In the language of the Marxist doctrine, this means that man's evolutionary advance - his qualitative emergence to homo-sapien-sapien, did not take place on the basis of the discovery of fire or under the impact of environment - population shifts driven by climate changes, or as described by the great Frederick Engels in his fragment, "The role Labor Played in the transition from Ape to Man," but by injecting into the man a qualitative new genetic substance, producing an evolutionary leap in the environment that is man.
I see no reason to imply that Engels's broad outline is a doctrine, when the struggle for material survival infuses the whole amassed history of evolution. But certainly an extraterrestrial intervention theory, of whatever sort, is inimical to the sort of evolutionary approach that Engels described, in a way that punctuated evolution is not.
I am sorry that you are "disappointed by Melvin's contribution - Re: [PEN-L:33437] Re: Rael: "atheist, non-profit, spiritual organisation," but must mention the fact that there are times when I disappoint myself. This is not one of those times.
I have maintained a public posture - for some time, that basically says that knowledge travel a trajectory from the absurd to the less absurd, words written directly by Frederick Engels himself.
In referring to Engels fragment I have in mind a specific proposition that places meat or what he calls "eating everything eatable," as a catalytic agent that sets the fundamental basis for the evolutionary leap for man, as opposed to his broad outline that is the "Family, Private Property and the State."
I believe you to be most certainly correct in stating that "our" pre-man possess cognitive functioning or what I generally refer to as "the power of observation." This power of observation and the symbolic form that characterize the manner in which people think things out is the meaning of the word ideology.
Specifically, I do not know what my feelings and outlook is on the matter of cloning of human beings or human genetic material. I have deep emotional response of dislike towards what I consider the chemical scientists and the dope man - pharmaceutical industry, in general.
As for Dr. Zecharia Sitchin's nine books, all of which I have read, one must come to their own conclusion. I simply do not know the axis of that which is fundamental in the transition from what Engels call "from ape to man." I am fairly confident that this transition did not take place on the basis of eating meat, because the human body lacks the power to convert inorganic matter (molecules) into organic material (organic molecules).
It is my understanding that the primary life forms on earth capable of such "chemical" conversion - from inorganic to organic, are plants or plant-life. The idea that man can eat anything eatable, and on the basis of what is incorrectly called and understood as metabolism, convert the inorganic to the organic and assimilate its molecular structure is in my opinion a doctrine - alchemy.
In my opinion it was Professor Arnold Ehert who revolutionized the field concerning man as biology in his seminal "Mucusless Diet Healing System," and gives the theoretical basis for his posture in "Thus Speaketh The Stomach." I consider both books to be landmark text, written about 80 years ago. Herman Aihara's "Acid and Alkaline," also proves an interesting approach to man as biology and has served as a backdrop for the question, "why did man arise where he arose?"
In other words I consider the specific passage in Engels fragment speaking of meat as "The" catalytic agent in the evolutionary leap of man's brain to be a doctrine, that was overthrown with the publication of Ehert's works.
In terms of my citing study in examining the mitrochrondia of DNA in "locating" the women called Eve, I have in mind the 1987 Conference held at Cambridge University on "The Origin and Dispersal of Modern Man." I have in mind some of the work by Douglas Wallace of Emory University - mtDNA, and later Rebecca Cann of the University of California in the 80s. Their work involved tracing backwards, on the basis of what Wesley Brown of the University of Michigan called during this time, "the rate of natural mutation of mtDNA," to locate the women called Eve in Africa between 300,000 and 180,000 years ago, based on whether the rate of decay was 2 percent or 4 percent.
During the late 1980s and early 90s much literature appeared in America and amongst the Brits about the "out of Africa" origins of modern man. The basis of this literature was the work of some of the people cited above.
These dates (300,000 years and 180,000 respectively) appeared to me to be fairly consistent with the chronology advanced by Dr. Zecharia Sitchin's several years earlier.
