their numbers and had a thing about
beans. It's early in intellectual history.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Keynes" |
|
| Title: Re: Empedocles of Acragas - Evolutionary Theory B.C. |
20 Apr 2004 11:22:40 AM |
|
|
Eternal Recurrence...
Brahma is supposed to create universes with the opening and
closing of his eye on a gigantic cycle of ~250 billion years, a 'kalpa'.
I used to think that the cosmos was necessarily cyclical
and that the sum of mass-energy was constant. Then after
the expansion of the universe, gravity would cause it all
to fall together in a great contraction to ultimate compression
(since gravity is inescapable) and then bang into expansion again,
perhaps on the 'other side' of the singularity. (As if location had
any meaning in such a spaceless event.)
But then we have the cosmological constant of Einstein, the
expansion theories of Guth, and now anti-gravity dark energy,
all claiming that the expansion rate is increasing and irreversible.
Who really knows? Expansive dark energy could be just a
mistaken inference if our gravity theories are not complete.
(Valid locally, but not at quantum or cosmic ranges.)
A bang, bang, bang cyclical universe would make for a
sort of eternity, but punctuated with spaceless, timeless
discontinuities. Eternity is really only an idea of time anyway.
If there were disconnected times, even recurrence would not
make an eternity.
------------------------------------------------------
PK ***** wrote a one joke novel "Counter Clock World"(?)
where expansion had finally reached it's peak and reversed
to contraction with the effect of the reversal of time and all
that comically implies for ingestion, excretion, aging and birth.
Future would be a memory and past would be unexplored
territory.
"Tau Zero" was an interesting novel about the first
near light-speed spacecraft. After it reached velocity
they noticed that the universe was aging so rapidly that
before they could decelerate, it would all be gone.
So they continued to travel (outside the universe!)
until the birth of a new universe and the evolution
of liveable planets.
Anybody remember 'slow glass'? It was window glass
that would slow the speed of light dramatically so the
view would be of the recent past and not the present.
Bizarre. But that's exactly how we see intergalactic space.
How about that 'restaurant at the end of the universe'
in the Hitchhiker's Guide? LOL
The world is wierd, and that makes it lovable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Empedocles of Acragas - Evolutionary Theory B.C. |
22 Apr 2004 10:08:36 AM |
|
|
"Keynes" <Keynes@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:tgga809ht9br3a1bu495peccbblhtep4eh@4ax.com...
Eternal Recurrence...
Brahma is supposed to create universes with the opening and
closing of his eye on a gigantic cycle of ~250 billion years, a 'kalpa'.
I used to think that the cosmos was necessarily cyclical
and that the sum of mass-energy was constant. Then after
the expansion of the universe, gravity would cause it all
to fall together in a great contraction to ultimate compression
(since gravity is inescapable) and then bang into expansion again,
perhaps on the 'other side' of the singularity. (As if location had
any meaning in such a spaceless event.)
But then we have the cosmological constant of Einstein, the
expansion theories of Guth, and now anti-gravity dark energy,
all claiming that the expansion rate is increasing and irreversible.
Who really knows? Expansive dark energy could be just a
mistaken inference if our gravity theories are not complete.
(Valid locally, but not at quantum or cosmic ranges.)
A bang, bang, bang cyclical universe would make for a
sort of eternity, but punctuated with spaceless, timeless
discontinuities. Eternity is really only an idea of time anyway.
If there were disconnected times, even recurrence would not
make an eternity.
------------------------------------------------------
PK ***** wrote a one joke novel "Counter Clock World"(?)
where expansion had finally reached it's peak and reversed
to contraction with the effect of the reversal of time and all
that comically implies for ingestion, excretion, aging and birth.
Future would be a memory and past would be unexplored
territory.
"Tau Zero" was an interesting novel about the first
near light-speed spacecraft. After it reached velocity
they noticed that the universe was aging so rapidly that
before they could decelerate, it would all be gone.
So they continued to travel (outside the universe!)
until the birth of a new universe and the evolution
of liveable planets.
Anybody remember 'slow glass'? It was window glass
that would slow the speed of light dramatically so the
view would be of the recent past and not the present.
Bizarre. But that's exactly how we see intergalactic space.
How about that 'restaurant at the end of the universe'
in the Hitchhiker's Guide? LOL
The world is wierd, and that makes it lovable.
Very interesting.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tron Furu" |
|
| Title: Re: Empedocles of Acragas - Evolutionary Theory B.C. |
19 Apr 2004 07:17:49 PM |
|
|
Hi,
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:itudnY-Cft--hhndRVn-hA@comcast.com...
