Analyzing Pride and Prejudice the novel

[Obvious Leo]

Leo, I repeat I object to your theory of natural selection applied to human history or history of ideas .

It's not my theory, Belinda. For at least the past two decades the history of human society and the history of ideas has been modelled in this way by almost all of the mainstream scholars in these fields. You would be more comfortable with the idea if you chuck out the term "natural selection" which hasn't been used in biology for decades, except for in a very limited sense. This is a Darwinian term and Darwinian evolution is a reductionist model which has been updated several times. "Natural" selection connotes a sense of randomness in selection which is simply non-existent in nature. I say this with some trepidation because many lay people think that the opposite of randomness is purposeful and this is equally false. Evolution is not teleological in any evolving system.

The modern paradigms are far superior to the old ones because they are based on a new field of mathematics called fractal geometry whereas the old ones were modelled on the classical mathematics of Newton. Our universe is not Newtonian and thus natural selection in the Darwinian sense is quite simply false. For the lay person a better word is simply "adaptation" which means exactly the same thing in science as it does in everyday life. Our world is dynamic and changes all the time. Both living organisms and abstract ideas are adapted over time as circumstances change. The entire system is to be regarded as one thus an idea does not evolve within a fixed background of ideas but rather within a totality of ideas which are constantly evolving as well. A change in an evolving idea, for instance can bring about a change in human biology. Ideas can change our gene pool and have been doing so for millions of years. It's a subtly nuanced difference in perspective but it makes the world of difference in biology and it also makes a world of difference in the various sociological sciences that use it. You can trust me on this. Scientists are a conservative lot and they don't change their basic paradigms without a powerful reason for doing so. Non-linear dynamic systems theory is just such a powerful reason and it's cutting a swathe through every science except physics, the Newtonian dinosaur. It looks like they've left that task for me and I'm right on it.

If you're interested in the new evolutionary thinking there's lots of good literature around and I'd be happy to provide you with a guide as to where to find it. It's not at all difficult for the layman and far more intuitive than the old way of doing things. In science more intuitive ALWAYS means better. Hence my username.

Regards Leo

[Belinda]

Obvious Leo wrote:

"Natural" selection connotes a sense of randomness in selection which is simply non-existent in nature. I say this with some trepidation because many lay people think that the opposite of randomness is purposeful and this is equally false. Evolution is not teleological in any evolving system.

I feel intimidated at the thought of ditching the simple formula of natural selection which I learned and on which I understand immunity theory to depend. But I know that I must not be a rigid thinker.

How can random mutations not be random? I for one positively do not think that the opposite of randomness is purposefulness. I think of natural selection as not artificial selection which I don't think you can deny takes place all the time in biological research, in agriculture, and in animal breeding. All I am saying is that humans with their cultures cannot be like wild animals.

Both living organisms and abstract ideas are adapted over time as circumstances change. The entire system is to be regarded as one thus an idea does not evolve within a fixed background of ideas but rather within a totality of ideas which are constantly evolving as well. A change in an evolving idea, for instance can bring about a change in human biology. Ideas can change our gene pool and have been doing so for millions of years.

Yes, yes, and yes, except for "the entire system is to be regarded as one".

Ideas change our gene pool, which does not happen with wild animals, and this is exactly why you can't say that adaptation, if you like, is the same for biology as it is for cultures of belief and artefact. Wild life does not have cultures of belief and artefact. The claim that ideas seamlessly adapt to fit circumstances is Hegelian surely? Whay happens to humans when all the 'bad' ideas are defunct and only good ideas remain ?

[Obvious Leo]

I feel intimidated at the thought of ditching the simple formula of natural selection

You don't need to ditch it, merely update it. Read Capra, would be my advice. He writes for lay readers and is across many sciences. You need many sciences to understand complexity theory but you don't need them in very great depth. The model is so intuitive it will take your breath away. If you hold that simplicity is truth, as I do, this is for you.

How can random mutations not be random?

Because randomness is non-existent in a deterministic world. ALL events have causes, including genetic mutations. Don't make the theists mistake of confusing a cause with a purpose. Only minds can have purpose. Randomness is something that can be inferred after the event simply because the cause of the mutation cannot be determined. A cosmic ray a billion years ago is beyond the reach of science but we don't have to assume the mutation was planned. Many people make this simple mistake. Everything happens for a reason but this doesn't mean the reason has a reason. It simply has another cause.