I had run into the work of Kramer and Wooley, the noted Sumarianologist some time before Dr. Zecharia Sitchin's work, and find his propositions to be less absurd than the ones that shaped my earlier childhood
To my understanding there does not exist - to this very day, a serious refutation of Dr. Zecharia Sitchin's primary thesis.
You state the following:
"My stance is that the realm of ideology is important in human society but that it is fundamentally dependent on the economic base. To invert that relationship is unwise, IMHO."
I agreed with this in the most general and laymen sense. However, when we presuppose the existence of man before history and society the relationship is inverted in fact. Before history and society man exists as a community or communal force. That is to say that ideology predates the emergence of productive forces and the mode of production in material life. In fact this preexisting ideology - what Engels call "Ancient bunk," is actually reshaped from the absurd to the less absurd on the basis of developed in man's material conditions of production.
This is to say that man possesses the power of observation before his transition to modern man no matter what the primary catalytic agent. This power of observation is inseparable from cognitive functioning. The power of observation and the symbolic form that characterize the manner in which people think things out is the meaning of the word ideology.
So what I actually believe and understand is that ideology is not in fact
"fundamentally dependent on the economic base,"
but rather reshaped and transmuted on the basis of the material power of production. Ideology - the manner in which people think things out, and its symbolic structure and form, predates means of production and is not "fundamentally dependent on the economic base" of society.
What is in fact reshaped and recast is the symbolic internal integrity of "how people think things out," or as it is called ideology. "How people think things out" - ideology, is not the cognitive functioning itself, and cognitive functioning is not dependent on means of production much less the economic basis of society, but rather erupts forth based on biological processes. The form - ideology, is that aspect of cognitive functioning that is subjected to what in the past has been called "the base and superstructure" relationship.
In this regard Engels wrote that "materialism must change its form with every epoch making discovery," and wrote repeatedly against reducing ideas - ideology or the manner in which people think things out, to economic factors.
Thus, when you state:
"I would also suggest that the Enuma Elish of ancient Babylon cannot be understood without reference to the economic material factors that created ancient Babylon out of the Sumerian society, and the role of ritual and belief in maintaining the productive relations, that sustained such a belief system,"
I believe you miss the point.
I suggested reading what the text - Enuma Elish or "When In the Heights," first of all and then "placing it in a historical framework," (in quotes) although the actual process of reading the text is "automatically" understood to be the product of a specific society at a certain state of the development of the material power of production. That is to say Enuma Elish can be understood on its own basis as explanation of "Something." This is to say that Zecharia Sitchin's translation of this document is somewhat different from the work of Kramer and Wooly. To understand the difference requires reading. Unraveling the documents meaning is dependent upon how accurate the translation and transliteration is to the meaning of the authors word symbols.
Allow me to jump.
Now the tension between what is called creationism and materialism or the materialist conception of man and history, rivets as scholastic debate on mans emergence in my opinion. The creationist put forth the conception that man was created as he exist all at once and basically states that leaps - evolutionary leaps, don't occur in respects to man.
Assuming that Dr. Zecharia Sitchin's primary thesis is not just incorrect but absurd, it must be admitted that it is an absurd materialist thesis. Anyone that takes time to read Dr. Zecharia Sitchin's primary thesis and nine books will admit that his thesis is less absurd than that of the creationist and will be able to penetrate Sitchin's own theoretical/philosophic belief system.
You quote a reviewer of Sitchin's first book, published in 1979 in hardcover and later soft cover:
Discriminating readers need to take what he says with a grain of salt and do some of their own research. If you're not too picky about what or who you believe, you'll love this. I will read another in this series because I was very entertained by "The 12th Planet", but I was not persuaded by his argument.
The question Sitchin tackles is this: what accounts for the evolutionary leap in man to modern man? Sitchin answers in a manner that is less absurd than the creationist.
Sorry about your diasppoinment.
Melvin P.
I
