Transformal Causality and Evolution

According to the Teleological concept of it, Human behavior consists in a transition from deficiency to elimination of deficiency, e. g. from hunger to eating.  Thus, for example, a Means of Production is Teleologically determined, since it serves as a means to producing a good that can eliminate a deficiency.  On the other hand, according to the Efficient Causality concept of it, Human behavior is ultimately a Response to a Stimulus.  However, usually lacking in such 'Behaviorist' formulations is an explicit positing of a governing principle of the Stimulus-Response causal connection.  Usually, the principle is implicitly Teleological, e. g. seeking food after experiencing stomach pangs, or water after experiencing mouth dryness.  Thus, neither Teleological Causality nor Efficient Causality suffices to explain behavior that seeks to surpass a condition of satiation, e. g. an Evolutionary principle.  In contrast, Transformal Causality can accommodate that principle, which can be formulated as a drive to increase Transformal Causality, i. e. via the replacement of a less comprehensive Form by a more comprehensive Form.  The fundamental instance of that increase is in Versatility, which consists in a Unity of a Multiplicity of functions.  Hence, an increase in Versatility is accomplished by an increase in the comprehensiveness of a given Multiplicity, or, in other words by Transformal Causality.  That such Causality applies fundamentally to behavior places it outside the traditional ranges of either Efficient or Teleological Causality.  Likewise, the concept is beyond the scope of the treatments of Causality by Hume and Kant.

Transformal Causality, Cognition, Action

Hume's concept of Causality is, more precisely, an interpretation of the perception, by a detached, or perhaps even disembodied, observer, of the sequence of data commonly characterized as 'efficient causation', his primary aim of which is to dismantle the Rationalist attribution of Necessity to the sequence.  Accordingly, Kant's response accepts the context.  He, thus, bypasses an opportunity to go further, and undermine the context itself.  Thus, for example, he does not recognize from his own example of one's perception of one's drawing a line, prominent in his B revision of the First Critique, the possibility of tracing causal connection to one's own Action.  Then, analyzing the drawing of a line, rather than a drawn line, he could recognize that the connecting of the points is an effect of Formal Causality, and that the action illustrates the synthesis that the Cognitive category of Causality effects. Now, as has been previously discussed, since Form and Matter are complementary, any imposition of structure is actually a restructuring, or, in other words, that Formal Causality is actually Transformal Causality.  Accordingly, if, as Kant posits, Causality is an a priori category of Human experience, then, fundamentally, it is not qua Cognitive and  Efficient Causality, but qua Practical and Transformal Causality.

Four Causes and Transformal Causality

Ancient Philosophy is dominated by Teleological Causality, and Modern Philosophy, by Efficient Causality. Dialectical Materialism, despite a linguistic kinship with Material Causality, seems comparable to Chemical interaction, which is reducible to Efficient Causality.  Regardless, both Aristotle and Kant attribute Formal Causality to Mind, but without recognizing the implied relegation of the Teleological and Efficient varieties, respectively, e. g. Pure Practical Reason plainly consists in the Formal Causality of Reason overpowering the Efficient Causality of the Inclinations, in Kant's doctrine.  Still, not even Formal Causality, as they conceive it, seems adequate to the fundamental Causality of Evolution, i. e. Adaptation-Of, e. g. the modification of a patch of land that yields vegetables.  Instead, as has been previously discussed, Transformal Causality accounts for that Evolutionist dynamic, as well as that of Economics, i. e. manufacturing.

Transformal Causality and Adaptation-Of

From Aristotle to Kant to Gestaltism, Formal Causality has always connoted the imposition of Form on Matter.  The concept thus entails the antecedent Formlessness of the Matter.  However, in all the examples of these traditions, Matter is pre-unified in at least some respect, e. g. contiguity.  Thus, they are not Formless prior to an imposition of Form, e. g. a lump of clay before being molded into a bowl.  In other words, Matter always possesses some Form, so Formal Causality is, more accurately, Transformal Causality.  Thus, the process of manufacturing that converts raw material into a finished product, is an example of Transformal Causality that is essential to Economics.  Likewise, Adaptation-Of, one the fundamental Organism-Environment relations, is essential to Evolutionism.  Accordingly, the distinctive versatility of the Human species is an expression of an unprecedented efficacy of Transformal Causality.

