Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Is the Darwinistic selection principle false?

Yes.
13
37%
Probably.
4
11%
Perhaps.
0
No votes
No.
16
46%
I do not know.
2
6%
 
Total votes : 35

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Feb 20, 2021 10:13 pm

Hey, you know, this, that, maybe.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 9207
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Jakob » Sun Feb 21, 2021 2:37 am

I do know. Selection.

What do you think about caste systems, in terms of survivable viability?

Is it a coincidence that India is the only uninterrupted culture? Question for anyone in this thread. Does a caste system make the human race less vulnerable, more anentropic?
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7349
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Feb 21, 2021 2:53 am

You know, all that said, and it is all very right to say, the real reason Darwin got big was that he was the only one to approach with extreme scientific rigour what otherwise only hobby botanists were looking into.

The rest, the dreadful philosophical mistakes in his thinking, cannot be particularly blamed on him when he was the only one out there for all effects and purposes.

When measured against Christian superstition, Darwin deserves every inch of the giant he has been made. But the truth is that that is not saying much. Considered within the realm of science, he really isn't very much to write home about. He just gathered evidence for something very obvious.

But it is a shame that it was he, Darwin, that took the science seriously. Because it is true that he just bypassed the entirety of what evolutionary science should be: the actual study of evolution, rather than a study of what makes evolution possible. It is like saying that the selection criteria for skyscrapers is gravity, and then you prove how all those little increments were able to survive gravity. But what about the insane visions XI century architects had to build gothic cathedrals? T'weren't gravity did that.

Modern evolutionary science only shows that modern scientists are just rebelious Christians. They are just excited somebody proved their dad wrong, and get off on it continuously. For all you want to say about those botanists, they were actually looking into how evolutionary change itself happens, not what allows it to persist.

All this is annoying to say, but it must be said, because Darwin's dilligence is not something that can just be brushed over.

But you hear something like this:

Silhouette wrote:Darwin's principle is unavoidably scientific. It's as sure and apples fall from trees.


And anybody who is even a science enthusiast must be able to understand what it says about the state of "science" today. The same is thought about climate change. Whereas even the aformentioned science enthusiasts would tell you that such a giant as Newton, let alone Einstein, would have puked at hearing that about their own theories. That is not how science works. That is, however, how religion works. "Science" is not in the hands of scientists, it is in the hands of technicians and ideologists. Of fanatics and people who don't care about truth, but about being told that everything is OK, you don't have to know why, but everything makes sense, and somebody is taking care of it.

This is a further reason why it is so drastically important that science be understood, once again, to belong to the fold of philosophy. That is what drives it, what makes it work. Not the service of kings or to seek that everything is alright, but to chase after wisdom.

I mean you have people thinking that binary code used to communicate with electrical circuits can become a brain. The sphere of data that computers process is an infinitesimal portion of the sphere of "data" a brain processes. In order to replicate a brain, you would eventually have to design evolution all over only to discover that the fastest way to get the most powerful possible brain is to use the existing ones. People don't want that, they don't want that responsibility. They want faith, articles of faith. Science, philosophy doesn't help you sleep at night. Dogma does. Why Satyr is so obssessed with Nazi sociology and all these other good people here each with their own little dogmatic structure. They just want to sleep at night, to feel like it all makes sense. A philosopher, a scientist, needs at least 1000x the balls that are seen in such puny aspirations.

My brother complains to me, he says "you can't ascribe communism to cowardice, because I know good people that are communists." He is referring to my cousin, who has a post-doctorate in pure physichs and has worked on supercolliders. He doesn't mean belonging to the communist party, but this modern disease we all know. I refuse to budge. Because what they hook geniuses like my cousin with is the rhetorical co-opting of the Rennaiscance tradition, the Greek Restoration, lip service to the pursuits of philosophy and fancy gadgets to become glorified technicians with a "scientist" tag on their lab coats. But however much they pay that lip service, the heart knows. And even though there are degrees of cowardice, and the degree my cousin has is really fucking small, it is still coardice that does it. Refusal to face the harsh conditions that the heart also knows await any who open the gates to "philosophy." All philosophy has to say is: nobody knows what the fuck is going on and anybody that tells you they do is a tyrant wanting to put your balls in a jar. That's just what it is. Philosophy is a never-ending toil that knows there is no end of the line, no final answer. A philosopher must love the woods.

And you gotta ask yourself: how much is safety really worth?

A lot of people cannot be directly faced with this, because they are good people and you don't want to push them to the wrong side. They must remain in the dark, like my cousin, so they can hang on to their soul. The fight is not against them.

And I'll tell you what else, I ain't spending time posting on this retarded website for the sake of no coward.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 9207
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Feb 21, 2021 2:54 am

Jakob wrote:I do know. Selection.

What do you think about caste systems, in terms of survivable viability?


