--- Jerry Monaco <monacojerry at gmail.com> wrote: You can quote Marx all you wish. Take this quote; "Obviously the human eye takes in things in a different way from the crude non-human eye, the human ear in a different way from the crude ear, etc." It does not show anything at all. As far as I can tell human ears are "cruder" than bat ears; the human eye is "cruder" than the eyes of most brachiating primates; and the the human nose is "cruder" than the nose of the wolf. These are simply biologically contingent facts of the different lifeways of humans, bats, brachiating primates, and wolves.
---
I think (thought I may be wrong) is that Ted is saying that the human "eye" (which does not mean the physical eye, but rather the experience of seeing, oh people should read more Heidegger ;) ) as opposed the the raptor or cat or giant ground sloth or whatever eye, subsumes the object seen without a concept and the entailing system of of thought, whereas the "eye" of the barn owl or the baluchatherium or the diplodocus presumably does not. The person seeing something thinks "oh, that's an 'x,' like all the other 'x's," and it can then start to ponder this x and that x and the group of x's and their relationships to all the a, b, and c's, unlike, presumably*, the strurgeon, the army ant, and the pteranodon.
* I say "presumably" because it is unknown and probably unknowable the extent to which the magpie, the smilodon, or the timber wolf understand things as things.
Nu, zayats, pogodi!
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com