Dan Koenig wrote:

> First, the fact that genetics appears within our existing paradigms to be parallel
> across species, genera, etc. does not necessarily validate a total sociobiological
> paradigm, does it?

No it doesn't but I am not advocating a "sociobiological" paradigm. I am
advocating a "unifying paradigm" that inlcudes our sociobiological reality.

> You are right about man being an animal with an atom bomb (and
> worse) in his hand.

I didn't say that, not that I don't agree with it, but it was written by John
Pfeiffer.

> But does our behaviour really fully parallel biological
> imperatives of other life forms or do we have the capacity to be more (or less)
> because we have  important inherent differences (qualitatively) from these other
> life forms (self reflectivity, anticipation of abstract futures, etc.).

The laws of biology are the same as the laws of physics or chemistry.
They are valid for all biological beings and IF the extrapolation of data is
done correctly it is also valid for humans.

Are there any differences? Of course! Humans are the only animals who
have streoscopic depth perception color vision. We are the only animals
with an opposable thumb etc...About "self-reflectivity" and "anticipation of
abstract futures" until recently we thought we were the only animals capable
of this. Now we know that other anthropoids and dolphins share with us
this capacity and, it is possible that other lower life forms also have this ability,
although it has not yet been proven.

> We do not solely respond to biological imperatives and instincts (for better and for
>
> worse!).  Look at our behaviours of horrendous abuse and extermination of our own
> children, not because of any shortcoming of theirs, but because of shortcomings of
> ours.  I think that the scale on which we do this is quite atypical of most
> species,

This is a very interesting observation Dan. Why do humans do the things
they do if they don't respond to their natural biological impertives? Culture!
We "learn" to make war, we learn to hate and kill each other. Did you know for
example that men in the U.S. army have to be "trained" to break with the natural
aversion to kill someone of your own species? Lorenz in his book "On Aggression"
proves how true "aggression" only exists among humans because among animals
killing is only done outside their own species and with the purpose of eating
and surviving. Within their own species there are battles and conflicts for mates
and territory but they have behaviors that signal their intentions without having to
actually "kill a member of their own species with the intention of killing him" which
is
the characteristic of true aggression.

This was discovered by ethology and it's valid for humans. We do not want to kill
another member of our own species. It goes against our nature, but we do it because:
- We "unlearn" our natural mechanisms of self-preservation or
- We "learn" conflictive or opposing behaviors to our natural tendencies.
It basically amounts to the same thing. Man is not the "Homo Homini Lupus" of
Thomas Hobbes nor is he the "Good Savage" of Rousseau. Man is the way he IS
but he "unlearns" this through a process of "civilization".

> Secondly, maybe instead of humanizing our behaviour to be in harmony with the
> source, we may have the capacity to harmonize our behaviour to be in syncrhonicity
> with the source -- and in the process become part of the source in a very mystical
> way.  A different way of thinking, perhaps.

Couldn't agree with you more! <g>
The liberation process is fundamentally an internal process of unlearning so
we can "synchronize" ourselves with this natural source of our being. Obviously,
we all have different cultural demons to contend with but basically it is
a change in our "way of thinking" as you have correctly pointed out.
It is an "unculturalized" way of thinking, that will ultimately end in our
perceiving things as they truly are an not as we have been "educated" to
believe.

> Thanks for taking the time and effort to share your thoughts with me in response
> to the question that I asked.   Dan

Thank You Dan! <g>
Silvia