I don't know, ask Nietzsche.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 9207
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Jakob » Sun Feb 21, 2021 3:03 am

Was that you complaining that I don't give straight answers?

And I can't really agree with that whole Sokratic adage about not knowing. Though philosophy alone is not enough to know what is going on, not without astrology and some forensic information. Without it (meaning, without Nietzsche), it is perfectly impossible to grasp what is going on.
Last edited by Jakob on Sun Feb 21, 2021 3:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7349
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Feb 21, 2021 3:04 am

No son. It really wasn't.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 9207
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Jakob » Sun Feb 21, 2021 3:05 am

Lol.

Okay boomer.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7349
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Sculptor » Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:14 am

Jakob wrote:
Is it a coincidence that India is the only uninterrupted culture? Question for anyone in this thread. Does a caste system make the human race less vulnerable, more anentropic?


India is not uninterrupted. No culture is.
After the Moghul and British invasions, India dis not simple return to "normal".
There is no "India" culture. Cultures are not bounded entities and can freely exchange ideas between themselves in the most promiscuous ways.

As for the caste system. It is pretty obvious that it represents a serious impediment for progress and change. Perhaps the reason you think India is uninterrrupted is because of that static nature, which has made India vulnerable to invasions.
Sculptor
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby MagsJ » Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:46 am

_
India was too busy infighting with their families and their own, and weakened themselves and their numbers after many lengthy battles, which made them ripe pickings for invasions. They were very feudal, and some say they still are, but I think less so.

List of wars involving India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... ving_India

Hasn’t China got an unbroken culture? Probably the only civilisation that has.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21815
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Sculptor » Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:48 am

MagsJ wrote:_
India was too busy infighting with their families and their own, and weakened themselves and their numbers after many lengthy battles, which made them ripe pickings for invasions. They were very feudal, and some say they still are, but I think less so.

List of wars involving India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... ving_India

Hasn’t China got an unbroken culture? Probably the only civilisation that has.


I think not.
Warring disparate states to empire to mongol vassal to empire to communism to state capitalism; hardly unbroken.
"Culture" is what you perceive it to be, but changeless or unbroken it cannot be.
Sculptor
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby MagsJ » Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:28 pm

Sculptor wrote:I think not.
Warring disparate states to empire to mongol vassal to empire to communism to state capitalism; hardly unbroken.
"Culture" is what you perceive it to be, but changeless or unbroken it cannot be.

May be they say it has.. because of this:
    - China was never colonized by any imperialists. Instead, they break China into several spheres of influence. Each western country had its own sphere of influence. ... Finally, these nomads became gradually “Chinese.” This included the Mongols or Yuan dynasty, and the Manchus of Qing dynasty.

On another note: Which country has invaded the most countries?
    - ..in a survey of 200 of the world's countries through that, in one shape or form, Great Britain has invaded all but 22 of them. That amounts to about 90 percent of the world's countries. It's easy to scratch your head at this figure.
:lol:
__
Back to India.. India was easily conquerable from the West but not the East, which was impossible because of the Ganges Delta and the Himalayas.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21815
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Sculptor » Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:47 pm

MagsJ wrote:
Sculptor wrote:I think not.
Warring disparate states to empire to mongol vassal to empire to communism to state capitalism; hardly unbroken.
"Culture" is what you perceive it to be, but changeless or unbroken it cannot be.

May be they say it has.. because of this:
    - China was never colonized by any imperialists.

Ghengis Khan?? Mongolians are not Chinese.
And whatever "CHina" might be, the fact that there are several languages and dialects challenge this statement.
The British colonised Hong Kong.
And early CHina was always being conquered before the "idea" of A pan chinese state was even thinkable.

Instead, they break China into several spheres of influence. Each western country had its own sphere of influence. ... Finally, these nomads became gradually “Chinese.” This included the Mongols or Yuan dynasty, and the Manchus of Qing dynasty.
On another note: Which country has invaded the most countries?
    - ..in a survey of 200 of the world's countries through that, in one shape or form, Great Britain has invaded all but 22 of them. That amounts to about 90 percent of the world's countries. It's easy to scratch your head at this figure.
:lol:
__
Back to India.. India was easily conquerable from the West but not the East, which was impossible because of the Ganges Delta and the Himalayas.


Fruit is unconquered, but apples and not oranges
Sculptor
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Kathrina » Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:50 pm

MagsJ wrote:_
India was too busy infighting with their families and their own, and weakened themselves and their numbers after many lengthy battles, which made them ripe pickings for invasions. They were very feudal, and some say they still are, but I think less so.

List of wars involving India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... ving_India

Hasn’t China got an unbroken culture? Probably the only civilisation that has.

All cultures had been uninterrupted until the time when they were interrupted. There is only one culture that has not been interrupted: the Western Christian culture. That may soon change.

