Materialism of Fools [Was: Where Does Thought Come From?]

[ravi]

LeoCasey at aol.com wrote:
> Carrol:
> 
>>accompaniments to ritual. In other words, anyone who seriously starts
>>thinking about how thought begins has to find that beginning in motion
>>which was not itself thought.
>
> I am with Doug on this one: this is the materialism of fools. Anyone who can
> suggest that ritual is somehow prior to thought is only describing his own
> lack of clear and rigorous thought about the matter. If ritual refers to
> anything, it refers to the purposive repetition of action, clearly 
> requiring thought. Check out an introductory anthropology text.
> 

when you say thought do you mean conscious reflection or just the
chemical activities in the brain that correspond to some action?
of course i do not suggest that conscious reflection consists of
anything beyond chemical activities in the brain (i.e., this is
not a metaphysical question), but that they are different kinds
of actions, probably. in day to day use of the language, i will
propose, the former (conscious reflection) is what is meant by
thought. if you agree, then do you still hold that thought
precedes motion? that a baby emerging from the womb thinks out
its actions, in this conscious sense, before it kicks its limbs
and utters its first scream? please note that i am not being
facetious here, but only trying to nail down some of these terms
in a sense that i (and other lay people perhaps) might understand.
though i am not going to attempt it here, i think similar
questions can be raised regarding ritual, and to be a bit bolder,
even about academic learning, where one repeats processes over
and over before a conscious understanding and the capability to
think about the matter emerges.

i hope that you will not lable me too a fool for raising these
questions, though i will admit they are tentative and might not
hence meet your requirements of rigour or clarity!

	--ravi