What does Darwinism (Charles's by now basically 'largely deemed almost divine' theoretical thinking)
and Edserianism (our own John Edser's the-more-deeply-looked-into-the-more-dubious denouncements of
DNA-centered scholarly pursuits, and some professors' perhaps somewhat narrow views or philosophical
outlooks or opinions (intellectual views and opinions implicitly of/on our own and fellow organisms'
origin in the necessarily slightly uneven interplay within the Evolutionary Pressure Totality) have
in common?
Answer: Both are based on kinds of thinking that: works, were arrived at, and are generated by
"brain functionalities" that evolved, in a manner explained by AEVASIVE (and just a few auxilliary
other concEPTS).
----
Quoted message said:From an attemptedly all-encompassing and all-out anthropocentric
philosophical position of omniscientific overview, I advocate a Tolerance Principled accEPTance of
'soberly smeared-out' - whilst as rational as realistically possible - unifying understanding of how
and why we are how we are as part of "What Is going on".
The "smearing-out" may quite happily be made to look silly on the surface; even more happily so IF -
as a strategy - this would serve an EPT pedagogical purpose.
Such a (hence in this respect decEPTive) silliness might (or can, as far as I am concerned) serve
its purpose in a slightly similar way to a how a homeopathic remedy is concocted and a sugar-coating
on a foul-tasting pharmaceutical pill covers-up.
In fact this my idea (or *rationale* - raked up after I eventually got stuck with this metaphorical
method and thinking-technique) to use concEPTual tools that on their surface are putried and/or
funny looking, might work by inducing very specific states of (intellect-affecting) selective
Habituation against (in response to) an all too distinctly real 'ditto' aspect of Reality - an
aspect that could otherwise not as easily (or with as little difficulty) be perceptually picked up
and cognitively grasped (as firmly).
P