When cultures are interrupted, they have fallen into nihilism, decadence, that is, they cease to be cultures and begin to be civilizations, that is, something like "world cultures," and thus they become open, soft and conquered.
Image Image Image Image
User avatar
Kathrina
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:50 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby MagsJ » Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:07 pm

Sculptor wrote:
MagsJ wrote:
Sculptor wrote:I think not.
Warring disparate states to empire to mongol vassal to empire to communism to state capitalism; hardly unbroken.
"Culture" is what you perceive it to be, but changeless or unbroken it cannot be.

May be they say it has.. because of this:
    - China was never colonized by any imperialists. Instead, they break China into several spheres of influence. Each western country had its own sphere of influence. ... Finally, these nomads became gradually “Chinese.” This included the Mongols or Yuan dynasty, and the Manchus of Qing dynasty.

Ghengis Khan?? Mongolians are not Chinese.
And whatever "CHina" might be, the fact that there are several languages and dialects challenge this statement.
The British colonised Hong Kong.
And early CHina was always being conquered before the "idea" of A pan chinese state was even thinkable.

..maybe because of this:
    - China was never colonized by any imperialists. Instead, they break China into several spheres of influence. Each western country had its own sphere of influence. ... Finally, these nomads became gradually “Chinese.” This included the Mongols or Yuan dynasty, and the Manchus of Qing dynasty.
    - In 1206 Genghis Khan united the tribes of the Mongol steppe and set their warlike sights far beyond their homeland. When Genghis died in 1227, they had all but conquered the Jin dynasty of northern China.

Sculptor wrote:
On another note: Which country has invaded the most countries?
    - ..in a survey of 200 of the world's countries through that, in one shape or form, Great Britain has invaded all but 22 of them. That amounts to about 90 percent of the world's countries. It's easy to scratch your head at this figure.
:lol:
__
Back to India.. India was easily conquerable from the West but not the East, which was impossible because of the Ganges Delta and the Himalayas.

Fruit is unconquered, but apples and not oranges

..and not all are conquerable, whether they be apples or oranges.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21815
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Sculptor » Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:57 pm

Sculptor wrote:
MagsJ wrote:
Sculptor wrote:I think not.
Warring disparate states to empire to mongol vassal to empire to communism to state capitalism; hardly unbroken.
"Culture" is what you perceive it to be, but changeless or unbroken it cannot be.

May be they say it has.. because of this:
    - China was never colonized by any imperialists. Instead, they break China into several spheres of influence. Each western country had its own sphere of influence. ... Finally, these nomads became gradually “Chinese.” This included the Mongols or Yuan dynasty, and the Manchus of Qing dynasty.

Ghengis Khan?? Mongolians are not Chinese.
And whatever "CHina" might be, the fact that there are several languages and dialects challenge this statement.
The British colonised Hong Kong.
And early CHina was always being conquered before the "idea" of A pan chinese state was even thinkable.

..maybe because of this:
    - China was never colonized by any imperialists. Instead, they[/quote] WHO IS THEY?
    break China into several spheres of influence. Each western country had its own sphere of influence.
    WHAT?[/quote] ... Finally, these nomads became gradually “Chinese.” This included the Mongols or Yuan dynasty, and the Manchus of Qing dynasty.
    [/quote]
    Maybe shmaybe
    - In 1206 Genghis Khan united the tribes of the Mongol steppe and set their warlike sights far beyond their homeland. When Genghis died in 1227, they had all but conquered the Jin dynasty of northern China.

Sculptor wrote:
On another note: Which country has invaded the most countries?
    - ..in a survey of 200 of the world's countries through that, in one shape or form, Great Britain has invaded all but 22 of them. That amounts to about 90 percent of the world's countries. It's easy to scratch your head at this figure.
:lol:
__
Back to India.. India was easily conquerable from the West but not the East, which was impossible because of the Ganges Delta and the Himalayas.

Fruit is unconquered, but apples and not oranges

..and not all are conquerable, whether they be apples or oranges.


China has been conquered.
Sculptor
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Sculptor » Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:58 pm

Kathrina wrote:
MagsJ wrote:_
India was too busy infighting with their families and their own, and weakened themselves and their numbers after many lengthy battles, which made them ripe pickings for invasions. They were very feudal, and some say they still are, but I think less so.

List of wars involving India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... ving_India

Hasn’t China got an unbroken culture? Probably the only civilisation that has.

All cultures had been uninterrupted until the time when they were interrupted. There is only one culture that has not been interrupted: the Western Christian culture. That may soon change. .


lol

So much ignorance, so little time.
Sculptor
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Jakob » Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:04 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Kathrina wrote:
MagsJ wrote:_
India was too busy infighting with their families and their own, and weakened themselves and their numbers after many lengthy battles, which made them ripe pickings for invasions. They were very feudal, and some say they still are, but I think less so.

