Subject: RE: electroacoustics - rap to tap
From: Paulo Mouat (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jul 07 2004 - 19:34:25 EDT
Of course I am not saying that human beings are the only creatures with
tradition or language.
You separated the social from the biological so vehemently that suddenly
certain abilities that evolve because of social interaction seemed to be
caused by purely biological (e.g. as to overcome environment challenges)
It is still a long stretch to say that art, language and tradition are
biological and not at all social. The biological may enable (or block) the
faculties that lead to art, language and tradition, but the social is where,
through application, those faculties are ultimately made to evolve -- even
influencing the biological.
A number of characteristics typically associated with human nature have
nothing to do with biology. Social conventions determine and condition
certain aspects of human nature. In that sense, there is no direct
one-to-one correspondence between human nature and biology, which means
human biology does not encompass the whole of human nature and thus you
cannot equate the two.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Gogins [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 7:31 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap
> Language is biological, tradition is biological. Nature is
> the object of science. Biology is the science of life
> considered as living objects. Human nature is the nature of
> those living objects who are human beings, so obviously human
> biology is the study of human nature.
> It is clear that language is biological since it evolved, and
> depends critically upon a few recent mutations. Some of the
> genes responsible for language use have been identified
> recently thanks to a family with some language problems in
> London who lack those genes.
> Surely you don't suppose human beings are the only creatures
> with tradition?
> Birds learn certain songs, dolphins, monkeys, dogs, all kinds
> of creatures learn important parts of their adaptations from
> their parents.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paulo Mouat" <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 9:17 PM
> Subject: RE: electroacoustics - rap to tap
> > Michael Gogins wrote:
> > > Since every society has art, it's clear that art is not
> > > social but biological or, in other words, part of "human
> > > nature." If you could show me a society without art, I'd have
> > > to say that art was socially caused, but that's obviously not
> > > the case.
> > Is language biological? Is tradition biological? It's not
> clear at all
> > that art is biological and since when "part of human
> nature" equates to
> > "being biological"?
> > //P
> > http://www.interdisciplina.org/00.0/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:02 EST