i wrote some notes a while ago on the difference between mechanical evolution for example protein binding versus ideological evolution and how some of the rules are different.
or how about the worth of genetic material. modified de dicto versus de re.
if a person says a particular thing, how does it modify their phenotype. does attraction even have anything to do with words, or is that type of communication vestigial to the precluding situation while at the same time being a routing point in animals.
how are the "super-ego positionings of culture" in any given situation which are not really solidly there but internalized for its use part of this higher level chain in communication.
well at an ancestrial level it is much easier to see, nests, food, navigation of the enviornment, but it gets lost in the "tribal" sphere of jewlery, mystification, etc.
sometimes i do think that evolution is not up to date in all categories.
and maybe it is still exploited by its richer mental dimensions, its almost like a self-knowledge of the obsolete through mystification.
i dont know if disseminatory layers exist for a reason, but it seems like its there.
its hard to categorize the functions and drives of particular people, their drive towards different segments of this. yet, if the tribal layer, which is just an enhanced primitive layer. is so important, then why doesnt it all culminate towards the same source, ie "the source". it seems like there is a high amount of splitting in species that serve different functions towards the same group goal. specialization, etc.
talking about evolution is pretty stupid. well from our perspective it seems like we are getting it even though we are in it. evolution means evolution evolves. so basically the only thing we can do is put a stick on the floor
at another level, which means that our "metacognition" of itself evolving is an unbound telesis because the segway between the "unconscious pure drive of evolution" and our "conscious understanding of it" is locked in its own self-recursive progression.
well back to the de-dicto question. signfiication could point to realms de re. it could also close in on mystical counter-parts of a species. if we follow this line, genetic material in culture is in a sense "abstract". which means that localization of cross-brain patterning in species is a sub-set of more up to date phenotypization. even though it is located in its "packed", basically unzipped sense in pre-culture lineages.
which is why i think there is still dysfunction between programs, well there is no integrated means. well another facinating part is evolutions "filterization" component of mating rituals. how much of it is real as long as there is cross-patterning of serotonin/oxytocin, etc.
well each decision is modified a thousand times before it is made in a certain order, but never the same order.
oh yeah so my friend is a buddhist, and he follows the eight fold path. or aristotles something about a medium.
so "principially" choosing instead of reacting, or in the case of following a consequential case of reacting badly thus reciprocating the medium. he would say that he would try to balance, inherited traits and post-natal traits. i think im more in to fate, and would react instead despite the niavety. which is in a sense betraying a certain course for "natural selection of the group".
if the "abstract" genetic material has more weight in interdependent enviornments, then post-natal traits are taken as primary in its functions. which is pretty funny if globally racism is a primary function of less interdependant societies.
well i think more and more, the concept of "natural selection of the group" which is of course alienated could be replaced in the second pass of solidification of culture, its exponentiating simulation process, in to the "participant selection of the cloud". which is the de-localization process by over-dependency in the mediums of culture for self-aggregation.
what is racism, most people would say that it is a "small pre-natal" detail that is extrapolated in "abstraction" for the "natural selection of the group" maybe the entire medium of its usage has passed.
i think it was more of the basis itself. closer to enhanced territorialism.
well the main thing that i find funny with the original formulation of evolution in the origin of species is. the original formulation of natural selection itself, and how much this drive has given up. if it really was natural selection, and there was not a lot of randomness in locality. then we would be much further down the road within specialization. plus the "original set" supposively extract from the behavioral patterns of anscestrial species, would of course be lamented in abstraction as something possibly detrimental to participants, defeating the process of it in mid air.
or how about the worth of genetic material. modified de dicto versus de re.
if a person says a particular thing, how does it modify their phenotype. does attraction even have anything to do with words, or is that type of communication vestigial to the precluding situation while at the same time being a routing point in animals.
how are the "super-ego positionings of culture" in any given situation which are not really solidly there but internalized for its use part of this higher level chain in communication.
well at an ancestrial level it is much easier to see, nests, food, navigation of the enviornment, but it gets lost in the "tribal" sphere of jewlery, mystification, etc.
sometimes i do think that evolution is not up to date in all categories.
and maybe it is still exploited by its richer mental dimensions, its almost like a self-knowledge of the obsolete through mystification.
i dont know if disseminatory layers exist for a reason, but it seems like its there.
its hard to categorize the functions and drives of particular people, their drive towards different segments of this. yet, if the tribal layer, which is just an enhanced primitive layer. is so important, then why doesnt it all culminate towards the same source, ie "the source". it seems like there is a high amount of splitting in species that serve different functions towards the same group goal. specialization, etc.
talking about evolution is pretty stupid. well from our perspective it seems like we are getting it even though we are in it. evolution means evolution evolves. so basically the only thing we can do is put a stick on the floor
at another level, which means that our "metacognition" of itself evolving is an unbound telesis because the segway between the "unconscious pure drive of evolution" and our "conscious understanding of it" is locked in its own self-recursive progression.
well back to the de-dicto question. signfiication could point to realms de re. it could also close in on mystical counter-parts of a species. if we follow this line, genetic material in culture is in a sense "abstract". which means that localization of cross-brain patterning in species is a sub-set of more up to date phenotypization. even though it is located in its "packed", basically unzipped sense in pre-culture lineages.
which is why i think there is still dysfunction between programs, well there is no integrated means. well another facinating part is evolutions "filterization" component of mating rituals. how much of it is real as long as there is cross-patterning of serotonin/oxytocin, etc.
well each decision is modified a thousand times before it is made in a certain order, but never the same order.
oh yeah so my friend is a buddhist, and he follows the eight fold path. or aristotles something about a medium.
so "principially" choosing instead of reacting, or in the case of following a consequential case of reacting badly thus reciprocating the medium. he would say that he would try to balance, inherited traits and post-natal traits. i think im more in to fate, and would react instead despite the niavety. which is in a sense betraying a certain course for "natural selection of the group".
if the "abstract" genetic material has more weight in interdependent enviornments, then post-natal traits are taken as primary in its functions. which is pretty funny if globally racism is a primary function of less interdependant societies.
well i think more and more, the concept of "natural selection of the group" which is of course alienated could be replaced in the second pass of solidification of culture, its exponentiating simulation process, in to the "participant selection of the cloud". which is the de-localization process by over-dependency in the mediums of culture for self-aggregation.
what is racism, most people would say that it is a "small pre-natal" detail that is extrapolated in "abstraction" for the "natural selection of the group" maybe the entire medium of its usage has passed.
i think it was more of the basis itself. closer to enhanced territorialism.
well the main thing that i find funny with the original formulation of evolution in the origin of species is. the original formulation of natural selection itself, and how much this drive has given up. if it really was natural selection, and there was not a lot of randomness in locality. then we would be much further down the road within specialization. plus the "original set" supposively extract from the behavioral patterns of anscestrial species, would of course be lamented in abstraction as something possibly detrimental to participants, defeating the process of it in mid air.