Poirot, I am quite happy with Koestler's definition. He is describing both the separateness of the distinct entity and the interconnectedness of the whole. It seems to me that your interpretation of the holon is in support of a 'collectivist' position, conveniently forgetting the separateness. In your opposition to the 'cult of the individual', You would not be the first to do this.

"I think you will find that the desire to connect is instinctual. Therefore, interaction and imitation at the basic level of facial expression such as between a baby and its parents should be defined as cooperation."

I agree that the desire to connect is instinctual. But so is the desire to control our surrounds. The baby is probably largely acting out of natural empathy (trying to commune/cooperate with us) but may also be trying to manipulate us to it's own advantage (control us/compete with us). I think it's both. Yabby would certainly favour the latter. (I wonder if he/she's a strong disciplinarian!)

I don't mind The Big Bang Theory either runner, it's quite funny.

Yes, I can see why you like that weird quote from an obscure French scientist. It never existed and was made up by religious folk, who keep repeating it over and over again, so it must be true so there.

Gilbert Holmes,

I don't have a problem with Koestler's ideas either. Why do you see my position on this as collectivist (in the political sense)?
Can you explain to me how a human being who has "never" had any interaction with another of his species could have a higher human consciousness or nature? (I say "higher" to differentiate between those and the more basic drives). There can be no fundamental separateness which goes beyond an individuals physical and biological dimensions. He exists as a complete biological system, however,from there on in he is part of a family, clan, tribe and so on and so on. To be human is to exist psychologically and emotionally as part of a larger entity.
I disagree that the connection between a baby and its parents is for competition. All the interactive components inherent in the reading and recognising of facial expressions are vital to the infant in establishing an idea of himself - especially in relation to other humans. All to do with connection - not separateness.

popnperish, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 2:29:36 PM

The term survival of the fittest was coined by Herbert Spencer, a contemporary of Charles Darwin's, as a metaphor for natural selection. Darwin used it - survival of the fittest - in the 5th or 6th edition of "On the Origin of Species", so it has been often misused ever since.

Interestingly, Spencer also coined the pejorative phrase "Social Darwinism", another source of confusion as it was first used by economists and then others.

Gilbert, for a start economics is not science, let alone ‘more than science’. Economics is at best a theoretical description of an abstract human social interaction. That it uses mathematics to try and provide these theoretical descriptions (which are rarely tested) does not make it science. This fools a lot of people.

Evolution theory is science. It is used to formulate hypotheses about the world, which are then tested. That is what a scientific theory is and what it is used for. It is not philosophy.

Philosophical or political constructs that are built around the theory are not science in any sense of the word. While I agree, to a point, about how our ‘beliefs’ may affect the direction of our study, if anything science is the practice of challenging and often destroying our ‘beliefs’ and then updating them to make them fit with new data, not reinforcing them. That is, if by ‘beliefs’ we really mean our theories of how the world works.

There is no ‘new paradigm’ here. All I can see is that you have taken pretty much all the mechanisms whereby negative natural selection can take place and lumped under the banner ‘competition’. Cooperative social behaviour as well as mutualism or symbiotic biological phenomena and anything that might be a ‘beneficial’ interaction (i.e. positively affects selec tion) between two individual organisms get lumped under the banner ‘cooperation’. In this way you can shore up your own personal philosophy by radically and erroneously simplifying what is in reality an exceptionally complex pattern of interaction.

I really get the feeling that you were thinking pretty much of only human beings and society when you wrote this piece. You have made me agree with Peter Hume and this makes me very uncomfortable.

Does it help to know that I agree with you too Bugsy! ;-) That'd be a first.