Hegel is my least favourite philosopher in a strong stable of contenders. The official apologist to the Prussian court has nothing to offer to the pool of human knowledge in my opinion. You are not be blamed for your classicist thinking because all our education systems have been based on it for centuries. It started with Newton and got steadily worse. However it's not hard to flush it out and see it in context. Reductionism is useful for predicting our world but useless for explaining it. Same old same old same old roundabout with epistemology and ontology. I'm perfectly serious, Belinda, the new thinking is easy and spreading rapidly because of its success. It's well worth bringing yourself up to date because everybody in the world of science is convinced that complexity theory is a major revolution unequalled in the intellectual history of our species. I started studying it long before it became fashionable and reached the same conclusion very quickly. I do not exaggerate when I say it has the potential to unify human knowledge in a way never seen before. In the age of the specialist I regard this as of critical importance to both philosophy and science which is the first thing the model unifies. When I started calling myself a natural philosopher I was mocked and called a dinosaur. Now everybody wants to call themselves this whether it can apply or not. I don't care because he who laughs last laughs longest.

Whay happens to humans when all the 'bad' ideas are defunct and only good ideas remain ?

Don't hold your breath. The enormous capacities of human reason come at a cost. It means we're smart enough to think things that aren't true and draw a cascade of perfectly logical conclusions from them. Sometimes the original bad idea can never be found and culled out. Bad ideas will be with us till extinction and will more than likely cause it.

Regards Leo

[Belinda]

Obvious Leo wrote:

Because randomness is non-existent in a deterministic world. ALL events have causes, including genetic mutations. Don't make the theists mistake of confusing a cause with a purpose. Only minds can have purpose. Randomness is something that can be inferred after the event simply because the cause of the mutation cannot be determined.

How can you suspect me , Belinda, of "making the theists' mistake" ! By "random" I did not mean absolutely random, I meant unpredictable. The latter meaning of 'random' is a respectable application of the word, and that is what I referred to regarding random mutations. True, as genetic engineering progresses many mutations are becoming man-made and predictable, but we are discussing what is commonly called natural selection.

I have read Capra and I also recommend.

You write "only minds can have purposes". I sort of agree although I'd prefer "only humans, who cast their minds' eyes back to the past and guess the future of which the only certainty is death have purposes" I'd also add that many humans don't even bother to do that much in the way of purpose.

Obvious Leo wrote, regarding my suggestion that to apply natural selection to humankind might be Hegelian:

Don't hold your breath. The enormous capacities of human reason come at a cost. It means we're smart enough to think things that aren't true and draw a cascade of perfectly logical conclusions from them. Sometimes the original bad idea can never be found and culled out. Bad ideas will be with us till extinction and will more than likely cause it.

I agree. But please compare this human situation with that of wild animals' . The peregrine falcon is at the top of its evolved adaptation and will not be adapting any more. Also as a case for natural adaptation, in the absence of human intervention to stop it the ebola virus will adapt until it has run out of hosts. Humans unlike peregrine falsons are not perfectly adapted to their environments . Humans unlike the ebola virus will adapt their strategies long before all individuals are dead. Those are only two examples of how wild creatures evolve according to unwitting natural law . But by contrast human cultures of knowledge, practice and belief influence the course of human affairs.

To claim that human cultures of knowledge, practice and belief are subject to some over-riding natural law such as natural selection is quasi-Hegelian because that is the claim that Hegel made. "Over-riding natural law" describes Hegelian determinism, and "over-riding natural law " describes natural selection applied to where it doesn't apply i.e. human individuals and human communities and also artificially bred living creatures.

[Obvious Leo]

How can you suspect me , Belinda, of "making the theists' mistake" !

I wasn't really, but random is a much misused word because it is so easily confused with unpredictability. Dynamic systems are complex and are unpredictable even before the event let alone reducible afterwards. Even complexity theorist use the word, to my horror, but at least they know what they mean by it. However words are the currency of ideas and ideas are the property of the receiver of the words and they often bear no resemblance to the intent of the writer. I wasn't really comparing your thinking to that of a theist, Belinda, who would do well to consider my previous sentence.