Wheel and Circle

Rudimentary Human tools reflect a continuity with zoological ancestry, e. g. digging implements and claws.  But, as Marx-Engels observe, the tool per se is a novel development.  Thus, the exemplary Human invention qua invention is the wheel, which has no zoological ancestor.  Now, implicit in Platonism, including its Aristotelian variation, is that the novelty of the wheel signifies an origin of the Human species different from zoological ascent, namely a descent from some perfect realm.  For, on that account, the wheel is an application of what for Plato is an eternal Form, and for Aristotle is the essence of perfection--the Circle.  However, as has been previously discussed, the novelty of a thumb that can easily touch fingertips can explain not only the Human discovery of the Circle but the origin of the concept of Form itself.  So, the wheel might not qualify as the first Human invention, but it is the exemplary expression of both Human inventiveness and Human Evolutionary distinctiveness.

Thumb, Mind, Evolution

With a small increment, a line can be transformed into a plane figure, e. g. a curve into a circle.  Similarly, a small increase in the length of an ape's thumb enables touching between the tips of thumb and other fingers.  As a result, a hand with unprecedented capacities to not merely touch an object, but to enclose, flexibly grasp, and manipulate it, emerges.  So, the Evolutionary development that originates the Human species is both homogeneous and a leap.  Furthermore, on the basis of Spinoza's Mind-Body Parallelism, a Mind that does not merely register the existence of an object, but imposes Form on registered data, in preparation for modifying an object, is another emergent from the small increase in the thumb ape.  In other words, Mind as Formal Cause, a concept entertained by Aristotle, and revived by Kant, is a novelty in the Evolutionary origination of the Human species.

Definition and Mind

Any Definition presupposes a Definition of Definition.  But a Definition of Definition must be self-exemplifying, and, hence, axiomatic.  Thus, Spinoza's location of Axioms after Definitions misrepresents their Logical order.  Now, it seems difficult to soundly dispute that any definition is fundamentally verbal, operational, and stipulative, i. e. because to do so requires going beyond the immediately given, which is question-begging, e. g. that a Definition represents a non-verbal eternal entity like an idea, rather than articulating how it is to be used in a given context, no matter how large that context is.  Hence, a Definition can be defined as a provisional fixing of the usage of a term or sequence of terms.  It expresses a limitation of Mental operations by the capacity of Mind, corresponding to the limitation of the manipulation of tools by the capacity of the hand, and codified by Kant's concept of Mind.  But that limitation is an initial limiting condition that neither delimits nor specifically prefigures subsequent operations, e. g. the extent of the scope of a system or the accomplishments of automated tools.

Evolution and Definition

The use of tools requires the manipulation of them, and, hence, of the hand with the unique thumb.  Tools must thus conform to the contour of the hand.  Correspondingly, insofar as mental operations are tools, as Spinoza proposes, they must conform to the contour of Mind.  Thus, the Definition is the fundamental Mind-tool maker.  Hence, according to his Mind-Body Parallelism, the power to define corresponds to the potential of the unprecedented Human thumb. In other words, Definition is the distinctively Human Mental operation, and, so, is a product of Evolution, rather than a Modification of God/Nature, as Spinoza's system entails.  Thus, Definition more than clarifies and makes precise--it promotes mental versatility.

Evolution and Tools

In Improvement of the Understanding, Spinoza likens mental operations to tool-manufacturing, the pattern of each of which is a development of increasing complexity.  Thus, each exemplifies an Evolutionary pattern.  But, the relation between this work and the Ethics is unclear, leaving unaddressed at least five issues: 1. The relation between this Evolutionary pattern and the Persistence conatus of the Ethics; 2. The relation between the analogy and the Mind-Body Parallelism of the Ethics; 3. Whether the distinction between Axiom and Proposition in the Ethics is one of degree of complexity, or one of kind; 4. The place of Method in the sequence of mental tool-development ; and, perhaps most important, 5. Whether or not God/Nature, and not merely Human Modes, develops according to an Evolutionary pattern.  If it does, then insofar as the pattern is Emanationist, as it is sometimes classified as, then it is both Emanationist and Evolutionist.  Accordingly, if the distinction in #3 is one of kind, and #4 locates Method as different in kind from the specific actions that guides, then while the Human thumb is evidence of an Evolutionary pattern from less complex to more complex organisms, the Human invention of Method is evidence of a different kind of Evolutionary pattern.  The standard focus on Spinoza's Epistemological Parallelism has left examination of these wider implications of his works usually unexplored.

