[D-G] on Charles Darwin him, as an example of Perfectible Scientific approach

Dewey Dell dewey.dell5 at gmail.com
Sun Jun 24 14:01:09 PDT 2018

would it be said that charles darwin said something to the effect of:

the proteins, helped by chromosomes, are tiny molecules, which variate and
spin on themselves,a bit like the few atoms in the water or the air
now, as they stand for mushrooms, or animals, or anorganic life, when
charles darwin says that the variability takes shape in agreement
with the environment, now if the environment is itself composed of
variables, what you seems to ressent here,
is the idea which says that evolution picks up the 'weakest' (nietzsche) or
the 'strongest' (darwin) variables, when they take shape.

that's indeed what spinoza criticized: the idea that the picked up item
would stand for the perfection of a model, that the specie, either
statistically, or in each singularity, expresses
a natural evolution, that this model is perfectible.

i am sure if the climate changes, the environment and number of species get
so much destroyed,
maybe by consequence some human get so intelligent, that they cannot
compare themselves with birds anymore, and don't eat chicken, or fishes.

that was just a bit of a fantastic theory, let's come back to evolution:

so, not only man is evolving, according to darwin, but like said nietzsche
there was hope might be wrong:

actually since there's no objectivity, since there's no perfect model to
compare the various multiplicities of variables, with, probably let's say:
there simply is no way
to draw any evolution line between the past and the future.

when you draw such a line, either because your into statistics, employed by
a Company, or because your an experimentalist, trying to
compare two states of the spectrum of a particle,

you are basically drawing a function or an opinion, which is good, only if
you are a 'like you say, a bloody steak' which need to increase in size.
and share this increase with other proteins.

the only single important thing to do, then, when doing Sciences, is to
increase the Beauty of Sciences. Something important is the Philosophy of
Sciences: that which looks at the Structure, the Architecture of Beauty
created by bloody steaks.

it is not the objectivity, or the nerdy satisfaction of a mind tasty
Concept: something looking too much in line with Evolution, as there is

what could be interesting aswell would be to accelerate the testpool, to
get more samples of variabilities, increase the chances to find new living
bloody steaks and their variants.

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 7:38 PM, Johnatan Petterson <
internet.petterson at gmail.com> wrote:

> hi all.
> i think discussion can be problema-tique to un-discontinue:
> ruth chandler used to be spreading here, yet she resumed accademia
> dr harald seems to be doing yoga-mathematics on his own
> and clifford duffy has re-created valencies with minor characters on his
> blogs
> paul levy, inna, dan smith have become successful book accademics
> may-be just discussing to me seems interesting because i like the written
> word
> yet i think web construction is money, job oriented, aswell intellectuals
> in uni do this for good, not for experimentation. i don't know why, except
> because humans like it better to join strifs in jobs, instead than everyone
> building a general intellect which would be a singular intellect.
> and ofs seems disorienting to many
> lurkers: they don't know what to gain from creating a discussion.
> at the moment, i think charles darwin and the theory that genes and
> xromososomes
> are obscurantist: : why should the genes be something which belongs to this
> testpool,
> why should there be this focus on such tiny elements.they sure belong to
> the biological strata of proteine,and such. but should the behaviors be
> seen as "expressions" of genes: like another
> strata.besides i guess the expression in strata match with the plastic. but
> i am not sure
> the biological strata should fill the role of content. i think the
> biological role to be 'essential'.
> yet it's like a layer, a bit like the nerves in a steak.what is tasty, the
> affects, and the actions, are driving the body.but the brains schizophrens
> are directed by the dead concepts created by accademia.so the steak never
> talk in ofs as a result. hopeless.
> yet, to destroy the world of university, the death of philosophy since
> the killing of Socrates, and subsequent creation of Accademia by Plato,
> this was the end of the bare steak philosopher. since Platon and his
> school, the philosopher needs to hide behind authority, seriousness and
> ressentment:
> philosophers are teachers of the nerves, of biology.
> salute to everyone!!
> johnatan
> _______________________________________________
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-
> driftline.org
> Archives: www.driftline.org

More information about the Deleuze-Guattari mailing list