If this bevy thinks it understands all this (taking all the posts since Dan responded to me... then answer this
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&Dear Dan,
I had asked that question because you seemed against the praxis of resolution of "fear" post 9-11, at least I thought I felt what the pres said existed but I am open to chnage my mind like I did with Clinton and as this thread was on the "media" it appeared to me that you might, not having any communication with you, that perhaps that is what you may have felt "faith" to be.
I have a video of Noam that is revealing enough for not only did he discuss this stuff with Focoult on TV he asserted some strong claims against the media that I have felt applies in a microcosm to c/e issues but not much more.
There is a crucial claim with respect to genetics that his linguistics made because he said so for there is otherwise no reason to assert that just because a bunch of traits are numerically taxomoically numerous that that imples a phylogeny and yet on a superficial understanding I have of Noam that is level of biological thinking and yet he did not settle for this but for the claim that there is a "program" a genetic program that gives similarity and hence a linguistics commonality. Intellectually this was an in thing and he may have been one of the first advocates for all I know of the history of this idea but even showing the details of lingusitic divisions match an argued for social relation (that the believers need to be given things to divert their attention from what is really going on and prop up their "faith" on par with sports information...) and the anegativity in my original query to you a cladist would further argue the baraminc "sister group relations " as well to which we would go "outside" of language and into potential falsifications of any claim of a prior "geentic program" such that for instance the word of GOD could indeed have operative manifestations that NO LONGER would be intellectually within and yet it appears that Chomsky's claim against the NY TIMES can be made agaisnt his own linguistics itself.
I recently heard him on NPR an was very much offended had how far he as taken his notions to where evey thing depends on the particular useages of prefixes and this makes the transimtters of the wordings equally liable to words themselves.
The elite however, and not the masses will only change by change in language use so that if the situation is to be better for the kind of content in this thread then Chomosky's work must in due corse be addressed but as you can read I am more insterested in direct biological subjects than making the extrapolation that Gould may have written in this context as, p115 "Finally, in rereading the ORIGIN, I was struck by another, quite different, use of the argument from imperfection - onte that had entirely escaped mu\y notice before. Darwin showed little sympathy for our tranditional and venerable attempts to read moral messages from nature. He almost delighted in noting that natural selection unleashes a r3eign of terror that would threaten our moral values if we tried - as we most emphatically should not - to find ethical guidelines for human life in the affairs of nature. But I hadnent realized that he sometimes presents the apparent cruelties of nature as imperfections pointing to evolutio by natural selection - imperfections relative to an inappropriate argument about morality to be sure, but imperfections that trouble our souls nonetheless, and may therefore operate with special force as suggestive arguments for evolution."
I first wanted to exclude if perhaps you were using Chomsky's version of this rather than Gould's.for if I ever life to test an idea about cell death and prefernetial fertilization the quote following may be shown to have a simple genetic ezplanation and Darwin's explanation could fall the like his pangenes did but Chomsky could still linger even in THAT biology which is why I was more sensitive FIRST to him than to what i have a better chance of intellectually contributing to.
You all semed to think there was more but it is not fun and I wish I could recline with Mike's lizard drink but alas the reality is perhaps indeed less about the violence and more about trying prehaps wrongly of seeking* mutants as NOT grotesque. It has been a long day ago that I looked at bovine mutants as amphibians but this is not grotesque, has nothing to do with perception vs observation in evolution as anti-creation, and still may be the SOUL to which Gould referred but to speak for THE CHURCH, I will not.
™ Version 4.2
