I think that your idea of our "tooling" gets to the heart of the difference between Chompsky's definition of human nature (he believes we have this tooling) and Foucoult's (he believes we do not) I think we do have innate qualities of human nature, although I haven't thought out what they could be. Your point, Ash, about our need to be ourselves along, and together in family/community is a good one. As Francis pointed out in another thread, this is the biblical Mary/ Martha paradox - and I think we live this naturally and simultaneously - in biblical terms, our ability to be in spirit, and also do our work in the world.
On Feb 14, 12:44 am, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > Of all the creatures I've beheld none are so vile, beautiful, tormented, > ignorant, wise, enlightened, enslaved and emancipated as the one called > 'man'. Perhaps the being most likely to do /anything/? > > I think it is human nature to be independent and social, we have tooling > suited to the task and are driven toward those ends. Our independent > existential suffering is alleviated and subdued by interaction with > other human beings and participation in social communities. > > This page was rather informative and interesting > too:http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html > > Heh, my fiancee tells me that my brow ridge was bred out long ago. :p > > Just a few bits I found interesting from the discussion in your link. > > "this Martian would, if he were rational, conclude that the structure of > the knowledge that is acquired in the case of language is basically > internal to the human mind; whereas the structure of physics is not, in > so direct a way, internal to the human mind. Our minds are not > constructed so that when we look at the phenomena of the world > theoretical physics comes forth, and we write it down and produce it" > -CHOMSKY > > "If we really want to develop a theory of scientific creation, or for > that matter artistic creation, I think we have to focus attention > precisely on that set of conditions that, on the one hand, delimits and > restricts the scope of our possible knowledge, while at the same time > permitting the inductive leap to complicated systems of knowledge on the > basis of a small amount of data. That, it seems to me, would be the way > to progress towards a theory of scientific creativity, or in fact > towards any question of epistemology." -CHOMSKY > > "it is important to stress-and this has to do with your point about > limitation and freedom-that were it not for these limitations, we would > not have the creative act of going from a little bit of knowledge, a > little bit of experience, to a rich and highly articulated and > complicated array of knowledge. Because if anything could be possible, > then nothing would be possible." -CHOMSKY > > "On the other hand, one of the tasks that seems immediate and urgent to > me, over and above anything else, is this: that we should indicate and > show up, even where they are hidden, all the relationships of political > power which actually control the social body and oppress or repress it." > -FOUCOULT > > " It seems to me that the real political task in a society such as ours > is to criticise the workings of institutions, which appear to be both > neutral and independent; to criticise and attack them in such a manner > that the political violence which has always exercised itself obscurely > through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them. > ...its true solidity is perhaps where one doesn't expect it. ...this > domination is not simply the expression in political terms of economic > exploitation, it is its instrument and ... the condition which makes it > possible ... if one fails to recognise these points of support of class > power, one risks allowing them to continue to exist; and to see this > class power reconstitute itself even after an apparent revolutionary > process." -FOUCOULT > > On 2/13/2010 1:37 PM, Molly wrote: > > > > > "All studies of man, from history to linguistics and psychology, are > > faced with the question of whether, in the last instance, we are the > > product of all kinds of external factors, or if, in spite of our > > differences, we have something we could call a common human nature, by > > which we can recognise each other as human beings." > > > What is human nature? > > >http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
