http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=
If Darwin cannot be understood, then all this ... article makes
sense, I suppose.
It was *Spencer* who married Determinism with evolution. "This
view called Social Darwinism is a logical extension..." Darwin
is almost *orthogonal* to Spencer in this regard; only the
poorly chosen name is in common. The control-feedback mechanism
of Darwin has no place amongst the intentional. It isn't that
intention is wrong, it is simply... not. Intention cannot be
part of evolutionary systems. The time scales are simply wrong.
Intentional actors change things *now*.
This is, quite simply, skyhook intensive tommyrot. But it illustrates
the point that, surprisingly, Tome Wolfe of all people makes in
the interesting "I Am Charlotte Simmons." He always had one
really great point per book.
His point is that it is *uncomfortable* for people to embrace
the idea that there is direction without intent, that all
you see, the result of thousands if not millions of drawn-to
inside straights, doesn't have an "anybody" running it. His
point is that the solace of being correct is cold comfort.
Those who brave the future pointed to by such things are not those who
have the greatest talent, *but those who can stomach it
the best*. This is, essentially, a reductio on Spencer outright. A
nice piece of work.
Charlotte finds a talent for evolutionary theory, but cannot embrace it
due to the distractions of campus life and *her own reproductive
impulses*. It is not that the best are chosen, only that the
single-minded are. As in "Garp", they call it "gradual" school because
gradually, you don't wanna go to school anymore.
Like I say, it's a good point. It uses theory about self reference by
example without bending to it explicitly, a nicely executed craft move.
Ben Stein et al *know* better, but they also *know* that people
really wish this non-intent were not true. So they have a nice
hunk of populist identity agit for 'em.
--
Les Cargill
|
