History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Will, man, genetics, ‘original sin’, teleology, and the question of violence…

May 31st, 2017 · No Comments

I certainly don’t reject genetic examination of violence but in the end the question is far more complex than genetics. Science has no viable psychology of man and has banished the question of human will (and much more). But man can’t be analyzed solely as a machine, he is far more complex.
And religion in xtianity has produced the myth of ‘original sin’, an idea I reject (I am not an xtian), but which points beyond its garbled version to a real question: does nature record acts of will and/or does the human ‘greater body’ (whatever that is) suffer the imprint of ‘memories of acts of will’, and further, then, does man show the effects of distorted psychologies will perpetrated over time a species character, perhaps degenerated?

One thing is sure, current science is in the woods here, however equally confused the religious legacy…

We should note that the question of violence can’t be solved by the ethics of non-violence (with its Jain origins way before the distortions of Gandhi, a position that was a form of meditation/liberation, not politics, the Jain monk might fast unto death to not step on insects…the jains had no illusions about violence!) and more generally if we consider the eonic effect we can see that a directional/telelogical system might well resolve to violence…We must be wary here because this is not an ethical issue for current behavior: the eonic model shows two modes to the question: the directionality of the system macro effect and that of the mideonic phase: these could be quite different, as our example of early and late Rome makes clear…

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment