Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:19:50 +0300 (EET DST)
Subject: Re: 'sociality'


Thanks Justin,

I think you've managed to make sense of at least some of
threads related 'predication' and the like.

" The other approach is to say that circles become virtuous
rather than vicious if you make them large enough. (..) You
point out a lot of mutual dependencies and interconnections,
and if there are enough of them to make a complicated,
coherent, systematic whole, it's not an objection to the
whole you've constructed (..) I suspect this describes our
actual epistemic situation. Whether it describes the way the
world is is a big topic. "

Agreed.

" You all are using terms in a very lose way."

You must be right. I'm afraid this will be the case onwards
too.

" I don't understabd your "predication" relation or what
the things being predicated on each other are supposed to
be. Certainly sociality has plasible evolutioinary
explanations, for example, if by tahtis meant our tendency
to live in groups. But it could meana  lot more than that."

Perhaps it's not a case with strictly things (humanity,
sociality)? At least there's a question of horizon (not
'horisont' as I earlier wrote): Lisa tries to find
individuals to explain some larger phenomena or
collectivities, Adam and I were on the 'other side'. There
surely are reasons intrinsic to evol. anthropology for Lisa
to take that stance. But what are your reasons to similar
position? Do you have time to explain?

Jukka



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