> > kelley wrote:
> > >
> > > ritual is bound up with language and is
> >
> > There you go again. My point is that ritual _preceded_ language,
> > probably by several hundred thousand years.
there you go again! that's what habermas would say too. i thought i made that clear and simply added on the part that ritual is still with us. maybe ken has a quote. don't have time to go searching just yet. this wkend. at any rate, H he goes further to argues that it's still bound up with ritual because communication is about action; they can't be separated. that is why one criteria for testing validity is, "can this claim be acted on". if it can't, says, habermas one bug reason is that the social strucutural conditions within which we find ourselves prevent putting our claims into action.
and, in the end, i don't see how you've concluded that anyone is trying to determine the origins of language in the way you keep describing it. he's not trying to determine the origins of language and no one said he is.
thanks for reading!
sheesh.