In a message dated 98-10-29 21:36:26 EST, someone wrote:
<< If genes are so focussed and 'selfish' what on earth is the humble
catterpillar up to
when it wraps itself in a cocoon and symbolically dies......only to emerge as
a
transcendent beautiful butterfly.
Why did it not evolve by REMAINING a catterpillar and continuing to chomp
away
at the cabage instead of going through this incredibly 'wasteful' routine. >>
xcto:
Why do we put a social/intellectual (subjective quality) on a biological
process?
Why do we put symbolism on a biological process?
I'm more into the thinking of a combination of environmental change with
generational mutation with a little bit of species migration. It's pretty
mechanistic, but it fits my version of what I know. Any given species will
adapt to its environment or die. The greater the ability to adapt the more
proliferation of that species around the world. Somewhere an environmental
change occurs - volcanic eruption, drought, flood, earthquake, desert
formation, continental drift, some new predator migration, etc. Some species
will be able to adapt, others won't. Those that do will eventually
differentiate from the orginal species. Usually the adaptations will be
specifically for that niche it lives in. If the niche doesn't require any
special adaptation or the environment is stable, the species will Dynamically
change to create the best Biological Static Pattern (no geological change will
allow the species to continually interbreed leaving the species a single
species). Occassionally, there will be migration and the process starts again
if there is no interbreeding. The butterfly is an insect and so goes through
the four general stages of development (egg, larva, pupa, adult). The pre-
butterfly insect larva simply found it much more dynamic to go out and look
for food instead of the adult placing it conviently on or next to food. The
adult mutations of coloration is a different SQ altogether.
I don't mean to spoil your romantic quality with my classicism, but I realize
how much the aesthetic will color our reason. I don't see this as a bad thing
since our Static Patterns definately see these as higher quality than having
descriptive passages without ornamental language. I just see the Quality as
of lower quality.
On a Moral Level, how do we order this when both these views are requisite in
our culture. With the increasing specialization of the individuals in our
world it is important to me that we discuss that they are both part of 'the
giant' that societies have become. It seems I must withdraw that 'lower
quality' view in that it is just as important to the stability of the Social
Patterns. What I don't want to say is "I agree to disagree" because it just
keeps people apart with no real connection involved.
I need to speak out and say, I need those romantic trappings of "trancendent
butterflies" and "selfish genes" otherwise there will be no more great artists
of writing and paint. But when we discuss MOQ, I will always have to revert
to the arena where I fight, the classical battlefield.
Xcto
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:36 BST