If you enjoyed Capra you might also like Prigogine, Lovelock, Maturana and Margulis, amongst a host of others. It's all just Plato 101 really but I have quite a library.

Regards Leo

-- Updated August 3rd, 2014, 8:30 pm to add the following --

Words are a good way for me to access a simple principle of complexity theory which shows its non-reductionist quality.

You can understand the meaning of every word in a sentence but no matter how well you understand these meanings it won't help you understand the meaning of the sentence. The meaning of the whole is greater than the meanings of the sum of its parts. Ditto for the various other structures of the book. The individual sentences won't help you with the paragraph, etc. Imagine all these structural components embedded within each other like matryoshka dolls and you get the picture. The meaning lies in the pattern the structures form and not in the structures themselves, or, as Plato might say in the Forms and not in the Ideals.

Science has traditionally been done by the structural analysis method but the tide is quickly turning towards a far more holistic way of doing the business.

Regards Leo

[Belinda]

This backs you up. Leo.

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2008/pr-ehrlich-021308.html

I wonder if I am describing the status quo that usually holds , except in particular cases of natural selection such as the outrigger design of Polynesian canoes and, I'd suggest, similar problems for which blueprints are integral to the solution.

You , I suggest, are describing how natural selection ought to be applied to human cultures of belief and practice. Moreover it seems to me that you are sufficiently optimistic to predict that humans will comply with demands of the real environment just like peregrine falcons or ebola viruses do. I am not that optimistic but I hope and pray that we will adapt.

[Obvious Leo]

Cautiously optimistic would probably describe me better. I see enormous progress in social evolution just in my own lifetime. Many negative features of our culture which were mainstream thinking in my youth are now regarded as unacceptable. Racism, sexism, homophobia, environmental degradation etc. I'm not saying there isn't a long way to go but progress is progress and progress is always incremental. The next major hurdle is conspicuous consumption of our finite resources but already the signs of progress are emerging. The information age has great potential for the rapid advance of our species and as long as learn how to use this powerful tool safely I will remain cautiously optimistic.

The paper you linked to is typical of what's happening across every science except physics. Complexity theorists have been lured away from research institutions in droves by promises of riches from the corporate world, as well as government agencies. I'd almost go so far as to say that evolution is the new truth, except natural philosophers are in the knowledge business, not the truth business. We leave that the god-folk.

Regards Leo

[Belinda]

Leo, the real environment in life as we have to live it, besides presenting achievable goals is also a moral environment. Animal morality systems are no problem to animals of whom even the most psychologically deranged and unsocialised individuals know exactly what they ought to do. Not us! While it is true that civilised people are not sexist, ageist, racist, cruel , or fascist, there are still a lot of people who are. Mr Netanjahu is shooting fish in a tank, yet Israel is a peninsula of western civilisation in a Muslim sea.

Maybe being born an Arab is a bad idea that will evolve away.

[Obvious Leo]

Maybe being born an Arab is a bad idea that will evolve away.

Perhaps more quickly than you might imagine. Certainly at the moment any child born in the middle east has drawn an unlucky number in the lottery of life, but it can't stay that way. People aren't born stupid. This is a special talent which needs to be carefully taught and the subject of this indoctrination needs to be carefully shielded from external selection factors.

However the biologist is a pattern recogniser who sees analogies everywhere and I'm also a very keen gardener. The theists are in full retreat on all fronts and I learn this from my garden. When a flowering shrub suddenly produces a more profuse show of flowers than it ordinarily does the time has come to worry. The odds are it will be dead next year and this is its last chance to reproduce. The biological mechanisms for this are fascinating but the parallel to theism even more so. The sudden rise of religious fundamentalism in all the major religions is just such a final flourish. They're retreating behind their walls in a dying last stand that must inevitably fail. In my own country theists are an oddity and in many of the more civilised European nations the same thing is being seen. China doesn't have many and in India they're dwindling fast and were never monotheists anyway. God is dying and will die un-mourned. He will join the elves, the leprechauns and the fairies in the historical record of cultural curiosities. I'm an old fart and don't expect to raise a glass at his wake but I'm very nearly certain that my grandchildren will, and perhaps even my children. Things can happen very quickly in the modern world of the internet.

