2 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2022
  2. bafybeicuq2jxzrw7omddwzohl5szkqv6ayjiubjy3uopjh5c3cghxq6yoe.ipfs.dweb.link bafybeicuq2jxzrw7omddwzohl5szkqv6ayjiubjy3uopjh5c3cghxq6yoe.ipfs.dweb.link
    1. The very notion of thinking aboutlife (or evolution for that matter) as having a definite purpose or goal is already asymptom of a deeply rooted bias in favour of the constant and against change. Thereare voices that will immediately attack this view, blaming it for insinuating that lifehas no purpose at all. But a dialectic of such kind is empty of any credence if notentirely absurd. The view I propose here does not indeed accept that life is sub-jugated to a single purpose or principle but instead affirms life as having not onepurpose but infinitely multiple ones, not one goal but multiple goals and, moreover,the vast majority of these purposes and goals cannot be known a priori because theyare subject to continuous formative processes of becoming. This is why life as suchis open-ended.

      !- question : does evolution have a purpose? * Language is a constraint - it forces us to form questions that may not necessarily make sense, such as "how many angels exist on the head of a pin?" * To say that it has one, or even more than one purpose may itself be a meaningless assertion, as much as insinuating that it has no purpose. If one asks "Is the sound of a bell red or yellow? It is neither the case that it is red, yellow or any color. So arguing about the right and wrong of a quality that is nonsensical is itself nonsensical. * The self-annihilating questioning of Nagarjuna's tetralemma are relevant to shed insight into these deep questions.

  3. Jun 2020