Re: virus: Technology (was manifest science)
Joe E. Dees (email@example.com)
Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:08:47 -0500
Date sent: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 00:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dylan Durst <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: virus: Technology (was manifest science)
Send reply to: email@example.com
> > our being-in-the-world's being-to-the-world, of our incarnation into
> > Muscles and organs are not technology; they are the conditions of
> > the midst of it. The dividing line is easy; evolution vs. innovation.
> The dividing line is always easy. Thats why the idea of it has stuck.
> Evolution has brought us to innovation.
Perhaps to the point of possessing the capacity to innovate, but
without intending to do so, since it is devoid of intention.
> Multi-cellular organization brought us to organs and muscles (and us, i
> assume). At the time, it was probably an 'innovation,' but now it is an
> evolved, hmmm, 'condition'(?).
Innovation implies a conscious and purposeful innovator. The
process of evolution by means of natural selection is totally devoid
of such an entity.
> Innovation is just another part of evolution. As long as it is useful,
> it will stick. Just like, arms & legs, words, drums, telephones. Yes, the
> code for a telephone does not exist in our DNA, neither is the code for
> some of the nutrients that we need to survive. But our body parts
> dependent on those nutrients, as may become dependent on raw materials for
> our innovations.
If our body can use a nutrient, it has evolved molecular locks in
which the key of the particular nutrient may fit and by means of
which they may bond. The codes for creating the systems which
produce the molecules possessing particular locking configurations
are indeed genetic ones. The distinction stands; evolution is not
motivated by any purpose (deific or otherwise); innovation is
motivated by human purposes.
> - dylan