Hey Om. This may well be true, and honestly I'm having a somewhat laxy day today and soi will choose to belive you without checking for myself. However what I meant was merely this.
A smile lets the other person know your state of mind(happyness) no matter where in the world you are are which culture you come from. Posted in answer to the question what do we all share in common. Laughter and smiling. On 15 Feb, 18:26, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > “…a smile is translated correctly between two humans anywhere in the > world.” – Lee > > Hola Lee! > > While one would believe the above to be true, a few weeks ago while > enjoying a splendid supper with a young Muslim couple from India, I > learned that many there will not smile for photos. The reason given is > that it is (my term) bad manners to do so. Perhaps saying it is > against their mores would be a little more accurate. The issue given > was that one is not to show their teeth. No, teeth do not have to be > visible for a smile, but often are and, at least in this one instance > (I can only imagine others exist too.), would in fact have been > misunderstood. > > On Feb 15, 4:27 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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-Hidequoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- 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.
