The Story of Evolution and the Evolution of Stories: EvoLit

 I've been thinking now about Anne's question in class about why we're reading this novel, and I keep going back to the part in the novel where they say that there are only 24 possible plots to write, and they debate whether that is true or not.  I'm starting to think that in a broad sense that may actually be true.  Because I think there really is a limit to what kinds of stories can be told.  I think that the variation comes not from the plot, but from the story.   Similar to how there are multiple stories of evolution, there can be multiple stories for a certain plot line.

I went to Lucas Carpenter's show tonight (March 13th) at the Milkboy in Ardmore, and this song reminded me of the discussion we had earlier in the semester about the relation between religion and the theory of evolution.

"Tumbleweed" - Lucas Carpenter

I know I've been gone for a while, and I do sorely miss the conversations in class, but I have been keeping up with the postings and I have noticed a trend I wanted to comment on. It seems that no one likes Dennet, at all, at least not the idea of the Library of Babel. If I had been in class and seen more conversation and more ideas, my idea may be different, but this is what I think now. This Library idea is not new to me, it is something that I have read about for years. My classmates seem to be either confused, unhappy, or unaccepting of the idea altogether. While I do not believe this idea is completely valid, I enjoy what it brings to the table. Everyone seems to be hung up on the idea rather than interested in exploring what the idea means.

I'd like to go back and address a topic we discussed before the break. The basic question of 'why don't we stop trying to figure it out...?' was brought up in a classmate's post, which to me brought the idea of ignorance as bliss. There are those who question every little thing and want answers for every minute detail of life, while there are others who prefer to leave those unanswerable questions alone and just go on their daily lives without these daunting questions looming overhead. In some situations, the blissfulness of ignorance may seem best, eliminating any internal turmoil. What happens when we ask questions is that we get some answers; what happens when we open our eyes to our surroundings and become involved is that we find out things that may be unpleasant.

 A recurring theme that I have observed in the last few class meetings is the idea of agency. I freely admit to craving agency as much as the next person; I'm uncomfortable with the notion that my life - my very existence - is either predetermined or simply out of my hands. I have been raised to take responsibility for my actions, and cannot fathom that such responsibility might never have been mine in the first place. No, I believe that we have agency.

When I walked into class on Tuesday, I was confused about Dennett’s analogy of the Library of Babel and its relevance to evolution and our lives. However, after discussing it further in class and talking about the blog postings, I came to the similar realization of some of my other classmates. I think that the belief that all ideas could be present in the library does lead to a sense of possibility and opportunity. I don’t think the idea that every single possible option of combination of thoughts or ideas is present in the library can be plausible. I believe it is our responsibility to combine these in a unique way, thus adding to the vast expanse of the library.

On Thursday in our discussion group we talked about the idea of the Library of Babel. Most of the group seemed to hate the idea that they couldn't be creative because every possibility already exists. I don't have a problem with this notion. Should I find myself a failure because I can not defy the laws of physics? Of course not. The Library of Babel analogy is saying that given laws of the universe, here are the infinite options available. Why should I want to go beyond infinity when my life is so short and there is plenty we need to discover before our world becomes boring?

 I think it's important to discuss the issue of the "selfish gene". The term "selfishness" has a very bad connotation in our culture. When we think of selfishness, that is, the trait of being concerned for one's own self more than others, we tend to acquate it with a malicious intention, cold-heartedness, lonesomeness, and anger. The phrase "selfish gene" very much throws off Dawkins original intent--altruism between closely related members of a species. Selfish makes it seem as though the gene has a mind of its own. In actuality, Dawkins was trying to say that closely related members of a species often display altruistic tendencies toward closely related organisms to protect their own gene line.

In class on Thursday, we discussed to what extant we have control over our decisions, interactions, and thoughts. We all wanted to believe that there is a sense of randomness mixed with choice that leads our lives rather than a set algorithm. This gives us a sense of agency and control rather than believing our lives are more strongly influenced by others rather than ourselves. This discussion made me think about the movie Inception. If not all of you have seen it, the movie revolves around the idea that during a dream, an idea can be suggested in someone’s head so that he/she believes it originated in his/her own thoughts. Being immersed in a certain culture and set of ideologies is very similar. A certain behavior is observed in your surroundings, you sub