I appreciate the time you took to write down your philosophical understanding in a constructive way. The first problem I see with your philosophical system is the contradiction of your rejection of a universal absolute on the one hand and your embrace of evolution on the other. If you state that social structures undergo evolution you immediately presuppose that they rearrange in reaction to the breakdown of previous structures. How can you defend this proposition if you deny the existence of universal absolutes? If universal absolutes do not exist you cannot reasonably make the claim that new social structures be formed after the current ones break down. The only claim you could make is that new structures may, or may not be formed. You can't however point out any principles that would validate your claim that evolution exists. Doing so would point out an absolute principle and according to your own standards makes you a proponent of authoritarianism. This leads me to the second problem in your philosophy, namely the fallacy that axioms are authoritarian. The axiom 'I exist' does not presuppose that by stating it I force myself upon anyone. Axioms do not have any properties that lead to coercion, even if you were to state the opposite.
Thank you, Ferdinand. An intelligent reply and question deserves another intelligent answer. Evolution is a system - just like many other self-similar systems in nature. But this system is not absolute - a rock does not evolve in the same way as humans or society ... etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-similarity Evolution happens in a number of ways - one is when in a Darwinistic alignment - then the cycle of greatness with domination followed by the downfall and destruction occurs, with a new generation replacing the previous. Another way is that a system adapts to another system - like through our genetic system. Other adapting systems are democracies - they don't go through the cycle of destruction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system However systems like Abrahamic religion, Neoconservatism, Objectivism, Zionism ... they get destroyed because they are, as I pointed out, aggressive towards their surroundings. Now, back to your original objection. You - as an Objectivist - are trapped inside your way of thinking. You say that evolution is an absolute system - you read what you like to read - aligning it into your belief system - because you are strictly narrow-minded and reductionist. You automatically reject anything that that does not fit into your closed-world system. Of course evolution is NOT something absolute - it is just like other self-similar systems - a repeating phenomenon which is part of the universe and nature. One system goes through adaptation or destruction-replacement/-domination in relation to another system. That means that evolution is the generative nature of systems, regenerating as we all evolve and adapt. That is the main difference in the destructive cycle of evolution and the sustainable development evolution. They both intersect and influence each other, but they are not the same. If you command an axiom to hold "true" for others than yourself or in a system consensually adopted by others, but not consensually accepting your axiom - then you are an aggressive dictator, radical, fanatic madman. Did you understand this? There are no absolutes...
I'm willing to accept that systems and conceptions are subject to change. I would like to see you clarify your argument that evolution of social structures in a sustainable, progressional sense can take place. To be specific, I want to see you defend this in the light of Gödel's incompleteness theorem. I also want to know why you think the evolution of social structures carries within it teleological aspects, whereas its natural counterpart, darwinian evolution, does not. Last but not least I will point out the obvious in that to state "there are no absolutes" is itself an absolute statement. This paradox does not arise from my way of thinking, but from yours.
Remember the secret wepon that Mouch and the gang where dying to test out. Well, here is our modern day Mouch's dream. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,426485,00.html
Just curious, You successfully founded and sold 5 companies, were first in your class at university and in the military, speak 8 languages, are good in 4 others, have a masters degree, are a millionaire, made a bunch of your buddies rich, taught martial arts, and are under 40. You live in Brazil. Why the hell are you wasting time posting 2600+ times on ET, when you could be hanging around with a lot of beautiful Brazilian women, and enjoying the fruits of your labors You wouldn't by chance have Asperger's Syndrome, would you? I know of one absolute: You are compelled to always be right.
Gringinho, evolutionary logic is an absolute. That which persists, persists. No one is saying that abstracts are not real. The structure of the process is absolute. Don't begin to appropriate systems theory as devoid of conceptual absolutes. Principle mechanisms may be identified. If they are, there is no better example of an absolute.
That was classic. However that guy is still going to try to swing his bigger intellectual dick. He reminds me of some Aspergers patients my wife used to work with. I found the ignore feature on ET, which is so cool. Jeff
Ok, remember me talking about hypocrisy and scales ... degree of truth ... If you hold one dimension of evolution and on that scale you get full Darwinism on one end and on the other end you have complete order, peace and non-Darwinism as in "generational evolution". I already said the two systems are both present - always - but on macro to micro scales of systems. Darwinian evolution also is present - but it is cyclical in nature, not peaceful like through adaptation. So, while Darwinism creates "greatness" and domination - the adaptation takes you to the next level. It can be argued that adaptation takes a back-seat to the evolution of a system when there are increasingly "bigger fish" being created, and fighting for domination. My point is that if this Darwinism happens within the same species - and it dominates the system - then it turns cannibalistic and unsustainable. It will ultimately fail. That is why we trim back Darwinism and go for evolution through adaptation - i.e successful growth and expansion with a sustainable ecosystem. Now, back to Gödel. Gödel Incompleteness theorem says in general terms that no single system can include "everything" in the universe. And this is also true, because what evolution offers is a varying scale of systems in terms of many dimensions - on of these dimensions being Darwinism-Adaptation... So the point is that the system is not "complete" and does not try to be complete - but it serves the purpose of PROGRESS and EVOLUTION. It means that there is a way to "get to the next level", expand and improve. Teleology - purpose of a system... Well, any system has one primary goal - to preserve itself and grow. Paradoxes - are you refuting the existence of paradoxes? I have been repeatedly explaining how you can place these on a scale - and what is known as a paradox is when you have intersections of the two extremes on these scales. That is because one system can simply not contain "everything" - Gödel again, but there are like I said many systems which have intersections. When you run into a paradox, that is because you are trying to contain in ONE system something which really belongs to SEVERAL systems. Of course, then you can view another system which composites these systems... until you run into another paradox ... and so it goes. Look also into procedural generation. If you think of absolutes ... how many digits are there to the constant Pi? I hope you followed my earlier links on cardinality and large cardinals...
Who said evolution was a logic model? "that which persists, persists"... hehe, so if you are overweight? Evolution is the transient nature - recurrent everywhere.