Nice, but a bit naive in parts.
/.../
Empedocles /.../> may have been influenced by existing accounts of
mythological creatures that
seemed to be "put together" out of the parts of different animals,/.../.
But perhaps he had also seen deformed
animals, or examined "monstrous-looking" fossil bones.
That notion that "seeing a fossil bone" alone engenders a theory, bears
witness to an overrating of empiricism.
/.../
This can be wrapped up in precise scientific terms. The last passage
expresses the idea that the sum of all things in the universe is constant.
I'd be careful to mix the phrase "precise scientific terms" into this
banterbatter. The idea in itself is hardly testable - i.e. it will remain a
pseudo-metaphysical article of faith or a more or less tested but never
entirely verified hypothesis (good enough for me, btw), and, if the Big Bang
theory is correct, it may not even be true as stated (obviously, sum of all
things in the universe hasn't always been constant; has it then been
constant? Nor has there always been a Universe, are they then constant?).
Since we know that matter can be transformed into energy this is not quite
correct,
Erh .. since when did "matter" become equal to "all things in the Universe"?
/.../
< Moreover, Empedocles'
cosmology can be thought of as an anticipation of modern cosmology
The art of interpretation ....
/.../
if we
identify the state of complete unity with the hypothetical state of all
matter being condensed into energy at the moment of the Big Bang.
There ye go.
/.../
Empedocles seems to have devoted special attention to the study of living
organisms. Plants first sprang from the earth before it was illumined by
the
sun;
Erh ....
and then came animals, which were evolved out of all sorts of monstrous
combinations of organisms by a kind of survival of the fit;
"Fit"? Vertbatim?
for those only
survived which were capable of subsisting.
That, as such, is tautological (survival of the survivors).
/.../
His ideas, although they had
little influence on the development of science, can be seen in the light
of
our current scientific knowledge to be quite incredible.
Which, again, represents a typical overrating of the degree of superiority
and the distance covered in "progress" between them and us. They were might
clever. perhaps this shows him to be essentially correct on history being
cyclical ...
/.../
Well done.
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Empedocles of Acragas - Evolutionary Theory B.C. |
19 Apr 2004 11:45:45 PM |
|
|
"Tron Furu" <tronfuru@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:P_Zgc.7697$px6.109022@news2.e.nsc.no...
Hi,
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:itudnY-Cft--hhndRVn-hA@comcast.com...
Nice, but a bit naive in parts.
I see you were dwelling on the comparison to evolution. I was thinking of
the change but mainly about the "love vs strife" which evolved into
Nietzsche's Dionysian & Apollinian dynamic. Here is the post I was thinking
of while reading about Empedocles that morning.
Arizona Jules <barilko50@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3CAA7137.F4148B7B@hotmail.com...
Could someone please help me out with the "definition" of these terms?
I've started reading Nietzsche's 'Birth of a Tragedy' and he seems to
make multiple references to these two 'modes' as well as an explanation,
but I fear that my limited knowledge of Greek mythology (Apollo &
Dionysus?) is preventing me from fully udnerstanding this.
Could someone throw me a philisophical "bone"? ;)
Much appreciated....
Nietzsche became a professor of classics at the astoundingly young age of
twenty-four; he published a number of serious academic articles, taught
Greek literature and philosophy, and was beloved by his students, who gave
him a torchlight parade when they feared that he would be lured away from
the university by a better job offer. During this time as a professor,
Nietzsche fell under the spell of the composer Richard Wagner for some
years. His first book, The Birth of Tragedy, presents an original theory of
Greek tragedy that owes something to this enthusiasm; where others had seen
the Greeks as a people of noble moderation, Nietzsche saw them struggling to
attain a precarious but life-affirming balance between tendencies to
aesthetic order and the chaotic life of the instincts (the Apollinian and
the Dionysian). This book was also an ((answer)) ((to)) philosophical
((pessimism)), exemplified by the philosopher Arthur :(Schopenhauer:(
Nietzsche thought that the tragic world-view of the Greeks provided an
example of how one could live joyously even while recognizing the pain and
suffering of existence, but without any hope of future salvation (as in
Christianity).
As a philologist, the Greek culture greatly influenced Nietzsche's thought
and worldview. Nietzsche understood the Dionysus figure to be the epitome of
life, the cyclical annhilation and rebirth of a god in an inherently
meaningless world. Early in his work, he maintained a distinction between
what he determined to be the two opposing yet necessary aspects of human
existence, of which the gods Apollo and Dionysus were representative. The
Apollinian, as Nietzsche illustrated, flows from a profound abundance of
"vision, association, poetry;" essentially, a state of higher intelligence
and logical reasoning. By contrast, the Dionysian reflects an intoxicated
condition, one in which "gesture, passion, song, [and] dance" amplify a
sensuality consonant with the most primal human instincts.
These states do not exist independently, nor can a culture be considered
healthy and completely human without both. Nihilism, the realization that
the highest values have devalued themselves, takes root in a culture or
individual when one of these, particulalry the Apollinian, wrenches control
from the balance between the two. In short, according to Nietzsche, in a
healthy (_-dynamic-_), "All these climactic moments of life mutually
stimulate one another; the world of images and ideas of the one suffices as
a suggestion for the others: - in this way, states finally merge into one
another though they might perhaps have good reason to remain apart." This is
salvation in a world without god, the controlled explosion of abundant,
primal human intoxication in a world whose values we create.
Apollo
order
lawfulness
perfected
form
clarity
precision
self-control
individuation
Dionysus
change
creation
destruction
movement
rhythm
ecstasy
oneness.
Nietzsche's designations of two different Greek art forms and artistic
tendencies, reflecting two fundamental human and natural impulses. He
invoked the names of the gods Apollo and Dionysus to identify and
distinguish them in his discussion of the origin of the tragic art and
culture of the Greeks (which he traced to their --confluence--),
+(_-associating-_)+ (See The Birth of Tragedy (1872), sects. 1-5; The Will
to Power (1901), sects. 1049-52.) EDGE OF CHAOS
To conceive of the body, and not the mind, as the true self is part of a
change in perspective that has far reaching implications. One implication
for Nietzsche was a deep appreciation of the many non-rational faculties
that emanate from the passions of the body, and the darker and more
unconscious layers of the soul. Already in his first major work, The Birth
of Tragedy (1871), Nietzsche developed a theory of art which was radically
different from any theory of aesthetics that had been published before.
Nietzsche developed this theory by way of an innovative analysis of
classical Greek drama. The main inspiration for classical Greek tragedies
were, according to him, two forces or experiences that he called the
"Dionysian" and the "Apollinian" respectively. The Dionysian represents a
state of deep intoxication or frenzy; the Apollinian represents visionary
dreams. Deep intoxication was primarily experienced during the festivals in
honor of the god Dionysus, the god of wine (and in earlier times almost
certainly the god of hallucinogenic mushrooms). Significant dreams and
visions would come after the experience of deep intoxication and what was
then thought of as divine frenzy. In the arts the Dionysian is primarily
experienced in music, while the representation of the Olympic gods in
classical Greek sculpture are the epitome Apollinian vision.
In The Birth of Tragedy , the individual manifestations of the answer to the
question at hand, "How and why did tragedy die," center around the
corruption of the essence of tragedy, originally created in the image of its
constituent parts (the Apollinian and the Dionysian). The nature of this
corruption (which Nietzsche implies arose from the conflict-ridden and hence
unstable essence of tragedy itself) takes many forms. One guise of this
degeneration Nietzsche presents is the movement away from the healthy
symptom of a desire for suffering exhibited by the young Greek culture at
the time of The Birth of Tragedy . This sign of vim and vigor was over time
transformed into a flimsy optimism, a symptom of the decline of the Greek
spirit as it aged. Nietzsche specifically names this Socratic optimism the
death of tragedy. He also specifically mentions as the cause of tragedy's
death the abandonment of music in favor of rational dialectic as the basic
drive of tragedy. Yet another form the corruption takes is that of the most
classic Greek problem, the tension between the universal and the particular.
By flipping the Socratic definitions on their heads and equating the
universal with Nietzsche's description of the Dionysian, the degeneration
Nietzsche describes can be seen as a movement away from universal experience
toward immersion in the particular appearances of rational discourse.
So far we have only viewed half the task of literature--to investigate the
ambiguity and ambivalence of Man's relation to the earth. We have done that
by noticing fundamental contrasting domains that mirror a deep uncertainty
in the nature of Man himself. Even left with this schizophrenic break,
Nietzsche's Dionysian/Apollinian point about tragic drama fits the whole of
literature: both_sides_are_required: earth and sky; passion and form,
darkness and light, intensity and lucidity.
