Social Evolvement

Diversification entails indeterminacy in two respects. First, it introduces indeterminacy into the system that is its point of departure. Second, it is indeterminate within itself. That is, it is indeterminate with respect to degree of diversity involved, e. g. doubling, tripling, etc. Thus, diversity can be greater or less, and, likewise, a system can be more or less evolved. This is perhaps a key insight that eluded Spencer when he settled on what amounts to Fascism as his ideally evolving social order. For, even if at its best that does qualify as an evolving system, the further question is whether or not it is the system that evolves to the greatest extent possible. Plainly, it is not, because at least one other system can accommodate a greater diversity than is possible in any hierarchy, and that system is Democracy. Democracy is built from the ground up, so, unlike in a hierarchy, especially the Military one that Spencer recommends, its diversity is in principle unlimited. Thus, in principle at least, his purported ideal is surpassable. Furthermore, the inversion of that model entails another inversion, one which offers a solution to a problem that seems to have confounded traditional Evolutionism pervasively, namely how to extend the Evolution paradigm to individuals. That inversion transforms a particular human into an individual, which, in conjunction with the jettisoning of extrinsities such as Survival and Fittingness, opens the way for a description of the individual human System.