Hi there,
So I understand what the foundation of Evolutionist's insistence, on correlation between the species and the individual being specie-wide is: agency of the individual, is affected by the degree that individual can be amenable. Therefore, amenability that still justifies the individual's agency, will be advanced by Evolution. The logic is plain: the more amenability that an individual can sustain, the more adaptation they will be able to sustain. The more adaptation they sustain, the more the individual's agency, needs to be dynamic. These two things evolve, in tandem with each other - making a two-state equilibrium that cannot be resolved, by a particular choice, with the exception of embracing the two-state equilibrium as a whole - making Evolution a black box development, that can't be sustained without design (the ability to take a set of changes, as responsible for the whole?).
The point is, you can establish a foundation for each separate species, on the basis of whether the majority of that species, is amenable to changes in response to selection pressures. The selection pressures themselves, may change or not, but if more of the species is amenable over time, to the developments in response to those selection pressures, that species will survive more. Survival of the fittest, is relative to how amenable the fittest are. Culture, in turn, can take this "amenability" and develop responses that specifically increase the amenability that a particular species attempts to express. The retelling of the theory of Evolution, is just such an example: by retelling the tenets of Evolution, the majority of the species is able to make itself ready ("amenable") to respond to new selection pressures, as they are identified.
Identity, then, becomes a currency, in a given species, as to how that species can be evaluated, as to its amenability as a whole. The more amenable a species is, the readier that species becomes to mate. If the amenability reduces at the prospect of mating, that mating is delayed. The level of amenability, directly affects, what that species will experience, by way of Evolution, generation to generation. Identity has a second feature as well, in that it can insist on a particular species' trait being protracted, that is mated for, across a number of mating seasons. Identity becomes an amenable identity, that is familiar, in numerous contexts - it transcends Evolution, in an evolved way (not because it is not being selected for, but because that selection is already anticipated, before there is circumstance in which it is "testable" one way or the other). Once amenability is found to agree with Evolution, Evolution does not need to engage as much, that is, with selection pressures it knows are coming.
I wonder if you can digest this? That if you are "amenable", you can be "trusted" to be amenable?
Give me your thoughts?
So I understand what the foundation of Evolutionist's insistence, on correlation between the species and the individual being specie-wide is: agency of the individual, is affected by the degree that individual can be amenable. Therefore, amenability that still justifies the individual's agency, will be advanced by Evolution. The logic is plain: the more amenability that an individual can sustain, the more adaptation they will be able to sustain. The more adaptation they sustain, the more the individual's agency, needs to be dynamic. These two things evolve, in tandem with each other - making a two-state equilibrium that cannot be resolved, by a particular choice, with the exception of embracing the two-state equilibrium as a whole - making Evolution a black box development, that can't be sustained without design (the ability to take a set of changes, as responsible for the whole?).
The point is, you can establish a foundation for each separate species, on the basis of whether the majority of that species, is amenable to changes in response to selection pressures. The selection pressures themselves, may change or not, but if more of the species is amenable over time, to the developments in response to those selection pressures, that species will survive more. Survival of the fittest, is relative to how amenable the fittest are. Culture, in turn, can take this "amenability" and develop responses that specifically increase the amenability that a particular species attempts to express. The retelling of the theory of Evolution, is just such an example: by retelling the tenets of Evolution, the majority of the species is able to make itself ready ("amenable") to respond to new selection pressures, as they are identified.
Identity, then, becomes a currency, in a given species, as to how that species can be evaluated, as to its amenability as a whole. The more amenable a species is, the readier that species becomes to mate. If the amenability reduces at the prospect of mating, that mating is delayed. The level of amenability, directly affects, what that species will experience, by way of Evolution, generation to generation. Identity has a second feature as well, in that it can insist on a particular species' trait being protracted, that is mated for, across a number of mating seasons. Identity becomes an amenable identity, that is familiar, in numerous contexts - it transcends Evolution, in an evolved way (not because it is not being selected for, but because that selection is already anticipated, before there is circumstance in which it is "testable" one way or the other). Once amenability is found to agree with Evolution, Evolution does not need to engage as much, that is, with selection pressures it knows are coming.
I wonder if you can digest this? That if you are "amenable", you can be "trusted" to be amenable?
Give me your thoughts?
