Species II

[Grkovich, Alex]

A child most resembles his Creator. The Fathers of the Early Christian
Church have written that they believe that an infant is speaking to His
Angel (which he or she alone can perceive) when he or she seems to laughing
and "cooing" to no one in particular in his (or her) crib. Children perceive
the World as it is, they see it in its simple and uncomplicated (howevfer
complex) essence. It is the adults that are confused......  

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ron Gatrelle [SMTP:gatrelle at tils-ttr.org]
> Sent:	Friday, September 07, 2001 4:22 AM
> To:	Leps-l
> Subject:	Species II
> 
> In what ever I end up saying below my main focus is how the various
> calssifications, human perspecitves, realities, whatever -  relate
> specifically to Lepidoptera.
> 
> James Adams wrote: But a child being able to recognize an arthropod,
> mammal, primate, or cat does not make the taxa we call "phyla", "class",
> "order" or "family" any more non-subjective.
> 
> Children are very keen observers.  A small child's recognition of the
> above
> as different establishes the profundity of their observation - though they
> don't understand it and can thus not even explain it.  The broad wisdom in
> their recognition does make the reality of what they observed more
> non-subjective (less subjective). What they observe and comment on without
> knowning the ramifications, is that living things really are existant is
> very different groups or levels of relationship.
> 
> Don't try to analyze to death the child and his statement*(footnote) -
> just
> appreciate the profound reality of their _observation_.  All living things
> are clearly manifest as being in related groups of greater or lesser
> complexity. Even a 10 year old  can see that. Thus, adult humans who are
> engaged in systematic taxonomy are not just "making things up" or creating
> "arbitrary" ranks or groups or species etc. Nature exists within a highly
> refined interrelated and interactive structure. There is nothing arbitrary
> about IT. We talk of the theory of evoultion - one day we will uncover and
> put down on paper the Laws of Evolution.
> 
> At the same time the simple observaion does not diminish any of the
> enormous complexity that can only be recognized by an adult mind engaged
> in
> uncoverng the parameters of such relationships and groups. This is the
> view
> of the Elephant James was referring to. He is correct of course in that
> our
> adult explanitons are very subjective. But why?  Because we are studying
> something inherently chaotic? No. The word subjective means - subject to.
> Things are so subjective to us and in or communications simply because our
> observations, detections, etc. are subject to the fact that we still know
> so little about it - THEM. For us here the them are butterflies and moths
> (and what ever else we may later call or not call them = determine them to
> actually be).
> 
> The wind blows! is a child's Fact.  Where does it come from? is something
> a
> professional adult gets paid to surmise about. Just because we do not know
> where it came from does not mean it is not blowing.  Just because _we_ can
> not professionally and precisely delineate genera or subgenera, species or
> subspecies does not mean they in fact do not exist in precisely layered
> ranks and within well defined parameters in nature. How does one
> accurately - according to the reality of nature - define a butterfly
> species?  Well, I guess we are all still waiting for the human who
> actually
> knows to step up to the microphone. Klots and many others have done this
> to
> this extent. They sexually reproduce their own kind - and not another -
> when left alone in their natural environment. Hybrids don't count (factor
> in).
> Ron
> 
> *(footnote)
> This will sound like a change of subject, but I want to point something
> out. The cultural mind of Western humanity is programmed from birth to
> "think" is various ways that are quite different from the Eastern or Far
> Eastern cultural mind. I surely can not get into all of this, but for
> example.  To the Eastern mind a thing of beauty is simply acknowledge as
> such - not only is no explanation based on analyzation of the beauty
> sought - none is even wanted. To the Western mind we have to define it.
> Actually, insist that the Easterner not just tell us "she is beautiful" to
> also tell us why.  American's are the worst at this. Which is why most in
> the US eat to live - unlike those in say Greece who live to eat. This is
> also why American men are historically poor lovers. When the woman partner
> says "do" or "don't" the American male without fail will not respond in
> doing or not doing but in asking "why?"  This is why American women learn
> as little girls to not ask men anything as they will usually not get
> cooperation just interrogation. It is also why so many American women are
> so domineering and unsubmissive.Where are you going? What are you doing?
> Why do you ask?  We are a nation of know it alls which is why more often
> than not Americans condescendingly look down on the rest of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
>  ------------------------------------------------------------ 
> 
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> 
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl 
>  

 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl