"One can't be too humble"...Tom Stoppard, not Pynchon

[Mark Kohut]

Herzen, Kropotkin,--previous subjects of Stoppard plays---and  others
in the 19th Century
argued for a non-selfish gene in evolution.

perhaps just as in History when anarchism became reduced to
bomb-throwing radical, scientists
reduced evolution to some kind of arguable selfishness since whatever
survives any and all
actions is evolutionarily successful.

So, a stranger who risks death and dies saving another human being,
non-kin, is reduced to
doing it for evolution's necessity.....there's the totalizing
tautology of which Stoppard alludes.

Re One chosen example. :A few people in history we know
of---Nietzsche, American anarchist John Chapman---have held
their hands in fires and flames.......that seems some kind of free
will inside the consciousness example given.

I MUST read Stoppard's play since it is unlikely I'll get to see it.



On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:53 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mechanistic or intrinsic spark are just differently-termed metaphors for the
> same thing: the creator/creation dynamic.  That subject is inherently
> paradoxical, both/and.  The very nature of a creation is limited
> manifestation that is actually limitless.  A dance of the not-two.
>
> David Morris
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> That is a tricky topic. If you say that the intelligence includes all, as
>> in non-duality, then any and all actions take place in that allness, and are
>> defined by it or limited by it. But how can the limitless be limited? Is it
>> the same old question of free will? It has been proven that cognition is a
>> step behind actual "happenings". For there to be an original action, would
>> there need to be first an original thought, and is that possible if
>> cognition is slower than "now"?
>>
>> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Really interesting conversation. I felt Stoppard had a powerful
>>> underlying challenge but was rather gummed up in getting it across. I
>>> thought Wilson was very persuasive that altruism while admirable for
>>> traditional human value systems, may  also be coded into nature as a
>>> pragmatic mechanism enhancing evolutionary survival and diversity. The
>>> assertion of Wilson’s I am most uncomfortable with is of all human
>>> functionality, and essentially  of all physical functionality, being
>>> mechanistic.
>>>  It is a very weird metaphor or analogy to be insistent about.  One could
>>> easily argue that quantum reality is more analogous to the metaphors of
>>> vitalism and intrinsic spark than to a machine which by definition is a
>>> created/designed tool for use by a shaping intelligence.
>>>
>>> > On May 29, 2015, at 8:06 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > https://evolution-institute.org/article/the-playwright-and-the-scientist-a-conversation-between-tom-stoppard-and-david-sloan-wilson/?utm_content=buffer37894&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
>>> > -
>>> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>
>>> -
>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> www.innergroovemusic.com
>>
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l