Not at all sure about what you write. Are you saying that we might
simply 'relate' to the immediatcy of other human beings in a zen-like
This surely comes back to your and my somewhat different takes on
hermeneutics - on interpretation.
You appear to be happy to absent the contextual or distant (whether in
time or space). Whereas I think that all I'm saying is that we carry
our temporality and spatiality in our being, actions and cognition -
as part of our embodiment as human beings. Are you saying, Luc, that
one might (whether as therapist or as observer) peel away these
various things as if they are layers which hide the intrinsic human
being??? Is it your view that there is such an intrinsic being, Luc?
Is that the heart of the difference in our approach to these things,
On 15 Feb 2010, at 16:28, Luc Hoebeke wrote:
> Dear Roger,
> Again: chimpanzees and other animals and surely the ones of the past
> and our ancestors are marvellous instruments to project our wishes
> and ideologies. If you want to learn about the human being, relate
> to them. Easier and more reliable.
> Kind regards,
> Op 15-feb-10, om 12:51 heeft Roger Harnden het volgende geschreven:
>> .....once more I have left out a couple of important points....
>> Maturana's point is that the crucial factor in the evolution of
>> human speech was the embryonic emergence of an emotion (which he
>> calls Love), an emotion that grew from and enhanced a tendency for
>> greater recurrence of coordination of actions between groups and
>> different generations, and a closeness between the mother and child
>> not just during infancy but throughout life. Indeed, he claims that
>> there is not way, biologically, that human language could have
>> emerged and developed without such enduring closeness between
>> mother and child, and recurrence and proximity of interactions.
>> In modern times, this mother-child bonding has gone beyond gender-
>> specificity, and can be seen in father-child relations as well,
>> On 15 Feb 2010, at 11:30, Roger Harnden wrote:
>>> Point of information:
>>> I know I've possibly got wrong the couple of responses to
>>> Russell's note on the last Maturana book, but I wanted to make
>>> something clear.
>>> Maturana's thesis (using the de Waal data), is that there was a
>>> divergence from the chimpanzee line (or, if you like, a mutation).
>>> And that that the homo sapiens line that developed, and moved
>>> across the Red Sea thence into Europe/Russia and also eastwards,
>>> was pecular in its differences from the chimps.
>>> With Verden Zoller, his case is that we ARE NOT the chimp lineage,
>>> but one that is quite different in its social and linguistic
>>> practices. Indeed, that human language required this mutation from
>>> the chimp social organisation in order for its own evolution.
>>> In other words, his point is that all the negative social-
>>> Darwinism crap (intrinsic drive for power, control, deceit) are
>>> once-and-for-all sundered from pseudo historical roots, and that
>>> we get back to recognising and re-affirming that those qualities
>>> are CHIMP qualities and not human ones; and, further, that those
>>> present-day humans (such as Blair or Rumsfeld) who practice them
>>> are closer to their ancestral chimps than to their ancestral humans.
For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org
For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org
METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html
Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html