771
87.2 Deep Ethological Convergence
Mental fixations follow by primeval logic upon the actions of this biosemiotic
convergence, signs flowing in from every quadrant of life. The sum total of signs
can never add up to a real cow, obviously. Our meanings are tooled and re-tooled
over millennia to convey the simplicities of passing time. Not lost generations.
If readiness- and reciprocity-potentials might yet galvanize the connections
between beings of any persuasion, the plight ordaining all those conditionals that
enshrine the reality of ecosystems is unlikely to relax the strictures, even for a second, governing separation between H. sapiens and all others. To forgive across
boundaries is the most welcome of heresies. A world we do not know, even as we
have attempted to frame it in hundreds of sprawling natural history museums, brilliant insects pinioned on boards with pins and needles and a gluttonous use of formaldehyde. A newcomer’s pathway to forgiveness citizenship is inherently the deep
ethological manifestation which finds companionship everywhere in the world.
A history of the arts embodying the trillions of anonymous deaths at the hand of
humanity would argue that personality and attitude curves are capable of any deviation. There are no permanent X and Y axes that defy the ever-present options of a
noble and self-sacrificing, self-accepting behavior, even before the cliff of overwhelming odds. Communion and unisons are well documented. Although in humans
its recognition is rare. In thinking about forgiveness, one must question the paradigm
of antagonism: Who are the combatants and is it enough to suggest that survival has
anything to do with the basic vocabulary of evolution? The young Darwin was uncertain when traveling through “neutral territory” in Tierra Del Fuego in January 1833
1
.
“Survival” has forever been hardwired under the aegis of pain and suffering.
While it gained momentum during the varied exchanges between Darwin, Herbert
Spencer, and Alfred Wallace
2
, it remains an utterly paradoxical concept on account
of the near universality of death (other than certain so-called immortal cell lines). So
that the first essential qualifier needs be a qualification and quantification of the
noun. Survive for how long? At what cost (by what means)? Under what conditions
and contexts? In and of itself survival, as we know it, is strictly the precious collaboration of desire, impulse, and adamantine Self. One might pray for peace on earth,
or for a patient to survive a harrowing surgical procedure. But prayer, like survival,
begins to deteriorate when applied to group selection. It finds its sea-legs most
assuredly in the individual.
1 Charles Darwin, Journal of Researches, Ward, Lock and Co., London, New York, 1889, p.159.
2 See Momme von Sydow, M. (2014). ‘Survival of the Fittest’ in Darwinian Metaphysics –
Tautology or Testable Theory? Archived 3 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine (pp. 199–222) In
E. Voigts, B. Schaff & M. Pietrzak-Franger (Eds.), Reflecting on Darwin. Farnham, London:
Ashgate; See also, “This preservation, during the battle for life, of varieties which possess any
advantage in structure, constitution, or instinct, I have called Natural Selection; and Mr. Herbert
Spencer has well expressed the same idea by the Survival of the Fittest. The term “natural selection” is in some respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious choice; but this will be disregarded after a little familiarity.” Darwin, Charles (1868), The Variation of Animals and Plants
under Domestication, 1
st edition, London: John Murray, p.6.
87.2 Deep Ethological Convergence
87.2 Deep Ethological Convergence
Mental fixations follow by primeval logic upon the actions of this biosemiotic
convergence, signs flowing in from every quadrant of life. The sum total of signs
can never add up to a real cow, obviously. Our meanings are tooled and re-tooled
over millennia to convey the simplicities of passing time. Not lost generations.
If readiness- and reciprocity-potentials might yet galvanize the connections
between beings of any persuasion, the plight ordaining all those conditionals that
enshrine the reality of ecosystems is unlikely to relax the strictures, even for a second, governing separation between H. sapiens and all others. To forgive across
boundaries is the most welcome of heresies. A world we do not know, even as we
have attempted to frame it in hundreds of sprawling natural history museums, brilliant insects pinioned on boards with pins and needles and a gluttonous use of formaldehyde. A newcomer’s pathway to forgiveness citizenship is inherently the deep
ethological manifestation which finds companionship everywhere in the world.
A history of the arts embodying the trillions of anonymous deaths at the hand of
humanity would argue that personality and attitude curves are capable of any deviation. There are no permanent X and Y axes that defy the ever-present options of a
noble and self-sacrificing, self-accepting behavior, even before the cliff of overwhelming odds. Communion and unisons are well documented. Although in humans
its recognition is rare. In thinking about forgiveness, one must question the paradigm
of antagonism: Who are the combatants and is it enough to suggest that survival has
anything to do with the basic vocabulary of evolution? The young Darwin was uncertain when traveling through “neutral territory” in Tierra Del Fuego in January 1833
1
.
“Survival” has forever been hardwired under the aegis of pain and suffering.
While it gained momentum during the varied exchanges between Darwin, Herbert
Spencer, and Alfred Wallace
2
, it remains an utterly paradoxical concept on account
of the near universality of death (other than certain so-called immortal cell lines). So
that the first essential qualifier needs be a qualification and quantification of the
noun. Survive for how long? At what cost (by what means)? Under what conditions
and contexts? In and of itself survival, as we know it, is strictly the precious collaboration of desire, impulse, and adamantine Self. One might pray for peace on earth,
or for a patient to survive a harrowing surgical procedure. But prayer, like survival,
begins to deteriorate when applied to group selection. It finds its sea-legs most
assuredly in the individual.
1 Charles Darwin, Journal of Researches, Ward, Lock and Co., London, New York, 1889, p.159.
2 See Momme von Sydow, M. (2014). ‘Survival of the Fittest’ in Darwinian Metaphysics –
Tautology or Testable Theory? Archived 3 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine (pp. 199–222) In
E. Voigts, B. Schaff & M. Pietrzak-Franger (Eds.), Reflecting on Darwin. Farnham, London:
Ashgate; See also, “This preservation, during the battle for life, of varieties which possess any
advantage in structure, constitution, or instinct, I have called Natural Selection; and Mr. Herbert
Spencer has well expressed the same idea by the Survival of the Fittest. The term “natural selection” is in some respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious choice; but this will be disregarded after a little familiarity.” Darwin, Charles (1868), The Variation of Animals and Plants
under Domestication, 1
st edition, London: John Murray, p.6.
87.2 Deep Ethological Convergence