List of wars involving India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... ving_India

Hasn’t China got an unbroken culture? Probably the only civilisation that has.

All cultures had been uninterrupted until the time when they were interrupted. There is only one culture that has not been interrupted: the Western Christian culture. That may soon change. .


lol

So much ignorance, so little time.

The only culture that has not been interrupted to my knowledge is India. They have the same gods and the same social structure as they did for thousands of years. Yes, they were under British rule for a while, but this didn't influence their social structure or their religion. It just taught them English and cricket.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7349
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:19 pm

India has become much more democratic (less cast system - authoritarian) and more capitalistic in the last 100 years.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2339
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Jakob » Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:27 pm

Surely, India adapts to circumstance and modernizes. But it hasn't become cultural-relative. In fact the past years it has become increasingly aware again of the importance of remaining religiously pure.

Bottom line - India has never abandoned its true gods. They are our "big uncle" from whom we may learn.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7349
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:39 pm

I think more like "grand-uncle" - but ok. :D
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2339
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Jakob » Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:08 pm

Yes. It's a quote from someone who first referenced India as the older brother, and then corrected it to uncle.

The case is clear; India is older and wiser.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7349
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Sculptor » Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:34 pm

Jakob wrote:Surely, India adapts to circumstance and modernizes. But it hasn't become cultural-relative. In fact the past years it has become increasingly aware again of the importance of remaining religiously pure.

Bottom line - India has never abandoned its true gods. They are our "big uncle" from whom we may learn.


India has several different religions represented.
Hinduism itself is nothing but a dustbin od disparate tradictions; then there is a range of Buddhisms; Christianities, Janeist. Islams and Seikism (possibly the only whole one).

SO there is no such thing as Indian religious culture.
Sculptor
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Jakob » Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:49 pm

Ghandi might have agreed with you for the sake of no-argument, but Modi won't.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7349
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Kathrina » Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:56 pm

Kathrina wrote:
MagsJ wrote:_
India was too busy infighting with their families and their own, and weakened themselves and their numbers after many lengthy battles, which made them ripe pickings for invasions. They were very feudal, and some say they still are, but I think less so.

List of wars involving India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... ving_India

Hasn’t China got an unbroken culture? Probably the only civilisation that has.

All cultures had been uninterrupted until the time when they were interrupted. There is only one culture that has not been interrupted: the Western Christian culture. That may soon change.

When cultures are interrupted, they have fallen into nihilism, decadence, that is, they cease to be cultures and begin to be civilizations, that is, something like "world cultures," and thus they become open, soft and conquered.

Only communists and Bideners can be of the hasty opinion that the West has been interrupted. They want to disrupt the West, but so far they have not succeeded. Not yet.

Besides, by now the whole world is a Western culture when it comes to the application of Western technology. Everywhere on this planet machines are used, electricity is used, trains are used, telephones are used, cars are used, airplanes are used, rockets are used, nuclear energy is used, atomic bombs, chemical and biological weapons are used, computers are used, genetic engineering is used, the internet is used. Who wants to destroy the western culture, must first of all abolish the Western technology, the whole modern age.

If Biden and Co. are in the process of destroying Western culture, one should always keep in mind that this destruction itself is still a part of Western culture. Western culture is not finished. Not yet. You left-wing nutcases can think and say that as much as you want. You will perish with and in your own desires.

It's all about success, about the intelligence that is to be eliminated. But this story is not over yet. Not yet.

To be able to achieve all this, they have to lie and cheat even more than they do now (and that's bad enough).

You can see from the reactions in the West, including here at ILP, that the majority of the Westerners themselves (!) wants to destroy the Western culture. The only problem for them is that they have not yet been able to do it successfully. Not yet. And they try to do it by using Western technology.This is as contradictory as it is ironic and cynical, because it is nihilistic.

If the world is going to become more and more like, for example, Biden wants it to be, then it will find itself relatively soon in a huge chaos. A huge chaos!

Remember my words.
Image Image Image Image
User avatar
Kathrina
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:50 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Meno_ » Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:40 pm

Katrina says,

"When cultures are interrupted, they have fallen into nihilism, decadence, that is, they cease to be cultures and begin to be civilizations, that is, something like "world cultures," and thus they become open, soft and conquered."



Just vainglory led me to this currently, but discontinuity can generally be held from either intrinsic and extrinsic sources. True they are not clear cut, but one side generally dominates.

Here I regret the dual aspect seeking the third missing Russia/USSR/&Russia again, because prior to the Russian Revolution, Peter the Great sought to simulate Erurope, while China had the great War with England over opium.

The fact is, just like in the US narcotization levels the Capitalistic field, China back around the Boxer Rebellion. So the comparison is devoid of ideology, to the disadvantage of material dialectics.



However such lean is understandable by the lack of equilibrium between transcendent and derivitive opinion.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8326
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users