Notes

  1. . C. P. Snow, The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1964).
  2. . ClydeKluckhohn. The Scientific Study of Values and Contemporary Civilization,” Zygon  1 (1966):235.
  3. . Ibid., pp. 231–32.
  4. . Richard von Mises, Positivism: A Study in Human Understanding (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1951 [New York: Dover Paperback, 1968]), p. 332.
  5. . J. Bronowski, Science and Human Values (New York: Harper — Bros., 1956).
  6. . HarlowShapley. Life, Hope, and Cosmic Evolution,” Zygon  1 (1966):275–85.
  7. . Stephen C. Pepper, The Sources of Value (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1958); “Survival Value,” Zygon  4 (1989): 4–11;“On a Descriptive Theory of Value: A Reply to Professor Margolis,” Zygon  4 (1969): 261–65.
  8. . Ervin Laszlo, “guest editor,” special issue on “Human Values and Natural Science,” Zygon, vol. 4 (March 1969); Laszlo and James B. Wilbur, eds., Human Values and Natural Science (New York: Gordon — Breach, 1970).
  9. . Kenneth Boulding, The Meaning of the 20th Century (New York: Harper — Row, 1964).
  10. . Barry Commoner, Science and Survival (New York: Viking Press, 1963).
  11. . Bentley Glass, Science and Ethical Values (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1965).
  12. . Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man's Fate (New York: Holt, Rinehart — Winston, 1959).
  13. . R. B. Lindsay, Role of Science in Civilization (New York: Harper — Row, 1963).
  14. . A. F. C. Wallace, Religion: An Anthropological View (New York: Random House, 1966).
  15. . L. C. Birch, Nature and God (London: SCM Press, 1965).
  16. . Theodosius Dobzhansky, The Biology of Ultimate Concern (New York: New American Library, 1967).
  17. . Theodosius Dobzhansky, Mankind Evolving (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1962), pp. 20, 319.
  18. . J. Z. Young, A Model of the Brain: An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Study of Brain Function (London: Oxford University Press, 1964).
  19. . See, for instance, Donald T.Campbell, “Variations and Selective Retention in Socio‐Cultural Evolution,” General Systems  14 (1969): 69–85, which reviews some of the literature; or B. F.Skinner, “The Phylogeny and Ontogeny of Behavior,” Science  133 (1966): 1205–13.
  20. . Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (New York: Harper — Row, 1965), p. 111.
  21. . See, for instance, in particular Anton T. Boisen's Religion in Crisis and Custom (New York: Harper — Bros., 1955); Brewster Ghiselin, ed., The Creative Process (New York: New American Library, Mentor Book, 1955); A. F. C. Wallace's Religion: An Anthropological View (New York: Random House, 1966).
  22. . Erwin Schrödinger, What Is Life? (New York: Doubleday — Co., 1956). What Is Life? was originally published in Cambridge, England, by the Cambridge University Press in 1944.
  23. . Kluckhohn (n. 2 above), pp. 233–34.
  24. . Leon Brillouin, Science and Information Theory, 2d ed. (New York: Academic Press, 1962), pp. xi, 288–89.
  25. . J.Bronowski. New Concepts in the Evolution of Complexity: Stratified Stability and Unbounded Plans,” Zygon  5 (1970):33.
  26. . Ibid., pp. 33–34.
  27. . Ralph WendellBurhoe. Commentary on J. Bronowski's New Concepts in the Evolution of Complexity,” Zygon  5 (1970):36–40.
  28. . Ludwig von Bertalanffy, General System Theory (New York: George Braziller, Inc., 1968), p. 152.
  29. . Schrödinger (n. 22 above), p. 3.
  30. . I wish to call attention in this paper to something I did not have in mind at the symposium: the fact that both Bronowski's notion of progression of evolution through successive strata of stability or the naturally preferred configurations existent in the universe and my notion that this is equivalent to natural selection in the biological and cultural stages of evolution have also been suggested by Herbert A. Simon. I am in debt to William Wimsatt for calling my attention to Simon's “The Architecture of Complexity,” first published in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society in 1962 and in 1969 by the M.I.T. Press as chapter 4 of Simon's The Sciences of the Artificial. Simon pointed out there that “the complex forms can arise from simple ones by purely random processes…. Direction is provided to the scheme by the stability of the complex forms, once these come into existence. But this is nothing more than survival of the fittest–that is, of the stable” (M.I.T. ed., p. 93). Simon even presents an interpretation similar to mine in the above paragraph about the close relation between selection and replication. He points out that “atoms of high atomic weight and complex inorganic molecules are witnesses to the fact that the evolution of complexity does not imply self‐reproduction. If evolution of complexity from simplicity is sufficiently probable, it will occur repeatedly; the statistical equilibrium of the system will find a large fraction of the elementary particles participating in complex systems. If, however, the existence of a particular complex form increased the probability of the creation of another form just like it, the equilibrium between complexes and components could be greatly altered in favor of the former” (M.I.T. ed., p. 113). He then goes on to describe his view of the dual role of nucleic acid and protein in providing the “blueprints” and “recipes” necessary for the reproduction of complex systems of life. Katchalsky, in his paper in this issue of Zygon, also points out the role of the remembered “blueprint” for reproduction as the key to understanding stability of new levels of complexity of open systems or dissipative structures that we call life: “Living cells are therefore not only loose dissipative structures…. but a dynamic pattern superimposed on a fired network, the organization of which is dictated by the genetic code” (in first paragraph under his “Concluding Remarks”). One could say that genetic and cultural blueprints for replication operate to hold the shape (maintain stability) of patterns in living species and men in ways that are functionally equivalent to electrostatic bonds for molecules.