>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/25/00 02:03PM >>> >The >humans in a living generation are connected to a much larger segment of the >dead generations of their species than ants or bees, humans are connected >extra-somatically or non-genetically that is. I like extra-somatically here much better than non-genetically. But OK. (((((((((((( CB: I don't mean to say that humans are not connected genetically. Of course, we receive genetic inheritance from prior generations of humans. But it is the non-genetic inheritance we have that is so quantitatively and qualitatively different than those of other species. They have genetic inheritance , but not the non-genetic inheritance that we have. ((((((((((( >Today, we are also connected to a much larger proportion >of the living generation of our species. This is the significance of the >enormouslysocial production and communication of today (world cars and >all). I wonder to what extent this is illusion (culture/communciation) and artifacts of very specific and unsustainable economics and exploitation of ressources (world cars and stuff). But anyway, sure there's a difference with animals here. (((((((((((( CB: Believe me I very much agree with your comment. Especially, here on this list where Mark has created a space for us to be honest enough to face up to looming ecological catastrophe which could mean annihilation of our species. It very well might turn out that all this great non-genetic inheritance ends up doing us in. But it has been our distinguishing characteristic, for better or for worse. )))))))))))))) >A hive of bees has no connection with the many other hives of its species. Well, I did hear about interconnected ant-hives (what's the proper English word?) over a very large territory compared to the size of an ant. I suppose that if we were not cutting their habitat into small pieces and destroying it, those territories could be way larger. ((((((((((( CB: Interesting. ((((((((((( >So, there is >an anticipatory social connection prospective in time as well. Right, and in social animals this behaviour could well be grounded only in evolutionary-generated somatic processes. >In a word sociality-communism is the unique human characteristic. Until now I agreed. But there seems to be quite a leap between the argumentation and this conslusion. Maybe I don't understand the precise meaning of "sociality-communism". ((((((((((((((( CB: I am using "sociality-communism" as a term to describe that very unique human ability to be connected to so many others of our species. That is a social or communal or community connection. That what the social is. Connection to others in your species. If the human difference is a bigger social network than other species, then sociality-communality" is th unique human characteristic. Even Aristotle long ago said humans are a social animal, I think. This is not a new idea. It is just that the terms "socialist" and "communist" have other associations with Marxism and the Soviet Union , etc. But the root of the words "social" and "socialism" or "community" and "communism" are the same. And the idea is also appropriate. Marx was a socialist and communist in part exactly because of the argument I am making on this thread: because he thought the human difference or uniqueness is our enormous sociality and community. (((((((((( >CB: As I say above, the clearest qualitative difference of humans is the vast >network of connections to dead generations of the species. Most of the >language we speak, the vast knowledge of techniques and otherwise, the >arts, literature was founded by people who are now dead. As far as language and techniques are concerned, there are scattered factoids that even inferior animals are capable of doing what you say. But the extent of these behaviours are clearly very different in humans vs. animals. ))))))))))) CB: Yes, I know about those factoids. But the quantitative difference becomes qualitative. Also, most of those factoids involve experiments where humans are key organizers of the situations where the animals exhibit some extremely limited linguistic/symbolic ability. You don't find chimps in the wild with no human intervention doing much like that. It is not an inherent species tendency or inclination. ))))))))))))))) >Of course, selfishness does arise among humans , individual and group >selfishness, selfish leaders. But what I am saying is that these phenomena >go against the main human advantage , which is to treasure >interdependence of humans, What's the contradiction between selfishness and interdependence? Here it looks as if I missed something big. ((((((((((((( CB: The word "selfishness" has the very specific connotation of looking out for one's self, one's interests in contradiction to those of others. Of course, interdependence is self-interested, this is not selfish self-interest. So, what you are missing is the dictionary definition of "selfish". Perhaps , you are thinking of self-interested or some other such term. At any rate, interdependence implies coordinated individual and group interest. There is no group interest that does not take the form of a collection of individuals's interests being fulfilled. It is exactly the (true) human original advance that I am describing ( sociality/communality) to make it the species consciousness that my individual interest is most likely to be met if I care about everybody else's interests and wellbeing , and they all do the same. "All for one and one for all " is a fundamental species motto. _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
