Laliaflia vs. Science

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is a mysteries" - Einstein

For a long time I said, I don't want to get into any scientific thinking, because science was for me equivalent to knowledge for it's own sake. Philosophy "love of wisdom" turned into "love of wisdom using logical thinking".

Richard Dawkins who I have send an email regarding Laliaflia a year ago caught my attention recently again when I started to explore his "Selfish Gene Theory". I literally dropped some tears as I get into his idea of material based and gene dominated world. I just though for a second: Do you have to wear the coldest and most materialistic glasses to actually call yourself a scientist?

To find meaning in something and to get some breath again, I started to think about Dawkins theory in Laliaflia. Ones again I was shocked how one can reduce an opinion on life to one conclusion. OK, as a title "Selfish Gene" makes it easy to understand what Dawkins wants to say. But using Selfish as a personification of genetic material was for me a bit too much interpretation.

Of course, following Aristoteles method of logic that anyone can find today in his book "Organon" will demonstrate us that Dawkins is right. Dawkins is right in the mind-set of Darwin. Darwin is right in the mind-set of Aristotle. The tree structure can be found in this scientific treaties again. The scientific method that only allows one conclusion. One answer, and that answer is ultimate. They are still some mysteries left in life nobody still understands, but in the novel of Dawkins the statement seems to be absolute. "The genes misuse organisms as machines to survive and through them away to move on to next generation".
Science was never colder and darker than this statement. Moreover it was never filled with so much metaphor that is related to human made design. I could argue through Laliaflia that Dawkins would have come up with a better answer than "Selfish Gene" if he would have used a living metaphor to explain his point. I could say design inspires design when I look at the metaphor "Machines". The metaphor of the "Machines" against the metaphor of the "Sea Star".

I put this ad of Apple to illustrate how misleading a machine inspired monochrome designing can be and at the same time how hopeful a diverse life inspired designing can be. Apple beats Windows, because the Apple delivers through it's cooperate identity (apple icon) constantly life inspiration and Windows delivers also through it's cooperate identity (window icon) constantly design inspiration. Tom Peters says:

"Design for humans, not robots!"

This clip of apple brings this statement to the point. I was impressed by the subconscious insight of the creatives who shoot this scenes and made me think this: "Everything we have to understand is already part of us."



The finishing of the apple clip reminds me funnily on two statements I made while developing Laliaflia: "The code of life beats the code of light." and "The greatest men in the world had lost the battle against the supressed mother of life. Life itself."

In a way Dawkins thesis bags a principle which has been expressed in different context. I would rather call it "The Selfish Life" or "All in the service of life". But if not life, what else than?

Here are some quotes that caught my attention while developing Laliaflia:

"Leadership is all about love: ...Appetite for Life" Tom Peters/ Managment Guru
"If you do something for someone else, the satisfaction lasts." Martin Seligman/ Psychologist
"The future of design is human centered." David Kelley/ IDEO

To go on the level of genes, the "concepters" of life, is fine. But I see them as a "practical virtual living artefacts" that dominate every design. Check the document "Defining Artefacts".
Interestingly Dawkins developed a concept that he called "Meme" from imitation to explain how an idea in life travels from one generation to the next without being material anymore. And this is where his science changes into religion.

Why do people think in black and white? What's wrong with the rainbow? Is the rainbow maybe to rare to be recognized?



Babies rule, innovation rules, creativity rules and diversity rules.

Dr. Antwerpes said to me: "If you look at the metabolism process, it‘s a constant construction and deconstruction process. I don‘t believe there is something like good and bad in nature. We got the ability to create. If you want, we have the aspect of creation."

For now I got enough of science at the edge of religion and look forward to get back to design thinking and design doing.