Versatility, Evolution, Method

Versatility combines functional Unity and Multiplicity.  So, two main ways that Versatility can increase are by unification of a manifold of functions, and by addition to a given unified manifold of functions.  But, to increase in Versatility is to Evolve.  Thus, Smith's introduction of Division of Labor constitutes an Evolutionary moment, whereas the Marxist collectivization of Property is Evolutionary only insofar as it is a dimension of a collectivization of Labor, e. g. a cooperative business.  Now, a Method unifies a multiplicity of operations.  Hence, the adoption of a Philosophical Method, most prominently by Descartes and Bacon, and implicitly by most others, expresses an Evolutionary development.  Thus, Evolutionism is more than just a variety of Method--it is its principle.

Method, Economics, Evolution

Common to the two founders of Modern Philosophy, Descartes and Bacon, is the employment of Method, of which Rationalism and Empiricism are two types.  But, as the focus of Modern Philosophy shifts to Epistemology, i. e. to immediately given data, how the data is gotten gets obscured.  So, eventually, the presentations of the two main Economic doctrines of the era, Capitalism and Marxism, are haphazardly developed.  On the one hand, despite Smith's Empiricist orientation, the two cardinal features of his system--the Profit-motive and the Invisible Hand--are not grounded on Sense-Data.  On the other, while Marx-Engels subscribe to Dialectical Materialism, it is perhaps as a Method only when they call for Revolution, while committing in the German Ideology to an Empirical procedure that is far from rigorous.  Now, Darwinism is Empiricist, but the practice of Eugenics, which deliberately effects reproduction as a means to the generation of superior organisms, is thus Methodic Evolution.  Likewise, any means to Evolution, including, as has been previously discussed, an Economic system that promotes increase in Versatility, employs Evolution as a Method.

Evolution, Technology, Ecology

As has been previously discussed, Evolution is both Technological--in the common sense of the term--and Ecological.  Now, some believe those to be antithetical, citing Climate Change as an example.  However, that charge mislocates the antagonism that e. g. destruction of the ozone layer expresses.  For, Evolution is the increase in the versatility of the species.  So, insofar as development in automated processes is the manifestation of that increase, Technology is in the service of the species, and, hence, of the Ecosystem of which the species is a part.  In contrast, the goal of the industries that are harming the Ecosystem is private Profit.  Hence, the conflict is between an Atomist Economic system and an Organicist concept of the Human species.  So, the development and actualization of an Evolutionist, i. e. Organicist, Economic system could suffice to end Human-based Ecological corruption.

Education, Economics, Evolution

In contemporary U. S., probably the most Capitalist society in the world, Education is generally a means to a job.  In turn, jobs serve primarily the production of Wealth, which is centralized in the few owners of the Means of Production, and then distributed to the work-force, usually proportioned on the basis of some Supply-Demand relation.  Hence, in this Capitalist system, Education is a means to Economic ends.  In contrast, in an Evolutionist Economics, that relation is inverted.  For, as has been previously discussed, Human Evolution consists in an increase in the Versatility of the species, and, hence, in general Techne, i. e. Know-How.  Thus, the Education of all is essential to Human Evolution.  Accordingly, a primary function of an Evolutionist Economic system is the promotion of Education.  On that basis, Education in contemporary U. S., even the reforms urged by Progressives, is stagnant.

