Darwin

ken kenneth.mackendrick at utoronto.ca
Wed Aug 11 08:21:04 PDT 1999


On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 11:58:01 -0700 (PDT) Chuck Grimes wrote:


> In a material world, which is the one I am trying to address,
form means physical shape. There is no negativity of appearance. Everything is assumed to be identical with its appearance. So the only analogies that count are concrete similarities. For example, all triangles look alike, because they are all triangles. Triangles do not resemble symptoms or love relationships. They resemble other triangles. This is a very literal domain.

But this is still 'in Hegel.' The triangle is an abstract concept.

Concrete triangles negate the empty concept by providing substance. The 'actuality' of a triangle is a concrete manifestation of many triangles, of which no two are identical.

I'll stop talking about Hegel now.


> No. Again this is all much more plain than you make it
sound. I was talking about a balance of forces that sum to zero.

What is the direction of a balance of forces that sum to zero? I don't get it. A zero sum has no direction.

Doesn't gemetric shape have something to do with adaption? - a series of small improvements over time. But this doesn't explain the symmetry. Right?

I looked this up:

Farmers sprayed insecticide, and blowflies soon evolved resistance to it. The mutation conferring insecticide resistance also disrupted the developmental system, producing asymmetry which is maladaptive. Strong selection for insecticide resistance lead to increasing developmental asymmetry.

....Over time, mutations at other genes ("modifier loci") evolved to restore symmetry, while maintaining insecticide resistance. The developmental system adjusted to the necessity of carrying the mutation conferring insecticide resistance.

So your question is why symmetry? (right?). What pulls it all back together. One might be tempted to suggest genetic adaption. It is advantageous to be a mirror. But then this rings in the problem of inorganic life. Why are particles symmetrical? (am I with you?).

Perhaps biology and physics are secretly collaborating, a symbiotic relationship. If like struggles to be geometical, then this could be read as life imitating physics. So the question isn't a genetic one. It's a cosmological one. According to the big bang theories, this is one of many possible physics. Perhaps it is the only physics that permit 'life' to emerge. Perhaps this one universe within infinity that 'lucked out' by creating a physics that was cabable of developing an organism that could raise the question. Maybe other life forms have the same question. But you are interested in the effect of gravity on lifeforms. Is the idea of advantage and adaption a plausible explanation?

ken



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list