Hi Harry,
I'll only answer one point. Most of what you wrote in your last message at
15:10 01/02/02 -0800, I wouldn't quarrel mightily with but I have a comment
on one point where you wrote:
(HP)
Don't equate humanity with starlings and fish. They are impelled by
instinct -- the perfect
At 03:24 PM 2/3/2002 +, Keith wrote:
We may not
have the sort of detailed instincts that, say, a spider has when spinning a
web, but I think most scientists in various human disciplines would agree
that genetic propensities feature strongly.
Keith,
I find no solace what so ever in the
Brian,
A spider web has no awe.
A flower has no intrinsic beauty.
A redwood is just a tree.
Just as a humming bird is just a bird.
The awe, the beauty, the hushed tones deep in the redwood forest, the
delight watching a feeding humming bird, belong to us.
We do have a tendency to graft our
Keith,
As I said, Ashley Montagu - a probable super-genius in a bunch of
sociological fields - says flatly that we have no instincts. I had
already been teaching this for about 30 years when I came across his
statement, so I was glad we agreed!
I defined instinct as the perfect biologic response,
Sounds like for once I agree with Harry. The stars
are just Stofflumpen -- or
maybe just Lumpf... (if I have my German right...).
I recently read that the thing Hegel said that people
found most offensive was that the stars are only a
gleaming leprosy on the sky.
The thing that is uplifting
Keith,
I've clipped the first part, as we seem somewhat in agreement.
(HP)
There again, you'll recall that the single complicated human being is
not
analyzed in Classical Political Economy. Rather we look at his
connection
with the economic world, which is the way he exerts. The manifest
