<HTML>The accounts Carrol provides of the origins of human language and the development of infants are just plain wrong, and ignorant of the work down in the disciplines of anthropology and psychology on both subjects. But I have a more fundamental objection to the argument he makes. The unspoken premise of his argument, that the 'truth' of a phenomenon is to be found at its origin, is classically teleological; it requires the assumption that the process is one of the development of some pre-given essence. Such an essence is, of course, present at the origin. For all of Carrol's genuflections before the altar of materialism, this use of teleogy, with its notions of a pre-given essence, is clearly idealist in the most fundamental sense. On the larger question of the so-called priority of matter over thought, my position is this. The material world clearly exists independently of our perception and conceptions of it. But our knowledge of that world is based on our interactions with it, a process which requires thought. We can not know the material world 'in itself,' that is, possess absolute knowledge of the material world; our knowledge is always mediated by the discursive approach we have to that world. There is no meaningful human action separate from human intentionality of some sort, and thus, from human thought; reflex action, such as breathing or reacting to discomfort or pain, are clearly of a different nature, not pertinent to this issue. Thus, much of the rather crude M-L-M philosophizing put forth by Carrol, with its embrace of a dualism of matter and thought, is just besides the point. As to my comments on the 'rigor' and 'clarity' of Carrol's thought, I just find it amazing how often he proclaims with great authority on subjects about which he clearly knows very little, and on authors which he hasn't even read. But when you are armed with the science of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought, who needs anything else? Ravi: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">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! </BLOCKQUOTE> Leo Casey United Federation of Teachers 260 Park Avenue South New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869) Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has, and it never will. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. -- Frederick Douglass -- </HTML>