Evolution and Rationality

Kant's dedication in the B edition of the Critique of Pure Reason to Bacon seems to correspond to a substantive revision--Cognition as a constructive process, as signified in the text by the repeated example of the drawing of a line. Nevertheless, his appreciation of Bacon seems to fall short of the full implication of the pioneering method of the latter--that Pure Reason is fundamentally Experimental. On that basis, the Necessity of Reason does not preclude lacunae, either Diachronic or Synchronic.  For, if Reason is Experimental, then the possibilities of failure and incoherence are inherent.  Accordingly, Evolution can be Rational without being Mechanical, and an Ecosystem can be Rational and still entail internal conflict.  Thus, neither regressive or stagnant phases of Human history, nor environmentally destructive Human industrial processes, refute the concept of Evolution--including its Ecological dimension, as has been previously discussed--as Rational.

Evolution and Ecosystem

Armstrong's giant leap is more than one step.  It is the culmination of many steps, by many steppers, and may itself be just another step in a longer development.  So, whether Evolution consists in continuity, or in discontinuity, as is sometimes debated, if Armstrong's achievement is any indication, Evolution is a process than can span thousands of years, involving perhaps an entire species.  Furthermore, insofar as the Evolution of a species is an episode in a more comprehensive history of its planet, and the species is part of a terrestrial Ecosystem, the leap is that of the entire Ecosystem, of which the Human species is a representative, just as Armstrong is a representative of the Human species.  So, the concept of Evolution as the origin of a Species may be no more than a part of a concept of Evolution as either the origin of an Ecosystem, or at least as the extension of an Ecosystem..

Evolution, Means of Communication, Economics

As has been previously discussed, perhaps ironically, Marx-Engels miss that their collaboration exemplifies a Relation of Production that it is not considered in the content of their product.  They also, perhaps ironically, miss how the propagation of that product is itself a factor in the problem that they seek to solve.  For, that propagation is via the printing press, an invention which atomizes its audience, just as Gutenberg's Bible atomizes a flock after centuries of gathering en masse for access to it.  In other words, they do not consider how the Means of Communication might determine the Relations of Production, nor how the Means of Communication contradicts the content of what they are attempting to communicate.  Now, a significant aspect of Armstrong's giant leap--the means of its being communicated, i. e. globally televised--also demonstrates an evolution of the Means of Communication since the eras of Smith and Marx-Engels, an evolution that has continued in the fifty years since, i. e. the first human on Mars might Tweet or post on Facebook.  Thus, the persistence of Capitalism and its Socialist modifications is also a persistence of a contradiction between the still dominant Means of Production and the ascendant Means of Communication.  Diagnosis of current political paroxysms, e. g. Brexit, is difficult without a recognition of the increasing common obsolescence of the otherwise conflicting Economics doctrines that have dominated for centuries.

Evolution and Relations of Production

To Evolve is to increase in functional complexity, or, equivalently, to increase in versatility.  The subject of the process can be a unified entity, e. g. not only a thumb, or a person, but a species as well.  So, the Evolution of a Species involves not only what it can do, but also how it is organized, or, in Marxist terms, not only the Means of Production, but also the Relations of Production.  Now, Versatility combines Unity and Multiplicity.  Thus, e. g. the human thumb is more versatile than that of an ape by virtue of being able to do more without loss of unity.  Similarly, an increase in the versatility of the Relations of Production consists in either an increase in diversity or better organization.  Accordingly, what is lacking in the concept of Division of Labor shared by Smith and Marx is any organic unity, the result of which is potential fragmentation or exploitation.  That deficiency is potentially addressed by the collectivization of property, but Marx-Engels fail to extend that unity to a collectivization of functioning, even as they exemplify it as collaborators.  In contrast, Plato, in the Republic, considers an organic concept of Relations of Production, but not as potentially variable, and, hence, not as capable of Evolving, i. e. of increasing in versatility.

Industry, Revolution, Evolution

An Evolutionist Economics is not a means to survival, to leisure, or to any of the means to those, including wealth, individual or collective. But an Evolutionist Economics is not a means to Evolution, either.  For, Production is a primary factor in Economics, and Production itself has been among the central loci of the development of Human history from Eden to the Moon.  That is, the Means of Production have evolved from rudimentary sewing and cooking, to mechanical machines, to internal combustion engines, to electrical motors, to digital devices.  But even these need to be produced, even as they replace human labor, requiring their own Means of Production and human labor, themselves evolving processes. Thus, Economics is not a means to Evolution, but one of its fundamental expressions.  Accordingly, an Industrial Revolution that fuels the emergences of Capitalism and Socialism, is, more accurately, an Industrial Evolution.

