Well Mike, its current. Brought to you by those wonderful folks who gave you standardized tests and textbooks.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
phylogeny
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
At 10:59 AM 7/8/01, you wrote:
>Interesting how the discussion of Thibault brought in the dimension of play
>in addition to language/sociocultural mediation. I was stunned that a
>dictionary would include under phylogeny the entry Nate turned up:
>
>The historical development of a tribe or racial group.
>
>That seems so 19th rascist to me, and definitely runs athwart the conceptual
>system stemming from Vygotsky.
>
>It also seemed interesting that in general people seem to have trouble taking
>seriously the cultural-historical school's idea that humans are hybrids of
>biological and cultural "genetic domains." It seems so foundational to me
>I would have trouble thinking without it.
>
>But the borders and categories are sure open to dispute! I note that an
>upcoming article in Brain and Behavioral Science is going to have an article
>on culture among killer whales and dolphins, por example. For those interested
>in this line of inquiy, Mike Tomasello's book, *Cultural Learning* is likely
>to prove interesting because he is one of the very scholars around who works
>simultaneously with chimps and little kids.
>
>Note, too, that at SRCD there was a session on "Developmental Evolutionary
>Psychology*.
>
>I guess the somewhat dated book edited by Bruner and Joly on play would be
>a good source for those interested in the comparative analysis of play, and
>Jolly's own book, *Lucy's Legacy: Sex and Intelligence in Human Evolution*
>has lots of interesting materials on the general topic of hominization.
>
>Hmmmm, I wonder what MCA article we should ask to have made available for
>further discussion.
>mike
*****************************************************************************
George Bernard Shaw:
It is the deed that teaches, not the name we give it. Murder and capital punishment are not opposites that cancel one another, but similars that breed their kind
******************************************************************************
Nate Schmolze
http://members.home.net/schmolze1/
schmolze1@home.com
*****************************************************************************
Albert Camus (1957):
An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. It adds to death a rule, a public premeditation known to the future victim, an organization which is itself a source of moral sufferings more terrible than death. Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated can be compared. For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have
to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life.
*****************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 01 2001 - 01:01:00 PDT