The unconscious behaves like an animal, admittedly an unbelievably clever
and sophisticated one, but zoological none-the-less. Each time the Ego
changes its attitude to it, there is a corresponding alteration in the
unconscious which reflects the new relationship. In other words, a constant
dynamic equilibrium exists between what we think we are, and how our psyche
as a whole, responds. As each of the four phases is attended to (and to make
matters worse, they overlap,) new responses come from the unconscious,
making new demands on us for new equilibria to be sought.
Jung mentions an additional complication. He propounded two types of
thinking (and presumably feeling,) which he called Apollinian and Dionysian,
the full nature of which far exceeds Nietzsche's aesthetic description of
them. While these are more or less opposites, the pair of them stand in
contrast to what Neitzsche called Socratic thinking. For modern Westerners,
the essential conflict seems more between conscious Socratic and unconscious
Dionysian forces, with ". Apollo himself as the glorious divine image of the
principle of Individuation." Unfortunately it is not that simple, for an
Apollinian approach is essentially introverted, and ". the process of
individuation must lead to more intense and broader collective relationships
and not to isolation." In fact Neitzsche's Dionysian vision # ibid. 877 of
"Nature, hostile or enslaved [reconciled] with her prodigal son - Man"
closely parallels Dorn's concept of unus mundus as "a synthesis of the
conscious with the unconscious." However that synthesis becomes more
difficult to aspire to when consciousness speaks like a Socrates, and the
unconscious replies visuo-spatially and sensuously as Dionysos. Apollo is an
admirable image of the sunlight of consciousness, but that is only one
component. The reflective lunar nature of Artemis complements this. She is
not simply darkness: she is, much more than John's logos, truly ". the light
that shines in the darkness ." John 1:5
Yet there is another feminine element missing. Dionysos and Apollo represent
the downward and upward expansions of the ego as it explores the
individuation process, instinct in its raw and transformed cultural forms;
and to assimilate both requires a link between them. Here lies anima as a
bridge, not just from ego to unconsciousness, but from instinct to culture.
She partakes of both, so she joins both.
Methods were not clearly deliniated for determining the "confluence or
associating" ie; "structural coupling" in order to determine the connectence
of nodes withing this network of attribures.
such as:
The cybernetic principle the engineers discovered is a general one: if all
the variables are tightly coupled, and if you can truly manipulate one of
them in all its freedoms, then you can indirectly control all of them. This
principle plays on the holistic nature of systems. As Latil writes, "The
regulator is unconcerned with causes; it will detect the deviation and
correct it. The error may even arise from a factor whose influence has never
been properly determined hitherto, or even from a factor whose very
existence is unsuspected." How the system finds agreement at any one moment
is beyond human knowing, and more importantly, not worth knowing.
Then there would be the matter of different levels that emerge from this
connectence, not higher but "chunkier" which would lead to an understanding
of the messiness (nihalistic/ordered) paradox. But that would have to wait
for the theory of the evolution of the evolution of evolutions (complexity
theory) .....
/.../
Empedocles /.../> may have been influenced by existing accounts of
mythological creatures that
seemed to be "put together" out of the parts of different animals,/.../.
But perhaps he had also seen deformed
animals, or examined "monstrous-looking" fossil bones.
That notion that "seeing a fossil bone" alone engenders a theory, bears
witness to an overrating of empiricism.
/.../
This can be wrapped up in precise scientific terms. The last passage
expresses the idea that the sum of all things in the universe is
constant.
I'd be careful to mix the phrase "precise scientific terms" into this
banterbatter. The idea in itself is hardly testable - i.e. it will remain
a
pseudo-metaphysical article of faith or a more or less tested but never
entirely verified hypothesis (good enough for me, btw), and, if the Big
Bang
theory is correct, it may not even be true as stated (obviously, sum of
all
things in the universe hasn't always been constant; has it then been
constant? Nor has there always been a Universe, are they then constant?).
Since we know that matter can be transformed into energy this is not
quite
correct,
Erh .. since when did "matter" become equal to "all things in the
Universe"?
/.../
< Moreover, Empedocles'
cosmology can be thought of as an anticipation of modern cosmology
The art of interpretation ....
/.../
if we
identify the state of complete unity with the hypothetical state of all
matter being condensed into energy at the moment of the Big Bang.
There ye go.
/.../
Empedocles seems to have devoted special attention to the study of
living
organisms. Plants first sprang from the earth before it was illumined by
the
sun;
Erh ....
and then came animals, which were evolved out of all sorts of monstrous
combinations of organisms by a kind of survival of the fit;
"Fit"? Vertbatim?
for those only
survived which were capable of subsisting.
That, as such, is tautological (survival of the survivors).