Regards Leo

[Belinda]

I like this a lot, Leo, and I wish you would frame it in less seductively poetic language, for I know that I am too inclined to be carried away by rhetoric.

For instance if all the Palestinians recanted and professed to be and lived as religious Jews and good Zionists, would the troubles be over?

I am not beating any drums for British imperialism but the British model( after the American revolution )of peacefully relinquishing former colonies is a good one and points not to a flattening out of cultures but to multiculturism.

Actually, I don't believe what I am writing because multiculturism doesn't work except as tolerant appreciation of the prettier aspects of others' cultures. I would like to know if you think that the modern post enlightenment global culture is the be all and end all. I wish it were, but powerful individuals backed by some ideology or other are greedy for resources.

Ending medieval belief and associated medieval behaviour is good, and I think you are right and your analogy with late enthusiastic flowerings is correct. But in view of perennial (good botanical word) struggle for survival in a global environment of limited resources humans are not plants and behave willfuly.

[Obvious Leo]

I like this a lot, Leo, and I wish you would frame it in less seductively poetic language, for I know that I am too inclined to be carried away by rhetoric.

Painting me as the wily seducer is a novel experience for this balding old fart with missing teeth. However if the goal of the writer is to engage the mind of the reader this wordsmith feels he's doing his job. It's actually a very nice compliment, although rhetoric carries a pejorative undertone which I doubt you intended. The poeticism you detect is deliberate, and it reflects a quest for cadence, which can be difficult to achieve with prose. I use a few cheats, of course.

For instance if all the Palestinians recanted and professed to be and lived as religious Jews and good Zionists, would the troubles be over?

Not as simple as that, I fear. People will be "us" and "them" if their lives are informed by ignorance, and the spurious religious labels they choose are irrelevant. These are not religious folk but angry folk, and will always find ways to vent their spleen. Young blokes fight because they like it. It's as simple as that, and old blokes will always stand ready to offer them a "cause" to fight for. Those that fight know nothing of this cause and neither do they need to because they merely do what they're evolved to do. The time has come for humanity to evolve beyond this false agenda.

Actually, I don't believe what I am writing because multiculturism doesn't work except as tolerant appreciation of the prettier aspects of others' cultures.

I'm not sure that I agree with this but my culture is quite different from yours. Our multiculturalism is far from perfect but our historical roots are interesting. Our convict background informed our values but this was not quite as it seems. Although many of the ordinary convicts were ordinary villains they were not of the worst type. The worst type, of course were hanged. These were the ordinary victims of social oppression in early industrial Britain, merely getting by as best they could. They were not educated and had few marketable skills. However there were another group of convicts who had a profound influence on the emerging Australian culture, and these were the political prisoners, who numbered in their thousands. These were the troublemakers, mostly Irish, who the plutocrats could not abide. These were both educated and educators and these were the men who shaped our future as rebels. Jack's as good as his master is no mere slogan in my country and egalitarianism is in our blood. Although inequality of opportunity is still a big problem it is universally acknowledged that this is un-Australian. In your country tugging the forelock to your betters is yet to go away, but we have no betters because we're the best.

. I would like to know if you think that the modern post enlightenment global culture is the be all and end all.

It's our only hope, and I mean this as forebodingly as it sounds. I have high hopes for the reckless anarchy of the internet but I recognise its hazards as well. Tough ****. The genie is out of the bottle and cannot be stuffed back in. We'll have to start educating our people in a hurry before it's too late, and we need totally new paradigms for doing this. Our educational models were designed to turn out factory fodder for the dark satanic mills, and these are the same models that we use today. We can hardly feign amazement that we're achieving the same result. Slaves. People spend money they don't have to buy crap they don't need so they can impress people they don't like. Does this sound to you like a sane social contract? All the biologist sees is his beloved biosphere being trashed in worship of Mammon and the miserable slaves turning on each other in despair.