Anthropocentrism and Evolution

The disproof of Geocentricism undermines two entailed theses: 1. The existence of a deity in a realm that is physically contiguous with the Earth, i. e. the sky; and 2. Anthropocentrism.  Now, each loss has had traumatic Nihilism-breeding implications for Humans.  But, while Nietzsche more provocatively addresses the first, i. e. "God is dead", the second, expressed by "Human All Too Human", more profoundly signifies the problem.  For, what has been lost is more than Meaning--it is the presumed privileged status of the favored creature that breeds the Nihilism that permits, e. g. the self-designated superiority of the murderous Hitler.  In contrast, Darwinism offers a better-grounded revision of Anthropocentrism--the evolutionary superiority of the Human species.  However, that revision entails the condition that Humans are not also independent of the Earthly biosphere, but are products of it. Thus, Armstrong's Anthropocentric "one giant leap for Mankind" should be amended as "one giant leap for Earthkind", i. e. because just as Armstrong is representative of Mankind, Mankind is representative of all of the Earth.  Likewise, the Moon landing is a moment in not only Human history, but in Natural History as well.

Evolution and Economics

Such a doctrine as an Evolutionist Economics would promote the kind of development that, as has been previously discussed, constitutes the arc of Human History--the progressive efforts of the species of an Adaptation Of its environment, facilitated by novelties such as a versatile thumb, spanning the sewing of the first clothing, and the rubbing together of two stones to produce fire, to the Apollo mission that lands a Human on the Moon.  Now, very little of such a doctrine is evident in Smith's system, with the closest approximation--Division of Labor--undercut by an emphasis on Market activity as a means to accumulating individual Wealth.  Marxism comes closer, insofar as it promotes a collectivization of ownership of the Human environment, only to revert to the Capitalist goal of individual leisure.  However, Marx and Engels do implicitly present a better approximation of Evolutionist values--as collaborators, in conjunction with those who help publish and spread their writings.  Those efforts anticipate the Collectivist Techne that has characterized Human Evolution.  Still, to date, an Evolutionist Economics is no more than a hypothetical alternative to the two doctrines that have dominated recent Human history.  But, given that between Darwin's discoveries of pre-Human Natural History, and the Human extraterrestrial ventures, Evolutionism has become the most comprehensive concept of the species, from which it follows that the Economic doctrine that it entails is now the most relevant one, with respect to which Capitalism and Socialism are becoming obsolete.

Adaptation and Techne

Adaptation To and Adaptation Of are combined in Techne.  The sharpness of an axe is an Adaptation To the hardness of a tree, the knowledge of which is a pre-condition for an Adaptation Of a tree, via chopping it down, for building, a fireplace, etc.  Likewise, Knowledge of the laws of Gravity and that the Earth spins on its axis, is a precondition for extraterrestrial travel.  In other words, Theoretical Knowledge is an Adaptation To, and putting it to use is an Adaptation Of, the combination of which is Techne, i. e. Knowing-How.  Plainly, that combination has been the motor of Human history, especially the past 500 years, with a potential transcending of its original environment already underway.  So, Techne is an integral factor in Human-Earth Adaptation, as Genesis 3 recognizes perhaps better than Darwinists.

Copernican Revolution and Evolutionist Revolution

For reasons that have previously been discussed, the inversion of the traditional priority of Adaptation To and Adaptation Of can be characterized as an Evolutionist Revolution.  But, it can also be appreciated as a descendant of Kant's Copernican Revolution.  For, the latter signifies an inversion of the Epistemological relation between Subject and Object, i. e. from the traditional concept of Knowledge as an adaptation of Mind to World, to that of it as an adaptation of a manifold to Mental Categories.  Furthermore, Kant's  subsequent inversion of the traditional priority of Theory over Practice, entails the inversion of the priority of a mere representation of the World, over a concrete modification of it, though Kant himself seems not to recognize that extension of his concept of Copernican Revolution.  Accordingly, Evolutionism can be recognized as a continuation of a Modern tradition of the radicalization of the concept of Human that includes the innovations of Copernicus and Kant.