/.../
His ideas, although they had
little influence on the development of science, can be seen in the light
of
our current scientific knowledge to be quite incredible.
Which, again, represents a typical overrating of the degree of superiority
and the distance covered in "progress" between them and us. They were
might
clever. perhaps this shows him to be essentially correct on history being
cyclical ...
/.../
Well done.
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tron Furu" |
|
| Title: Re: Empedocles of Acragas - Evolutionary Theory B.C. |
20 Apr 2004 03:23:34 AM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:CK-dnSE2j7N5NhndRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
"Tron Furu" <tronfuru@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:P_Zgc.7697$px6.109022@news2.e.nsc.no...
Hi,
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:itudnY-Cft--hhndRVn-hA@comcast.com...
Nice, but a bit naive in parts.
I see you were dwelling on the comparison to evolution. I was thinking of
the change but mainly about the "love vs strife" which evolved into
Nietzsche's Dionysian & Apollinian dynamic. Here is the post I was
thinking
of while reading about Empedocles that morning.
Nietzsche gives a very nice simile (I think it is in the "Morgenroete"),
comparing the joy of giving a powerful horse free rein to dash madly along
in the countryside, clinging on for dear life, to the feeling of power and
control from training such a wonderfully powerful animal to perform the
rigorous program of, say, the Viennese school of riding (Dressur).
To me that captures one of the basic problems the greeks wrestled with, that
of nature vs. culture. Trade having brought them in contact with a variety
of cultures and nations, the question arose as to the original substance of
humanity; and they brought fourth two hypotheses which we still in some
measure use, while being as little able as they were to resolve which one is
true: Is human nature essentially a raw material that needs society to shape
it into true humanity, like you e.g. train a dog (Aristotle), or is human
nature essentially already present at birth, the influence of society
accumulating like clutter and damage to the original core (more like
Rousseau ... can't find any corresponding greek right now)?
I guess Nietzsche's is the Pooh Solution. Both, please.
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Empedocles of Acragas - Evolutionary Theory B.C. |
20 Apr 2004 10:51:39 AM |
|
|
"Tron Furu" <tronfuru@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:d65hc.7723$px6.109417@news2.e.nsc.no...
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:CK-dnSE2j7N5NhndRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
"Tron Furu" <tronfuru@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:P_Zgc.7697$px6.109022@news2.e.nsc.no...
Hi,
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:itudnY-Cft--hhndRVn-hA@comcast.com...
Nice, but a bit naive in parts.
I see you were dwelling on the comparison to evolution. I was thinking
of
the change but mainly about the "love vs strife" which evolved into
Nietzsche's Dionysian & Apollinian dynamic. Here is the post I was
thinking
of while reading about Empedocles that morning.
Nietzsche gives a very nice simile (I think it is in the "Morgenroete"),
comparing the joy of giving a powerful horse free rein to dash madly along
in the countryside, clinging on for dear life, to the feeling of power and
control from training such a wonderfully powerful animal to perform the
rigorous program of, say, the Viennese school of riding (Dressur).
To me that captures one of the basic problems the greeks wrestled with,
that
of nature vs. culture.
Thnk you for that which led me to;
NOMOS/PHYSIS Debate
By the second half of the 5c B.C.E. a lively debate was under way in Greece,
and especially in Athens. This debate centered on the question to what
degree individual human and social behavior stems from convention (and
therefore changeable, conceivably relative influences) and to what degree
from immutable natural fact. In our own day we refer popularly to these
issues as the "Nature v. Nurture" debate. To the Greeks the contrast was
between NOMOS and PHYSIS. The debate was vigorous. It appeared as a theme in
political discourse, in historical writings, in philosophy, and in dramatic
literature.
NOMOS originally referred to an allotment, custom, or practice, and by
extension to enacted (so-called "positive") law. A pasture was NOMOS, a
parcel of land acknowledged by custom and tradition as belonging to a
particular family. NOMOS is prescriptive: customs not only prevail, they are
right. Violations of NOMOS are not only contrary to custom, they are
enjoined and proscribed. But from relatively early in Greek experience,
NOMOS was also associated with variability. The so-called "logographers,"
early prose writers who specialized in travelogs and anthropology, related
tales of quaint and exotic customs (NOMOI) practiced by non-Greek peoples.
(Herodotus offers many examples.) From these writers Greeks became aware
that customs NOMOI were not necessarily universal.
