Reply to comment

      In Prof. Grobstein's section on Thursday, we talked about how Walt Whitman may, himself, be an evolutionary process; just like Evolution, Whitman is boring at times and exciting at times, he tries out new things (his writing style was so new that it was/is difficult to understand), and he creates something  like "Leaves of Grass" that is on the border of having no meaning, until it is assigned (by humans, of course).

     But I think that all people and things perceivable to us are fragile in this way. We are all on the verge of having no meaning, but what saves us is our compulsion to establish it, to keep things interesting. Maybe we can't help but assign or search for meaning in things, and maybe Evolution favored this. I think our need for 'meaning' directly affects our actions (learning, constructing, working, eating, traveling, cultural/religious practices, socializing, etc...). And such actions are a source of something new, something different that can be 'worked on' by Evolution.

      So then what is the role of someone like Whitman, who writes in such a way that meaning is hard for us to assign? Is this like a stop sign on the road of Evolution? I would argue that it isn't. I believe that recognizing that there is no clear meaning is, itself, very meaningful, and that it contributes to our own evolutionary process. The idea of being a process is understandably disturbing, but maybe the Evolutionary process is nothing more than the sum of many interacting sub-evolutionary processes. And if form defines function, as is a common 'rule' of science, well then Evolution is just as understandably dependent on us, these sub-processes, to be a functioning process. I also don't think that Evolution revolves around humans alone, but as some of the more sophisticated 'processes' out there, I think we certainly carry our weight. Maybe this why Whitman 'celebrated' himself?