Why isn't this piece phrased with the same zetetic attitude of all your other writing?

If i must accept that 'life is a becoming', then i can also accept that life is composed of pre-given forms that evolve into that form. After all, no human mother has yet conceived of a hippopotamus. Having a given form does not preclude the possibility of variation.

What are these 'tendencies of becoming' you're talking about? And what of these new kinds of becoming? I thought we were talking about life?

This is the kind of philosophical drivel that makes me cry in my sleep.

Okay the language was clumsy, I admit.

I was trying to express philosophically what the artwork was saying.

With biotech we live in a mutant world where species jumping viruses are becoming an all too common occurrence.

A philosophy of becoming is what is needed.

I'm interested in what you mean by a philosophy of becoming?

What good will it do us when we have it?

If we want to prevent virus mutation, we need to discover a vaccine and investigate the cause of the mutations, not do philosophy.

I'm interested in the possibilities of biotechnology and intentional mutations etc, but i think the subject has been explored better by authors like W.Gibson and artists like Piccinni.

I'm still working it all out as I was a actualization of capacities within fixed species person.

Sure, the casual explanatory stuff is crucial.

But so is the cultural significance and meaning.

Philosophy does not displace science or art.

It is about interpreting these cultural practices, understandign the significance for us and developing new concepts in the process.

"becoming" is one such concept.