Re: language, meaning and nature

["georg parlow" <georg@websuxxess.com>]

hi sean:

> millenia ago. Even apes do so--though without
> passing that knowledge to future generations.

in a book from jared diamond i recently read (not sure if it was "the third
shimpanzee" or his new one "rich and poor"), he makes a good point along
that line. he tells of 2 instances, when it has been observed how a shimp
tought her child a skill she had herself previously been taught - on i dont
remember details, the other one was the use of a sign-"language". this was
sorta the last missing thing to back up his point, that there is no
difference in quality between higher primates, only quantitative
differences. in other words, they do everything we do (including homizide or
their equivalent - apezide?, lying, use of tools, etc.) - but we are better
at it all.

> In finding the rhythm of the saw, you have to
> observe and ask questions, and this describes the
> evolved activity of scientists as well

hm, cant agree with that one either - in order to sing songs you do not need
to know notes and stuff - and in order to dance with a saw i dont need to
think at all, quite the opposite. in order to _explain_ or _communicate_ my
experience, yes i have to go scientist, but not in order to have fun with
physical work.



> To those ends, please save me a few months of my
> life and tell me their reason.

yes yes, please, i am curious too!

georg