What is human nature? Wow!
Lots and lots of answers to this one, perhaps I shall start by simply saying that we all laugh, and a smile is translated correctly between two humans anywhere in the world. On 14 Feb, 18:41, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > Another interesting view is the relation and reliance of the spirit on > the world, yet also the world on it. I respect them both in how it is > the being which sings the song and weaves the tale, and the tales and > songs which stimulate that being to be, do, and sing. > > The behaviorist seems to be interested in the songs and tales where the > foundationist seems interested in the common song and tale. I think they > are both important and the angles of inspection contributed between them > serve to refine our understanding of the human being. Genetics, > epigenetics, physiology, psychology, sociology, anthropology are a broad > range of inspections and the common denominator seems to say, "the human > being in every dimension of its existence is on a journey." > > That is not to say we can't gain an academic advantage in taking one > viewpoint or the other, that can be a very timesaving feature, > especially when dealing with rudimentary/underdeveloped tools. This > process of exo/endo-focal inspection seems the best way to explore and > identify the potential landscape and absorb it into the marketplace. On > the question of fitness I am leaning more toward purpose or function, it > depends on the challenge or adversary. All these interesting fields each > contribute useful knowledge, the challenge is tying it all together. I > think it requires we be a curious Traveler, a Roman, and a Martian in a > sense. > > I feel long-winded today... > -Ash > > On 2/14/2010 9:43 AM, Molly wrote: > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
