On Apr 16, 2009, at 8:57 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
> Not to argue against the uniqueness of language -- or humans
> for that matter -- but it is awfully difficult to pin down
> where that uniqueness lies. Bees, for example, seem to be able
> to tell other bees about sources of nectar "elsewhere."
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm>
"A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will. And this subordination is no mere momentary act. Besides the exertion of the bodily organs, the process demands that, during the whole operation, the workman’s will be steadily in consonance with his purpose. This means close attention. The less he is attracted by the nature of the work, and the mode in which it is carried on, and the less, therefore, he enjoys it as something which gives play to his bodily and mental powers, the more close his attention is forced to be."