When such things happen in living systems we call it a dis-equilibrium, in complexity theory a bifurcation. What follows this is a punctuation, more colloquially known as a catastrophe. Global warming is just such a catastrophe and exactly what humanity needs. As the uber-predator we both caused it and must retrieve it, and in this we dare not fail. Extinction is the lot of nature's failures and if it is to be ours then we deserve it.

My guess? I reckon we'll pass it easily and enter a golden dawn, and this not mere wishful thinking because I see the signs everywhere. Getting older is a pain in the ****, although it's far better than the alternative, but one of the advantages is that you can see change happening over larger time scales and most of these changes are positive. I have grandchildren, Belinda, thus I dare not see it otherwise, but I'm no dewy-eyed idealist. We survived the cold war and this is much easier.

but powerful individuals backed by some ideology or other are greedy for resources.

Democracy is government by the ignorant but I take a Churchillian stance on this. It's better than all the other options, and if people get the government they deserve then better educated people will get better government. Bellowing slogans and waving banners won't cut it because the societies of the future can only move when the minds of it's players move. Looking for people to blame is the mindset of a Nazi and a coward who shirks his moral culpability. If the money-lenders defile our temple then it's up to us to kick them out and simply bleating "too hard" is just a cop-out.

humans are not plants and behave willfuly.

As that wisest of sages, Kurt Vonnegut, points out in his seminal work, Galapagos, our super-brain is our super-challenge and we must learn how to use the bloody thing properly. Our destiny is our own to define.

Regards Leo

[Londoner]

The sudden rise of religious fundamentalism in all the major religions is just such a final flourish. They're retreating behind their walls in a dying last stand that must inevitably fail. In my own country theists are an oddity and in many of the more civilised European nations the same thing is being seen.

Yet the funny thing is that they see themselves as the civilised ones, whereas they see us as a bunch of amoral hypocrites!

And to return slightly to topic; let's remember that Jane Austen, daughter of a clergyman and almost the wife of one, would be one of those uncivilised fundamentalists.

[Obvious Leo]

And to return slightly to topic; let's remember that Jane Austen, daughter of a clergyman and almost the wife of one, would be one of those uncivilised fundamentalists.

Which surely indicates the absurdity of taking things out of their correct historical context and making judgements about them. Inasmuch as it is possible to read the mind of Austen, in today's world she may well have been a radical bra-burning feminist.

Thomas Jefferson was a man of deep moral convictions who sought to lay out a grand vision for a new society founded on the noble ideal of freedom for all. Except for his own slaves. Are we right to make moral judgement? I think not. What manner of man would he be in the world of today? Comparing apples and oranges will teach us little.

Regards Leo

[Londoner]

Thomas Jefferson was a man of deep moral convictions who sought to lay out a grand vision for a new society founded on the noble ideal of freedom for all. Except for his own slaves. Are we right to make moral judgement? I think not. What manner of man would he be in the world of today?

It isn't about judging Jefferson the man; he is dead now and won't care what we think of him. However, his ideas are still extant and we can judge them - that they claimed an interest in freedom but allowed slavery is good grounds for concluding they were incoherent.

Which surely indicates the absurdity of taking things out of their correct historical context and making judgements about them. Inasmuch as it is possible to read the mind of Austen, in today's world she may well have been a radical bra-burning feminist.

Similarly, it isn't about Austen as a person but about her books.

The OP asks for the themes and issues in Austen; the issue in her novels of day-to-day life is 'how should a decent person behave in the world?' Her answers are Christian. We no longer understand this; we make the appeal of a gentleman like Darcy that he is a sexy hunk, the story becomes one of simple misunderstanding plus a bit of sub-plot comedy.

I do not think Austen would consider we are more civilised than she was; just as I do not think those 'religious fundamentalists' think that we have made progress; quite the reverse.

[Obvious Leo]

Londoner. It seems we are of one mind.

that they claimed an interest in freedom but allowed slavery is good grounds for concluding they were incoherent.

Not a fault exclusive to their times alone. That we profess a reverence for democracy and then sell it as a marketable commodity could hardly be seen as coherent.

just as I do not think those 'religious fundamentalists' think that we have made progress; quite the reverse.

To define progress as dragging us kicking and screaming back to the 7th century is an unfortunate misuse of the language.

Regards Leo