PHYSIS was a word related to growth, birth, and development. It came to mean
"nature," which, after all, has similar etymological roots in Latin. By the
time of Aristotle "On Nature" (PERI PHSYEOS) had become the standard,
interchangeable title of the surviving works of the Presocratic
philosophers. PHYSIS referred to the essential nature of a thing, as opposed
to its acquired characteristics. As such, PHYSIS took on connotations of
permanence and inviolability, and by extension came to refer to how things
really are, as opposed to how they may appear. (Parmenides' poem PERI
PHSYEOS is an example.)
As awareness of the variety of human customs (NOMOI) expanded, the question
arose whether what given custom regards as dishonorable or abhorrent is so
merely by convention, or whether certain practices or even customs
themselves actually are unnatural (contrary to PHYSIS.) This debate
continues to be vigorous and contentious in our own day.
Important Sophists who defended the role and legitimacy of NOMOS were
Protagoras, Critias, and the so-called Iamblicus. The champions of the view
that NOMOI are conventions designed to keep us in our place include
Antiphon, Callicles (represented in Plato's Gorgias, and Thrasymachus (made
famous from Plato's Republic, Bk 1.) (Richard McKirahan numbers Thucydides
among this group. McKirahan's account (pp. 390-413) of all these issues is
nuanced and very useful.)
http://www.webster.edu/~evansja/glossary.html
A big question that concerned the Sophists and their critics was: how is
virtue (areté) acquired? Can it be taught? These aren't ivory tower
questions, such as the nature of Nous , but were vital in a society where
power was shifting from the "well-bred" aristocrats to the less educated
masses. Answers involved two different principles which are essential for
understanding Greek thought: physis , "the unchanging," "fundamental
existence," or "nature" (we get the word "physics" from this term: physics
in the Greek world is primarily the study of "the unchanging" and
secondarily the study of "nature") and nomos , "custom," "the changing,"
"convention," or "law," and includes morality, tradition, and state laws,
all of which are subject to change or revision.
This dichotomy is a little like that between "nature" and "nurture."
However, what the Greeks meant by physis is a bit different from our idea of
"nature" or "natural." Physis designated what remained constant (like the
gravitational constant) and so could not be changed; however, sometimes the
Classical Greeks use this term to mean something like "nature." From the
third century onwards, physis will mean something closer to our idea of
"natural law." For the Greeks the scope of the dichotomy between nomos and
physis applied to practically everything, and it entered into questions such
as: do gods really exist (physis ), or are they only a conventional human
belief (nomos )? Are class divisions or gender divisions natural (physis )
or artificial (nomos )? Is justice an inborn characteristic of humanity
(physis ), or a convention invented by the weaker as a defense against the
stronger (nomos )? Is it natural for the stronger to rule the weaker? Is it
"natural," or merely self-evident, for all men to be created equal . . .?
Both nomos and physis may be considered good or bad. Nomos brings
progress in society (as in Pericles's Funeral Oration or the American
Constitution); but if laws are only valid by nomos they may be changed with
circumstances, and may conflict with physis. Physis justifies universal laws
("honor thy father and thy mother") and the equality of rich and poor, men,
women, and slaves; but can also justify considering the laws of the State an
unnatural limitation on individuals, to be observed only when transgression
is likely to be found out. For instance, I could justify breaking the law by
appealing to some universal right or some universal law; when governments
defend "freedom fighters" rebelling against other governments, they are
appealing to some universal, unchanging law that is greater than the laws of
an individual state.
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GREECE/PRESOC.HTM
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=nomos+physis+nature+nurture&spell=1
Trade having brought them in contact with a variety
of cultures and nations, the question arose as to the original substance
of
humanity; and they brought fourth two hypotheses which we still in some
measure use, while being as little able as they were to resolve which one
is
true: Is human nature essentially a raw material that needs society to
shape
it into true humanity, like you e.g. train a dog (Aristotle), or is human
nature essentially already present at birth, the influence of society
accumulating like clutter and damage to the original core (more like
Rousseau ... can't find any corresponding greek right now)?
I guess Nietzsche's is the Pooh Solution. Both, please.
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tron Furu" |
|
| Title: Re: Empedocles of Acragas - Evolutionary Theory B.C. |
20 Apr 2004 01:22:55 PM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:TbudndhKQ_dl2hjdRVn-hw@comcast.com...
/..../
Thnk you for that which led me to;
NOMOS/PHYSIS Debate
Ah, yes, there you have a better version - thx yourself.
Tron
PS
If you are the letter writing type, you might tell ...Webster? that they
might want to look into whether or not PERI PHSYEOS should be PERI PHYSEOS.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
