Monday, August 25, 2014

The Most Important Differences

I sent this to a couple people today just to test my ability to make sense.  No answer is required or expected.  It's like a piece of something that you throw at the wall, and if it sticks, it's art!

"8-25-2014 riff, later edited a bit:  
As to trust and distrust and their important differences, I should have stressed that we trust safety and we distrust danger, but only when the degree of safety is known and the degree of danger is not known.  And in a world of living things that operate with intelligent strategies, the dangerous that need our distrust will invariably act with deceptive purpose, and the ones that we can safely trust will not.   So that those that are deceptive without dangerous purposes can’t be trusted not to be dangerous.  
What does that mean?  It means that when deception is a sign of danger we need to be looking for it, because when it isn’t dangerous after all, the looking won’t have harmed us.  It’s the not looking on the premise that deception isn’t always dangerous that will get us killed.
Does that explanation seem too complex for a primitive living system to grasp?  Yes, because it’s the failure to grasp these clues that gets some of them regularly eaten -  those invariably caused to trust by deceptive means.  So in the animal world, the prey have learned to distrust a predator in part because it’s dangerous, but in larger part because its tactics are invariably deceptive.
And these tactics have been used in the world of living creatures since living creatures have been born to use a tactical system to begin with.  Or put another way, their tactical systems are what living systems are defined by.  And tactics will always evolve competitively, or not evolve at all.  This is so, even though the competitive will use cooperation as a further tactic.  
The cooperative that don’t at some point see the need to compete will not have found the need to evolve as well.  And if the environment changes to deplete their resources, they may feel the need to change, but if they fail to see the need to compete for resources, they will invariably tend to die instead.  For those, however that can learn and develop competitive strategies, that competitive need will eventually become instinctive. (Must say why here.)

And I may need to argue that the need to compete for maintaining their existence as intelligently formed functional systems of nature has given birth to nature’s strategies to begin with.  (Must say why.)  And strategies by their very nature must continually be prepared to evolve.  The unsolvable mystery involved here is the question as to how and why strategies had presumably evolved from non strategies - a parallel question as to how somethings have existed as opposed to nothings.

No comments: