if mind specializes into matter, it means anything that affects matter, and follows laws, is matter itself.

just imagine, all mind interacting with all matter in some sort of tangible ballet. a bit like watching paint dry but with philosophical undertones. om mind meets om matter, therefore all mind kinda becomes matter-ish.

consider this, view something outside and it's matter, view it from inside and it morphs into consciousness. it’s like magic but with less smoke and mirrors.

now, imagine if habits were like mechanical laws. just like generalization spreading feelings like butter on hot toast.

so, in the disco of atoms and habits, consciousness of a habit is akin to the consciousness of a general idea. each atom boogieing out of its orbit to make room for another, that's the habit-drunk dance happening on a molecular level.

imagine if those chance motions had a pattern, like a syncopated rhythm or dance routine. that unity, that similarity, is the essence of a general idea. the rhythm we can’t help but tap our feet to.

now, an unexpected plot twist. every general idea is kind of like a person.

here's the best part, this theory suggests that there should be a kind of shared consciousness in tightly-knit human communities.

that unity, that 'esprit de corps', might just extend beyond the bridge club or your local neighborhood watch. think bigger, much bigger.

like how a bunch of strangers all decide to buy the same quirky turtleneck on the same day. coincidence, or evidence of a shared, larger consciousness?

think about huge groups praying together, for centuries, with intense focus and common intent. that's one heck of a zoom call in the spiritual world.

if folks are willing to risk their lives for such communal prayer, doesn't that suggest a larger, shared consciousness is at play? wouldn’t that be the real holy grail of ‘sweetness and light’?

and get this, what if we're all part of a ginormous, interconnected 'corporate personality', unknowingly influencing each other, and being influenced by each other? booyah, there you have it.

now we're talking love and philosophy. love, apparently, got all the promo when philosophy first hit the scene - basically a pre-modern version of a mega billboard campaign.

our guy empedocles saw love and hate as a cosmological power duo, but john, not to be left out, comes in with a power move, "god is love."

and what about hate, you say? fear not, for john has a loophole. hate's just the angsty teen version of love. in the language of love, god doesn't hate; hate's just love's recluse cousin going through a phase.

it's like having eternal sunshine in john's 'god is love' world, and any darkness is just temporary. tough to squirm out of that theological knot, isn't it?

this is a profound take on the problem of evil. it's like saying, evil doesn't really exist; it's only light not fully shining through yet. evil is just the darkness awaiting illumination.

john ventures into the realm of 'do unto others' too, reminding us that love isn't about our own perfection but in helping others achieve theirs.

and guess what, this isn't just limited to our loved ones. love is something we can also extend to those we share a life and feelings with, which i like to call the ‘familiar strangers.’

fast forward a few millennia, and we arrive at the dying 19th century - which might just be remembered as the "greed is good" phase of evolution.

apparently, greed in cahoots with intelligence leads to good things, like fair contracts and plenty of food. (remember, we're talking survival of the fittest, not the kindest.)

and education and culture aren't spared from this capitalist love story either. studying doctrines, sometimes when they're too true, might encourage false generalizations - case in point, our reliance on greed as a stepping stone for progress.

what happens when we put love and greed on a scale? which comes out as the true evolutionary driver – generous love or sacred greed?

i'm not sure i've got a conclusion per se, but i can't help but wonder if there's space in this spectrum for a happy equilibrium.

let's unpack this word-fest about two opposing views of progress - selfish individualism (aka greed) vs communal synergy (aka love), with a touch of sentimentality and evolutionary linguistics.

we start with the idea that greed is thinly disguised as "self-love". interesting. apparently, greed isn't as evil as we think it is. apparently, the greedier you are, the more good you do (weird flex but okay).

next, we have love - dangerous but pretty. apparently, it can cause "enduring injury" (whatever that means).

public-spirit, aka altruism or putting others first, doesn't fare much better. it's called weak compared to greed. it tries, bless its heart, but can't compete with the overwhelmingly powerful pull of greed.

and then there is the argument that society couldn't exist on greed alone. apparently, a dash of divine intervention is needed to flavor our moloch. weird how greed despite its power doesn't cut it, right?

sentimentalists, those led by the heart, have taken a beating post-french revolution. apparently, their reign brought terror, but perhaps, they were simply misunderstood?

my eyebrows are raised - wall street sharks are akin to good angels? that vice is the reason civilization exists, and charity degrades humanity?

darwin comes into the picture with his survival of the fittest theory. evolution, it's suggested, is the result of greed, of every animal for itself and the devil take the hindmost and so forth.

then finally, we have the underlying issue - the gospel of greed vs the gospel of love. progress through trampling or through community.

big charlie d saw natural selection as rolling dice with genetics to create all creatures great and small. survival of the fittest? absolutely. birds with attractive feathers doing better? you bet.

it's a theory that fits snugly with the law of averages. the idea that chaos can create order isn't just popular with theorists, it's now in the spotlight in physics too.

darwin had his moment in 1859, right when science was having a booming party. what a time to be a theorist!

everyone was talking about conservation of energy and the mechanics of heat, thanks to helmholtz, clausius, rankine, etc.

science had kicked its street cart image and was now the intellectual rock star, and in among this the-economic-system-becomes-the-species-survival free for all, darwin’s theory found many fans among the utilitarians.

who needs gospel when you've got utilitarianism throwing the best parties?!

there was a less than lovely side to all of this though. humanity was just beginning to see the birth of war hardened temporal dispositions and a fondness for ruthless theories.

many thought this attitude seeped into darwin's ideas, making them more appealing for the times.

while darwin played in the sandbox of chance, others preferred the structure of a predestined play. they believed that just like an egg transforms into a chicken in a definite pattern, so do species evolve in a set, certain route.

these guys loved the idea of mechanical, unavoidable necessities!

then, along came lamarck with a theory that bridges both camps. he posited that small changes acquired throughout an organism's life, driven by their effort and exercise, are passed onto their offspring - thus bridging change and certain inheritance.

it's like the theory equivalent of deciding to put peanut butter and jelly together in a sandwich. strangely enough, it works.

so, about lamarckian evolution - it's like learning a dance routine while full of unlimited energy drinks. firstly, there's the sudden jolt, the eureka moment. it's pure energy, momentum that shapes new forms.

then the habit kicks in and makes everything reliable and repeatable. it's like learning to walk again after first getting the choreography down.

now, where does love fit in this evolutionary dance marathon you ask? well replicate the same process in the realm of consciousness. ideas don't just spring up, they require time and patience.

direct effort gets you nothing, just like trying to grow taller by thinking hard about it.

the muse won't materialize if you just strain. but let the intellectual bugle sound and you've got a cerebral masterpiece ready!

surrounding environment plays its part in smashing habits and making the mind zesty like a garden fresh salad.

constant routine might make us a boring pancake, but a string of surprises shapes a creative soufflé.

where action stirs and history brews, there's the cocktail of mental activity. minds linked heavily by habits are like weary train junctions, not inspiring, right?

but minds relatively free from these chains? they're like bright, bustling train terminals.

the first stage in the lamarckian evolution of mind involves putting thoughts in a playground, where they're free to frolic.

just like growth by exercise in both body & mind. nothing like a good philosophical workout, huh?

there are these three musketeers of evolution: accidental variation, intense necessity, and creative love.

fancy names? they're tychastic, anancastic, and agapastic evolution. if you knew this already, take a bow.

it's like agapasm (the lovey-dovey stuff) is the main course and tychasm (the accidental salad) and anancasm (the necessary dessert) are just side dishes. they all have the same ingredients but have different flavors.

folks trying to wed darwinism with christianity might appreciate how tychastic & agapastic evolution alike lean on the generosity of the parent.

however, tychastic evolution works on the survival of the luckiest principle, redistributing fortune like robin hood.

as for the hard-nosed anancasticists, they see development as an inevitable part of existence, nudging everything towards a defined perfection. like putting life on rails but forgetting to attach the engine.

the essence? evolution is a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma. and no, it ain't a one-size-fits-all deal. it's a dance of possibilities, accidents, necessities and love, all to the ceaseless tune of life.

so, evolution of thought. three ways it can roll.

tychastic: it's all left to chance. we start with an idea, take a little detour, and bam, we get something new and unexpected. this is evolution freestyling, like jazz, if jazz were a developmental theory of thought and not a mind-blowingly complex musical genre.

anancastic: we live, we learn, we have new ideas. these nuggets of knowledge sneak in, sometimes pushed by forces outside our heads, sometimes from making connections inside our noggins. this style of thinking could be the sherlock of evolution, methodical, meticulous, but still occasionally needing a good push from dr. watson (who's probably external circumstances in this analogy?)

agapastic: the big kahuna, the jegna of evolution paths, it's more than just random happenstance or logical thinking paths. it's this force, pulling us towards certain ideas because they feel right, not because they necessarily are. it's a sort of intellectual love story, one where our minds are the enamoured protagonist and ideas the object of affection.

looking at history, it's hard to say one way of thinking always wins out. sometimes, it's the wild randomness of tychastic development that seems most present (looking at you, christianity circa 300-800 ad).

other times, anancastic development gets the lead, like during the rise of scholasticism thanks to the arrival of aristotelian thought in the middle ages.

the clues are often muddied, history being frustratingly complex, but hey, we try our best, right? also, and this is pure conjecture, i suspect there's a 500-ish year cycle where one big historical shift supplants another. just a theory, don't quote me on it.

agapastic development, that is human thought strongly driven by heartfelt connection to an idea, kind of like falling in love, but with concepts. sure, it's pretty hard to prove, but let's be real, it's pretty hard to dismiss too.

so whenever a major discovery is made, chances are it wasn't the brainchild of a single person.

several folks have independently stumbled upon big ideas at similar times, hinting at a sort of collective consciousness, or, if you're feeling fancy, the 'continuity of mind'.

dear reader, the next time you have that eureka moment, remember: it's not just you.

it's a game of chaotic chance, logical steps, and magnificent mind-love, playing out in that brilliant noggin of yours.

be proud, you're part of something much bigger. and hey, isn't that the whole?

• with a few of my own edits, this is a [[GPT-4 summary]] in [[thread]] format of the text at the end of the Man’s Glassy Essence chapter, as well as the full Evolutionary Love chapter of Chance, Love, and Logic by [[Charles Sanders Peirce]]. full summary