Hal, you wrote
>The "natural world" was 'doing its thing' long before and after
the dinosaur as well.
Too right and it will go on doing its thing long after us.
To intrude briefly from another thread in LO 6500 Rol Fessenden said
>You know, If said that micro-organisms were the first polluters when they
manufactured the poison oxygen in large quantities, and they did it two
billion years ago. For me, the point is that a poison to one life form is
the life-blood of another. If not for those micro-organisms, we would not
be here to reflect on pollution. The world is full of trade-offs, and we
can't even begin to understand them today.
In an Australian vernacular abso-expletive deleted-lutely. But let us try.
To return to your post
>I still find no distinction between natural and human and find the
distinction, in fact, distasteful.>
I sympathise in many respects. If we don't stop thinking of ourselves as
separate from the world we will destroy the version of it we inherited.
>How do *I* draw such a distinction?>
WE AND WE ALONE CAN FREE OURSELVES FROM THE TYRANNY OF THE SELFISH
REPLICATORS. I wish I'd said it but it is the close of Dawkins' The
Selfish Gene
>Lewin showed that apes use tools, birds, bees, and beavers create
buildings.>
Birds especially [and other species but birds more so] also use language.
Some species have different language in different populations 'tribes'.
Yes we are not as unique as we like to think. Other species to provide
living space for 'memes' [culturally/ cognitively transmitted elements of
communication and behaviour.
BUT
1. We have taken the evolution of such things into a higher gear; a step
change without parallel at least since eukaryotic bacteria discovered
symbiosis as a response to the earlier crisis referred above
2. We have the potential to do something about it. We do not have to be
the blind victims of the evolution of ideas language technology, society
etc. We can learn intentionally as well as inadvertantly. We can
declare-and live to what we hold to be Self Evident Truths
>IMHO, regarding mankind as anything other than natural is a dangerous
oversimplification that tends to *seperate* rather than *join*.>
In a way I agree completely. I started raising the distinction to alert
the dangers of an opposite meaning scheme [the one that as the world as a
complete construct of our language and perception]. In another sense I
seek, by making the distinction, to advance the disscussion of the danger
that we underestimate the similarity.
Thanks Hal for your contribution. I sense we are closer on this than you
may have thought and invite others into the conversation.
If Price
The Harrow Partnership
Pewley Fort Guildford UK
101701.3454@compuserve.com
--Dr Ilfryn Price <101701.3454@CompuServe.COM>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>