Adaptation, Survival, Evolution

The standard Biological concept of Adaptation has implicitly been that of Adaptation To, because the primacy of that in relation to Adaptation Of  has been taken for granted.  Underlying that dogma is the deeply-entrenched acceptance of the Survival principle, from which it follows that any Adaptation Of an Environment, e. g. cultivation of land, is ultimately a means to Adaptation To it, e. g. staying alive at that location.  However, those orientations are now challenged by the fact of Human departure from its terrestrial environment, which demonstrates that the Adaptation Of the resources of that environment is not necessarily a means to the Adaptation To it.  More generally, the disambiguation of 'Adaptation' grounds that of 'Evolution', and the independence of the Evolutionist principle from the Survival principle, i. e. of increase from constancy.  Accordingly, the distinction between the two principles can be formulated as that between Adaptation Of and Adaptation To, respectively.

Adaptation To and Adaptation Of

In its usual usage, 'adaptation' connotes an extrinsic, unilateral, completed relation between an organism and an environment, as a means to its survival therein, e. g. 'Some marine organisms adapt to land by developing lungs in order to survive there'.  However, that usage involves three oversimplifications.  First, an Organism is constantly in interaction with some Environment, so, what is extrinsic to it is only a specific environment, e. g. water, land, etc., not an Environment per se.  Thus, second, Adaptation with a specific environment, but not per se, is ever completed.  Third, Adaptation can be either to or of an Environment, often simultaneously, e. g. oxygen inhaled by lungs adapted to the atmosphere is incorporated into an organism, and, hence, is a bilateral relation.  Now, Adaptation is not a fixed process, i. e. the quantity of adapted content is not fixed.  The significant example of that is the increase over the course of Human history, of its adaptation of its environment, i. e. its continuing development of the Earth.  Thus, because that adaptation is neither complete nor quantatively unchanging, its principle is not mere Survival, but Evolutionist, i. e. increase in complexity.

Homo Faber and Clothing

A difficulty in conceiving clothing as both a need and an implement is likely rooted in a deeply-ingrained concept of Human as Homo Sapiens, in which the species is conceived as distinctive because of its Knowledge, and that Knowledge is conceived as essentially contemplative or theoretical.  Accordingly, while clothing is easily conceivable as a unprecedented vital need, i. e. in most cases, a thinker needs to be wearing at least something, any use of an implement involves only applied Knowledge, and, thus, is conceived as inessential.  In contrast, the concept of Human as Homo Faber entails that its existence is essentially Practical or Technical.  On that basis, clothing, as the primary stratum of Human engagement with its environment, is both needed for that engagement, and needed qua Practical or Technical.  In other words, given the revision of the traditional concept of Human, it is as an implement that clothing is a vital need.

Clothing, Implement, Need

An implement is an extension of the human body that mediates a modification of its environment.  Thus, clothing is the fundamental implement.  For, it is, merely insofar as being worn, an extension of a body.  Furthermore, it facilitates any extension of occupancy by enabling adaptation to an environmental change, either a variation in a given environment, e. g. a change of weather, or travel to a new and different environment.  In all cases, that extension is the precondition of specific extensions, of the use of specific implements, e. g. a coat put on in order to go outside and shovel snow.  Now, clothing is a vital need for Humans, which distinguishes the species from others.  Thus, it is a need to extend, not merely to maintain or replenish, which is how needs are typically interpreted.  Thus, clothing is indicative of a growth principle, e. g. Evolution, rather than a mere Survival principle.  It is also an implement the use of which is a vital need, and not merely a means to satisfying a vital need.

Utility and Evolutionist Economics

Utilitarianism conflates the criterion of Value--Pleasure--with the preeminent bearer of Value--Usefulness.  Thus, Utility and Pleasure-causing are synonymous in the doctrine, as is evident when Mill struggles to distinguish 'higher' and 'lower' pleasures.  Accordingly, Utilitarianism is merely a variety of Hedonism.  Now, some clothing is, because of the way it feels on the skin, pleasurable.  But otherwise, the Utilitarian concepts of Utility and Usefulness are inapplicable to clothing.  For, the value of clothing usually consists not in its feeling on the skin, but in its effectiveness in facilitating adaptation to an environment--work-boots in mud, a business suit in an office, shorts on a tennis court, a space suit on the Moon, etc.  Thus, traditional Utilitarianism is inadequate to an Evolutionist concept of Economics, which entails an essential relationship between a Producer/Consumer and an Environment.  But that inadequacy does not necessarily apply to the concept of Utility that Utilitarianism distorts--Usefulness, in its ordinary meaning, which can characterize the value of clothing in the promotion of Evolution, e. g. Armstrong's spacesuit that allows him to take a giant leap for the species.

