If a chess-lover was offered a simple formula for always getting at least a
draw (against every conceivable opponent), would he or she be happy to
receive it?

One could ask a similarly confronting question given the hypothetical (or
actual) availability of a philosophical framework for a simultaneously
precise (in parts) and unifying (umbrella-) understanding of every possible
pattern (ultimately conceptualized as: aspects of What Is "in_
[self-patterned] _formation") -- i.e., from anything "fundamentally
physical" to anything most "macro (psychosocio-) biological"
(and everything
inbetween).

Likewise, if the intricacies of e.g. evolutionary psychology, or
evolutionary aspects of game theory, tickles one's fancy, how easy would it
be to receive a recommendation to obtain a simply sustainable 'sophic state'
through an explanatory thinking partly but basically in terms of only 2
(dialectically dualistic) all-encompassing types of evolutionary (Darwinian)
pressures?

I suggest that such a recommendation would, in general, be vigorously
refused.

There are several very real reasons for this, and for a vast array of
closely related other, similar, "symptoms".

Some of the reasons are solidly scientifically established, others are
'merely' perfectly science-aligned;  They include the fact that there are
specific environmental causes, come neurophysiological sources of insidious
motivation and inhibitory bias, behind people's philosophical and/or
scientific pursuits.

These kinds of preoccupations (or such "focuses of actention") tend [the
same as do so many other habits and/or psychologically and
psychobehaviourally addictive activity by, or essentially involving,
specific "modules" of brains (or, by another name, of
"actention selection
systems")] to be tenaciously self-perpetuating.

I conclude this comment (a counter-weight against much 'piece-meal playing
around' with evolutionary theory, by many a professional academic, and plain
amateurs, around here)

[I do so despite the overwhelming odds *against* that members of our species
would, given our in general uniquely strong AEVASIVE characteristics, accept
and commonly learn to understand (understand with Tolerance Principled
precision) what kinds (including simply defined sub-categories) of
environmental/life-situational evolutionary pressures, and key combinations
thereof, correlate with (hence explain and uncover) the phylogenetic roots,
and subsequently evolved emergence, of our most characteristic (however
complex) AEVASIVE adaptation(s)]

by putting to you, that:

It is useful (for various more or less already implied reasons) to consider
the fact (and the evolutionary logic in) that life-situations that
'simultaneously consist' of an evolutionary pressure from some (one or more)
environmental "opportunity type" evolutionary pressure, AND some
"adversity
type" pressure of a kind such that it "implores" (as in
necessitates in
order to be survived in both an individual and, subsequently,
lineage-continuing/creating sense) "selective Hibernation" [= a response
that is the cell-physiological or neurophysiological opposite to any manner
of "flight or fight type" response], would, as a matter of principle in
every case of such an 'occurrence of compound phylogenetic confluence', also
have constituted a Darwinistic subprinciple that *tended* to set a
decisively naturally selective trend (IOW, to have generated an in hindsight
clearly recognizable "strange attractor" within the growth of the
animal/eucaryotic part of The Tree Of Evolution) in the corresponding
direction of an "ambi-advantageously adapted" geno/phenotype;

A 'direction of design' (defaulted-to in the absence of all but a Blind
Watchmaker ;), the by far most most "AEVASIVE example" of which
just happens
to be precisely us, and how we normally (and oh so ironically) are.

P
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 7/7/03 12:00:19 PM