Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 23:24:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: re: evolutionary dialectics (fwd)




---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 16:26:44 -0600
From: Lisa Rogers <LROGERS-AT-deq.state.ut.us>
To: marxism2-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: re: evolutionary dialectics

Rosser wrote:
Now, was it language, toolmaking, standing upright, opposable thumbs,
secondary sexual characteristics of females, hairlessness, none,
some, all, or more of the above that was the crucial defining phase
transition determinant (or "control variable" to use catastrophe
theory terminology)?

Lisa: What in the world makes you think that there _was_ a "crucial
defining phase transition?"  What the hell is that?  And why would it
apply to evolution?

[BTW, humans are not the only living primates with opposable thumbs.]


I wonder if all the hullabaloo about how different humans are, is a
bit idealist.  The emphasis upon the alleged differences is the
justifying basis for much idealism, isn't it?

Much of anthropology for instance insists that culture / behavior
must be a product of our marvelous mental abilities, human
psychology, language, taboos, symbolism, wired-in dualism, etc.  This
ignores the material nature of life, and [as Marvin Harris says] is
therefore idealist.  

Such an emphasis neglects the impact of production and consumption. 
Sure, all that superstructural stuff goes on, but in the context of,
even in the service of, some people trying to get food, shelter,
family, comfort, i.e. a decent living, in addition to bare survival. 
Changes in the infrastructure are more likely to have effects upon
the whole of society than changes in superstructure.  

Say, Adam, didn't Marx say something like that too?

Lisa




     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---