Metaphores 3 (Wallace vs Darwin)

Here, of course, things get muddy. When Alfred Russel Wallace became a creationist, he did so because he couldn't explain that "natural selection could only have endowed savage man with a brain a few degrees superior to that of a ape, whereas he actually possesses one very little inferior to that of a philosopher".
Stephen Jay Gould on the other hand labeled Wallace as a extreme adaptionist, one who ignores the possibility of "exaptations": adaptive structures that are fortuitously suited to other roles if elaborated.
Could we really be playing chess, expanding calculi equations on black holes and programming DNA sequences just by "exaptations"?
isn't' that too long a shot for a ecological examptation?
Where else can we see such talent bugging randomly?
If our brain has evolve to be the fittest,
Why would a man spend his whole life composing Nocturnes for the piano?
Why would another man spend his days building a nuclear bomb?

Where else can we see such diversity in other species?
More soon.

Metaphores 2

It might be said that the origin of metaphores relies on the fundamental blocks of language: space, force, agency and causation. These four bricks can be explained from an evolutionary view, but other than that it has been proven hard to assess why the human mind is adapted to think more abstrusely. Steven Pinker says that we can hardly get rid of our metaphorical minds, even if we try. Pinker acknowledges that by trying to escape one level of metaphors, we bump into another one. Say mathematics. Galileo wrote that “the book of nature is written in the language of mathematics; without its help it is impossible to comprehend a single word of it”.
Little has been said on the creative nature of metaphores: on developing metaphores, we find new things. Say poetry, painting, etcetera. It is not the poetry or the painting by themselves that have been created, but a whole new stage to understand the world.

The need for metaphores

What is the use of them such as they are?

That any one day.
Like the Italian coast,
that stays behind,
this departing ship.

Could it possibly be the economy of words, of language modules in the brain, or the pleasure of diving into a larger world?
More soon.

The efficient world

To be where we should be,
doing what we do best,
doing what we enjoy the most.

To Rodolfo Schudeck

These lines are thrown to the air for a friend who can’t read them.
Dear Rodolfo, you can’t sense the changing season,
And you can’t listen to Schubert,
Any more.

You will not discover anything else about life.
Or the far past.

You don’t know that the world seems the same.
That someone is laughing loud,
That many a joy are so vain.

The rest of us linger a bit longer,
Just enough to catch a few more things,
Just as an unexplained possibility:

To enjoy and to endure this consciousness.

Schubert and Mozart

Meaninful beauty and meaningless beauty. So what if art is meaningless?
Nothing wrong with it.
It could be said that Mozart, and all art alike, has the value of beauty in itself. Art from a different world, self contained, no regard for anything, least of all anything human.
Enter Haendel and Mendelsohn in the same league. Pure wonder, playfulness, "it-could-have-not-been-otherwise" logic. It could have been made by anyone, given genius.
Enter Schubert the man. Now its all about human life, metaphoric armony, experience, feelings, stories of the soul, love and death hidded somewhere in the melody. First the man, then the song. "Try-to-find-yourself" along the measures. Universally human, it has also the value of beauty.

Biochemistry in debt

It is a matter of discussion as to whether Freud explained human conduct using a particular culture reference. That culture reference is Victorian society and sexual repression.
Some argue that in today’s society, Freud would have explained his findings using a different narcissism as a source of abnormal behaviour.
Yet the mechanism remains intact: a frustrating gap between reality and desire sets all sorts of psychic disorders. Gaps are unconsciously registered in our minds.

Psychoanalysis is about 100 years old. Still a theory, it could be compared to the Theory of Relativity, although the latter was born from mathematics and more and more experiments have helped testing it right.

Psychoanalysis might have to wait long to be considered real science. Its biochemical basis remain more elusive than evidence to measure relativity. After all, it is about the brain.

Question: Which are the evolutionary basis of the subconscious mind?