"Instinct" a very vague term in common usage so I would like to avoid it, except when talking technically. In common usage the term "instinct" is merely a place-holder or black-box for something else.
Chris Doss wrote:"animals do have concepts and reason. I think Jerry (OMG, I'm coming to the defense of an anti-Heideggerian, will wonders never cease?!?) is referring to the neurological basis for human thought and the structure of the brain, which is not a lot different from that of the gibbon."
Yes, Chris Doss got it exactly right, and I want to thank him. (By the by, this is for Chris, nobody can have read as much Heidegger as I have and be anti-Heidegger. I just play an anti-Heideggerian on lbo-talk. But neither am I pro-Heidegger. What I really am is for treating Heidegger in the same category as say, Schopenhauer -- an interesting philosopher that we should enjoy, and sometimes use for inspiration -- poetic, literary, philosophical -- but really had a quite nutty world-view. In the fact that he a quite nutty world view, he is like most interesting philosophers. In other words Heidegger should be treated as no more than a philosopher and not as a movement.)
Yes, I mean mental structures, including the power to reason. Chimps reason. That's what we should conclude from most of the studies in the las 20 years on primates of all kind. What ever "concepts" are they are probably implicit in our brains, and pre-exist language. The mental structures worth thinking about? What does that mean? Does it mean the ability to reason and make coalitions? Read de Waal's "Chimpanzee Politics". Does it mean the ability to enumerate? Read Marc Hauser's "Wild Minds".
But when I said "mental structures" I also meant "mental structures" I meant basic ones such as vision; but all the capacity for empathy and the ability to understand the trade offs of helpfulness, cooperation, competition. All of these capacities are exhibited by our closest relatives the bonobos and the chimpanzees; and were more than likely capacities of our evolutionary ancestors.
"I used to use these Marx-mots and dialectical cliches as a rule of thumb
> all the time.But I think that in the "human-centrism" of such statements
> they display a world view that is pre-evolutionary and thus in a deep
> sense
> anti-materialistic."
>
> How very wise you were, but less so now, I think. To not be human-centric,
>
> that would be a human delusion, surely. Imagine a trilobyte that was not
> trilobyte-centric. To be human-centric properly, though, is not to be
> pre-evolutionary, but post-evolutionary. The laws of evolution were
> superceded once man began to consciously shape his environment.
All species shape their environment, creating niches, that in turn shape them. If that is a dialectical statement then so be it. Some species shape their environment with more or less consciousness. We are at times more conscious about the way we shape our environment.
Pointedly,
> human evolution ceased at just that point - overtaken by human industry.
Human evolution ceased? You should study these matters because they are interesting. Everybody who can drink cow's milk is a proof that human evolution did not cease with human industry. Everybody who is resistant to malaria because of sickle cell is proof that human evolution did not cease with human industry.
And one more thing. I want to thank Chris for not taking the opportunity to make fun of me about my obsession with bees and ants and swarming insects. But the future will tell... Maybe the bug that has crawled into his dark place is entomologically interesting?
Jerry
___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>