Banjo P.,

Interesting.....

Koestler coined the term "holon" in the book I mentioned, referring at once to our being a complete system within our biological bodies, while at the same time being "part" of a wider system comprising our social order....in fact, according to him, "everything' is a holon - complete in itself and yet part of a wider system, from galaxies to speech and its components.

Koestler believes that everything is formed according to hierarchal order, like an upside down branching tree.

I'm not sure if I can agree with you that we are destined in evolutionary terms to become individuals, each with special talents like the Einsteins and Da Vinci's. People like that appear every now and then, but for the most part, human life is more in line with Thoreau's "quiet desperation", whether it's material struggle or mental anguish.

So, I suppose, it's a question of how individual can you get when your whole paradigm of understanding is based around a collective and shared arrangement of symbols and behaviours.

The few who stand out are likely to not only be gifted, but also to have "chanced" upon the perfect circumstances for their gifts to bear fruit.

Banjo P. & Poirot,

sorry I've been slow and unresponsive. I'm fascinated with this topic but have looming deadlines etc.

For me, we know nothing about consciousness and its development, and I prefer not to even impose assumptions such as that we humans are nothing more than the product of "random" natural processes--though I don't ergo recoil from that to some religious or anthropocentric or any other form of flattering genesis.
We don't even know what naturalism is, the chance emergence of life in the universe; we assume we're on the crest of the wave of this natural but pointless unfolding, and may infer everything from what's gone before in purely mechanistic terms.
Teleology remains for me a compelling possibility, even what I might call "retroactive teleology". Everything we think we know, empirically, about life the universe and everything is the product of an aporetic, historicised and fixed temporal perspective.
I'm sceptical then that "the emergence of the individual" is necessarily, or merely, or "ultimately" a natural (that is "stupid") process of evolution.
But I do, as I say, see the individual in the world (whatever its "essence") as behaviourally-shaped by concurrent ideologies; indeed I don't see how this can be refuted. Even if we adopt naturalism as bad parent (though I prefer the Deus ex machina of vitalism) we are driven just as much, or more, by "ideas" as biological imperative.
So for me also we "do" seem naturally-disposed to individualism, but it can only express itself within a given context. Moreover, that predisposition can be, "and is", exploited by ideological (including political) institutions that also evolve opportunistically and adapt to that proclivity.
The challenge for humanity then is to find a way to live in the world such that our essence potential(s) can be realised, rather than being merely exploited and demeaned.
Our "individual" choices as things stand are materialism--accumulation of various forms of capital/hedonism/nihilism (often with religion as palliative) or renunciation/idealism. Lousy alternatives.
I think we have to do what humans do best, change the given context.
You may be interested in this famous essay--passing relevant:http://classweb.gmu.edu/sandrew3/misc/nlr142jameson_postmodernism.pdf

.

Dear Poirot,

.

Thank you for the insight to some of Koestler's ideas. I am afraid I am just as ignorant about what Thoreau had to say too. Never mind. I am used to reinventing the wheel. I do it all the time.

I would dearly like to reciprocate but, unfortunately, I have not read too many books and can't remember what they were about anyway.

What I can say is it seems likely that if I could have a chat with a Cro-Magnon from 35 000 years or so ago, he may feel quite embarrassed by the sheer brilliance of my intellect compared with his own sluggish brain. He might even think I am Bobby Fischer or some contemporary genius.

I would probably feel just as embarrassed if I were to turn up in about 35 000 years from now and ran into a barmaid from Surfers Paradise. I may get the impression I was talking to Marilyn vos Savant or somebody. Perhaps I would swear her workmates were Kim Ung-yong and Bill Gates and think her boss was Einstein.

Neuroscientists actually seem to know very little about the evolution of the human brain. Research has given rise to a certain amount of speculation on the basis of the examination of human skulls from various periods but, of course, skulls are not brains.

It can only be assumed that we human beings are more intelligent today than we were when we broke away from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees about 5-7 million years ago. Hopefully, we will continue to improve so that we make sure we stay ahead.

But don't count on me for that !

.

Banjo P.

I know what you mean by struggling to take everything in - although it's fun trying.

Thoreau was an American who wrote a book called "Walden" which was a place to which he retreated in his bid to develop his idea of self-reliance. He was a philosopher too, and encouraged the notion of "simplicity" as the road to fulfillment.

I wonder if our brains were always capable of the sort of conscious knowledge now at our disposal? Perhaps our steady progress and the increase in knowledge is more an evolution of the art of dissemination and uptake than it is an evolution of consciousness. Perhaps our "knowledge" has replaced other knowledge that was part of our early consciousness, and to which we now have limited access.

It is interesting that the average twelve year-old knows so much more that is pertinent to our culture than his learned ancestors.
I wonder, however, if this knowledge is "quality" knowledge, in so much that it enhances his outlook and life or is it something just accumulated and left to amuse itself in the recesses of his consciousness.

I also wonder if your average "educated" Westerner, is anymore emancipated individually than the tribesman who depends on his social group for his identity....in fact, I'm inclined to believe we are just as bound to our cultural construct - perhaps even more so - because we are so dependent on things beyond our control for our daily succor.

Squeers,

A thoughtful post, Have to acquaint myself with teleology - will get back to you when time permits.

Squeers,

It seems that for one to develop or celebrate his individuality, it is necessary to find and authentic response to life.

Late-capitalism dispenses and maintains a stultifying and mesmerising effect on the individual in society - a crushing passivity over individuality by way of media driven materialism.

It's this passivity which leads the individual away from questioning the social controls that shape his perceptions. The individual can only "think" beyond the social controls of work, religion and organised thought by purposely disrupting his own passive absorption of them, in effect, re-mapping his own perspective from beyond accepted societal parameters. However, this is difficult, as he has lost his bearings in a world that often presents him with only material rewards as purpose.

How hard it is to seek an alternative "purpose" when everyone around him is happy enough riding the conveyor belt. How difficult for him to he get off and start walking in an attempt to unify his psychic life with his temporal world?

.

Dear Squeers,

.

Thank you for the link to Fredric Jameson's paper on Post-modernism. It has the promise of an historical cultural fireworks display. I zapped to the conclusion hoping to see the way forward but the author seems to have prudently contented himself with illuminating the sky so we could see for ourselves where we were heading. I shall read it in more detail later.

Mother nature certainly is an enigmatic, ingenious and paradoxical young lady. She has more than one secret up her sleeve. That's for sure. For my part, I do not see pure hazard or "stupidity" as incapable of triggering a favourable outcome such that an incredulous observer may be tempted to interpret the process as teleological. Despite the odds, if something is possible, it can occur and I for one consider it does.

According to the biologists life on earth commenced about 3.5 billion years ago. That leaves room for a fair number of combinations 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, before hitting the jackpot. The teleological option seems to me to be of the order of the supernatural of which I need to be convinced.

There seems to be a general consensus among scientists today that Darwin's theory of natural selection is an acceptable explanation of evolution. I see no reason why this should not apply to the human brain and our intellectual capacity - the survival of the (most) intelligent.

Admittedly, that evolution may be partially countered by modern medication and other means which enable us to prolong the lives and intellectual capacity of the weaker among us who continue to reproduce, thus slowing overall intellectual progress through natural selection.

However, I have no doubt this is being compensated by genetic engineering and modern technology enabling future mothers to avoid giving birth to potentially weak and malformed children. We may even be tempted sometime in the near future to artificially assist "natural selection" by genetic engineering. In under-developed countries natural selection appears to be inevitable, but by no means an impediment to constant population growth

.