Clothing, Adaptation, Economics

Among the vital Human needs, clothing is distinctive, because it is in immediate contact with an environment.  Hence, it must be adapted to an environment in ways not required of other vital needs, e. g. clothing must be specifically waterproofed against wet conditions, but any food eaten, though in a waterproof container, is the same as that eaten in dry conditions.  So, the versatility of clothing must correspond to the versatility of Human functioning.  Now, whether or not other species can function, as humans can, in  conditions that are as varied as hot, cold, dry, wet, etc., there seems to be none that can also do so extraterrestrially.   So, insofar as the principle of Human History is Evolutionist, i. e. the development of an unprecedented versatility, the production and consumption of clothing must be the foundation of an Evolutionist Economics.

Surplus and Value

Surplus-Value is usually analyzed as the difference between the value of a manufactured product and the value of the raw material prior to the manufacturing process.  However, there is a more fundamental analysis, as is signified by the hyphen--differentiating the surplus in the material, i. e. how it has been modified, and the value of that surplus.  So, that Labor is the source of the modification, does not entail that it has value.  Rather, it has value only insofar as the finished product has use.  In other words, the formulation of the concept 'source of Value' is ambiguous--it might signify the cause of a valuable modification, but it might also signify the act by which Value is ascribed to something.  Thus, absent a disambiguation, the Labor Theory of Value and the Use Theory of Value are not inconsistent.  However, given the clarification, they are, and the latter seems correct.  Which does not undermine the Marxist diagnosis of Exploitation as stealing from the Labor that increases Value by the modification of the given.

Human, Economics, Clothing

According to Smith, Humans are distinguished from other species when negotiating exchanges, while, according to Marx, they are distinguished when producing the means to satisfy basic needs.  These premises ground their respective focuses in Economics--Smith's on the concept of a Market, Marx's on the Means of Production as the medium of Exploitation.  But each also strays from their original vision--Smith's Market becomes an arena of not Exchange, but of Profit-seeking, and Marx advocates the elimination of Human Labor.  Now, as has been previously discussed, the distinctive Human need is, instead, clothing, and the distinctive Human thumb facilitates the solution to that need.  Thus, a concept of Economics that is derived from what is distinctively Human is most clearly evidenced by the production and consumption of clothing.  Accordingly, Smith's concept of Human is derivative, exchange involving clothing presupposes its manufacture, and Marx would eliminate his by replacing workers with machines.

Eden, Clothing, Evolution

Probably because of the traditional Theological focus on Reproductive processes, the absence of some details in Genesis 3 has usually been overlooked, e. g. how Adam and Eve know how to sew, what materials they use to accomplish that, etc.  But the perhaps most significant lack is of an explanation for why they do not need clothing.  Now, one natural account is that the climate in Eden does not require any such protection, e. g. it is constantly warm enough, it does not rain, etc.  But, on the basis of that premise, the logic of the subsequent events potentially changes.  For, preceding the temptation of the serpent might thus be a wanderlust, which would entail travel to a different climate, and, hence, to where clothing might be needed.  Accordingly, leaving Eden is not an unintended consequence of straying from assured survival, but, rather is the initial impulse to begin with.  In other words, once a plausible explanation for the nakedness of Adam and Eve is accepted, Genesis can transform into a proto-Evolutionist account of the earliest days of Human History--the instinct to transcend the given, the zoologically unique need for clothing, the uniquely versatile thumb, knowledge of the use of that thumb to manufacture clothing, and, the eventual departure from Eden.  Perhaps after Evolutionism has been more fully absorbed into Human culture, such a radical revision of one its most influential documents might become more widely accepted.