Carrol Cox wrote:
> >There you go again. My point is that ritual _preceded_ language,
> >probably by several hundred thousand years.
Doug Henwood:
> At this point, and for our purposes - so what? What's with this
> obsession with the ur-origins of language, or the early evolution of
> fertilized human eggs? It's not really relevant to analyzing politics
> or society or parties or movements or anything of immediate interest.
> Why this obsession with Science Times-y kinds of issues?
I don't know about anyone else, but I mentioned communication among primitive organisms and so on to show that communication was not, materialistically speaking, purposed on understanding. Thus I attempted to refute Habermas as represented, but it seems Habermas is irrefutable since if one representation is refuted, two more appear in its place.