contradiction/ human nature

ermadog at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ermadog at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Sat Dec 22 13:20:11 MST 2001



On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Danielle Ni Dhighe wrote:

> At 10:43 PM 12/21/2001, ermadog at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
>  >These features we all share with animals
>
> We share them with other animals, you mean.

Is this a comment on my idiosyncratic use of English? This is my mother's
influence. Her first language was ploe dietsche - Mennonite Low German
(first rule of the patriarchy: always blame everything on the mother). I
meant: We all share these features with animals. Therefore these features
belong to animal nature, not to the specifically human.

Or are you emphasizing our commonality with animals in general? To say
that humans are animals is a truism too general to have much meaning. This
statement only has meaning, and only has necessary meaning, in the context
of societies displaying the kind of extreme dualism promoted in the
Christian West, which seeks to deny our animal nature completely. It is
indeed a necessary antidote to the confusion (one might say, culturally
engendered schizophrenia) thus sown. (I understand that the Celtic Church
had a much more humane theology, based in part on neo-Pelagianism and in
part on its insistence on retaining much of its Celtic sensibility).

"There is no neurosis or psychosis of modern man that in not, at bottom, a
matter of religion." Carl Jung.

Joan Cameron


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list