Michael,
some thoughts on this:
> What Holzkamp does is he begins with thinking about early hominids,
> suggesting that they were still environmentally determined in their
> actions. Then, as they begin to use tools, and especially when they
> begin to divide labor (Leont'ev's example of hunting, including those
> who push through the thickets and those who kill waiting outside),
> there are advantages for the collective life form, which are still
> selected and advantages through evolutionary processes. Then there
> comes a moment of (qualitative) inversion ("Umschlag") when cultural
> processes take over and evolutionary do no longer apply.
Most likely hominidization and tool use occurred simultaneously among
australopithecines. (4-2 mya) By the time homo erectus is on the scene tool
use is
full established, as well as extended family structures as the basis for
social organization . This is suggested by the patterns of tool chards
found
at various sites. Homo erectus is the hominid who began to use fire and
spread throughout Asia 1,000,000 to 500,000 bce. Java Man, the cave sites
in China, etc. Homo erectus is the great HERO of hominidization and hung
around for a long, long time.
Neanderthals had very advanced cultural adaptations including fire,
constructed dwellings, etc. This is still not homo
sapiens. Neanderthals had a larger cranial capacity than both early and
modern homosapiens. So it's pretty clear now that physical evolution
continued for a long time after tool use and some forms of social
organization were firmly established as the adaptive basis. Neanderthals
also had very rudimental statues that suggest some early art.
Early homo sapiens (paleolithic) were a lot more advanced than most people
give them credit for. For example, they practiced various forms of surgery
and dentistry (not just knocking out the troubling tooth).
Individuals
> survive not because they are stronger, in good health, etc. but
> survival is now that of society. Division of labor allows individuals
> to contribute in various ways, even if they no longer search for food
> or farm . . . Subjective experience and collective experience,
> subjective possibilities and collective possibilities become
> dialectically related processes, encouraged to change by
> contradictions. His use of contradictions and dialectics is very much
> that developed by Il'enkov, who wrote just before and
> contemporaneously with Holzkamp in the 60s and 79s.
He sounds interesting and I'll definitely have to put him on my "to read"
list.
Paul H. Dillon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:53 PDT