December 24, 1962
Dear Jack: Chuan

Apart from this being the holiday season, I've had a distinct nostalgia
for some of our long-ago communications: mostly this is the backwash of a.
meeting I attended in London, in equal parts the thinking along currently -
unfamiliar lines I had to do in preparing my paper and a confrontation with
Huxley (dulian) at the meeting itself. Unfortunately, “uller had lumbago and
though scheduled could not come; Bronowski an! Szent~Oyorgy were about equall,
mchievous; very happily, Crick was there too, and in very good form. Much of
the time I felt that Huxley (Aldous) would have done better all by hinself than
the pack of us cut together, though he would have had to resurrect his sensible
criticism of the 30's and play down his more recent noSspheric (as Julian would
now call it) nonsense (as I do.)

I don't know whether to resent or apclaud haveng taken this assignnent; the
whole symposium was probably a frivolous whim, as was my original acceotance,
But I had not hitherto been thinking very much about the technological crisis
in biology and accordingly had no thought how 411 prenared we were. Like most
T had overlooked "euphenics" -- but you can see this well enough from the paver.

The crisis is not only a political one, but not unrelatedly, a ohilosophical
one. Brave New World comes close enough to the mark. The point is the imminent
realization, in respect of many details, that man is amachine not only as a
metaphysical abstraction hut as an engineering program. “ossessed of this kind
of power, it is more important than ever that we have a clearer idea what man
is for, ani even before that, what man is. My main quarpel with ‘uxley was on Y
this point, that his brand of "scientific evolutionary humaniss" which pleads ¢
for human "fulfillment" as the basic ethical axiom, has no definition of man.
ie wags one of the first to point out how psychbsocial evolution has replaced Pp
biological, but he still seems to cling to genetic continuity (axexk rather than
conceptual) to define the favorei peovle. Ther’ are other absurdities in 2's
position, partly covered up by the confusion between humanitarianism ani this
technical humanism; and I hai to record a profoun} digagreement with his provosa
to push a eugenical prograr by alvertising thm Huxley-equivalents as genotynic
sources in artificial insemination -- mainly on considerations of priority and
common sense.

On a short term basis, I would like to see sore thoughtful insights than
Aubrey “enen (Fig Tree; Shela) on the euphenic nroblem, so that some sort of
program can be put together for the sensible use of dangerous knowledge. Over
a longer range, the definition of man does strike ne as one of our crucial
oroblens -~ T think we might not suffer too badly giving way to dapkicimx dolphins,
computers ani extra-terrestrials, if this also helsp us cope with the other
monsters of our own creation. JI am not wkx at all unsympathetic to Vercors!
approach ("And You Shall know Them"). Tf IT may approach you ag a vorofessor of
literary criticism, what would you recxomnmenid to me by way of treatments of
this vroblen, and critiques of the treatments, and so forth? Did Capek cap it
off teo well?
I haven$t thought much about technical metaphysics for years (Like most
scientists) and am not too vain to show how rusty I am. You may see a thread
of this in the paper; more and more I am impressed by the extent to which
Science is a social phenomenon rather than one of private insight. We long
ago gave up trying to assimilate all that was elready (i.e. socially)'tknowm!',
and yet still make great efforts to augment that legacy. This would incline
me to answer Descartes * I think, therefore someone has taught me how to
speak, formulate abstract concepts, experience verbal imagery; i.e., I think,
therefore there is a tradition of thinking to which I am a party and heir.
Surel y the one common ground of all philosophy 1s verbal exoression, and T
am surprised (not to be aware) more has not been nade of this as an alternative
to eclecticism. /To whom would you direct me for the develonment of this theme
of- what shall I call it - cultural idealism ; that reality is not a private
idea but the idea of my cultural tradition, from which T learn all the means of
knowledge. Put another way, reality ig the rule of conmunmication within a
culture, (in precisely the same sense that it was Berkeley's individual sdea.)/

Do you ever have any occasion to visit the West Coast? I hope we might see
you here sometime. IT am depprately trying to cut down on my tripping, but if
some occasion does intersect Philadelphia, it will be fun to look in on you; and
I am hoping to meet your wife too.

Some of my old friends have been alarmed at seeing me; I hove you won't be--
having lost almost 100 pounds of surplus avoirdupois, quite voluntarily, I am
amused often not to be recognized. Weightwise, this also senis me back to
the earliest days of our youthful friendship.

All best wishes, and happy new year too

Joshua Lederberg
P.S. Does the expression "Beehive World" convey anything to
you?

PeP.Se If you wait to collect answers to all my questions, I'll never hear
from you .

pas, Did you publish your Wyndham Lewis opus?

// I probebly don't mean this part, but have yet to fragg.what I do mean.
I do feel that the "ego" implicit in "sum" is learned; but not only from

the social tradition.