A smile can be misread and has many nuances- a cruel smile, gas, etc. But one could say that about many facial and body expressions so I disagree that surface expressions create a universal bond- one must dig deeper.
On Feb 16, 3:38 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > 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-Hidequotedtext - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted 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.
