|
May 25, 2006
In Germinal Life Ansell Pearson writes of the relationship of Bergson and Darwinism in terms of Bergson's argument with Darwinism.The argument is that Darwinism:
...lacks the notion of 'activity' that has to be seen as essential to any understanding of the evolution of life (the closeness to Nietzsche is, let us note again, striking). He accepts the fundamental principle of neo-Darwinism that what is passed on in hereditary are accidental modifications of the germ and that natural selection may eliminate forms of instinct that are not 'fit to survive.' He also concurs with Darwinism in the view that evolution involves and takes time. His critical point, however, is to stress that the instincts of life could not have evolved in complexification by a process of simple accretion since each new element or piece requires a 'recasting of the whole', a recasting which, he contends, mere chance could not effect. In other words, complexity in evolution cannot by itself be simply the result of an exogenous mechanism (such as natural selection [or adaptation]).
The emphasis is on creative as opposed to mechanistic evolution in order to capture the movement or activity of life. This creative evolution is represented by 'elan vital' and no appeal is made to an outside cause in order to endow life with a creative impulse or principle. The emphasis is on life is a movement or a flux or becoming, or an energy that flows or discharges into different forms of life, as distinct from an autopoietic conception of the organism.
Deleuze then reworks 'elan vital' into 'internal difference' in which the tendency to change is not accidental. What we get is the beginnings of a theory of individuation.
|
how is Germinal Life? i was thinking about picking it up and was wondering how you find it
love your blog, btw