Evolutionary

"Evolutionary" is a word that gets tossed around a lot in integral circles. What does it mean, and is it representative of second tier thought? Let's take a look at the source of the term, and then apply it to philosophy.

Biological evolution is commonly associated with two types of change: variation and complexification. The differences between Darwin's finches are an example of variation, while the difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is an example of complexification. Both kinds of changes are thought of as adaptations to environmental conditions, which increase an organism's ability to survive and thrive in that environment.

Even when "evolution" is used in other non-biological contexts, it still generally means one of these two abstract types of change: either variation or complexification. Each carries some common-place metaphorical associations which shape its overall meaning...

[More below]

• We tend to associate variation of a quality with horizontal or sideways movement, while we associate an increase in quality (such as complexity) with vertical and forward movement.


• We often associate vertical and forward motion with progress "toward" a goal, by analogy with directed and intentional physical movement. (It's easy to go down due to gravity, and somewhat unnatural to go backwards, since you can't see behind you, and usually you want to see where you're going. Thus, when we expend effort moving something or moving toward it, we are usually moving either forward or up.)


• We associate value with progress, since nearing a physical destination means we have reached whatever we set out for, which has sufficient value to motivate us to move toward it.


• We associate movement over distance with making an effort, which we metaphorically link with making an expenditure. Thus, expending effort is reducing value.


• We associate movement and travel between locations with entering and exiting bounded areas (e.g. exiting the kitchen and entering the living room.)


• We associate categories with containers (i.e. bounded areas.) Thus, things are metaphorically in categories.

From these common associations, we can derive some specific metaphorical mappings:

• Horizontal movement between bounded areas => Variation between categories


• Vertical or forward movement toward a destination => Progress toward a goal


• Reducing the distance to your destination => Reducing the amount of work left to do in order to achieve the goal


• Reducing the effort required to arrive => Increasing the net value of arriving (by reducing the cost)

And so on. In a distilled form, we have:

• Moving toward the destination => Increasing value **


• Moving between areas => Becoming a member of a different category

These are some of the rational, goal-oriented orange meme's classic metaphors. Given that evolution is one of the triumphs of the modern orange worldview, it is not surprising that the two types of evolutionary change are predicated on orange's favorite conceptual structures: spectra and categories.

When you hear someone talking about "evolutionary" spirituality, or "progressive" values, or the "directionality" of the Kosmos, think twice before labeling it second tier. It's more likely that you're listening to orange. Same goes for hearing literal interpretations of any metaphors involving travel, containment, and composition.




** (In fact, once you associate movement in a particular direction with increasing value, having a destination or end point is no longer really necessary. Presumably, one could keep moving in a direction forever, gradually increasing the value of "being at" their present location the whole way. Although teleological and non-teleological theories of evolution differ on this particular point, they are still both undergirded by a common set of structures and metaphors.)