Friday, December 26, 2008

How to Tell Your Friends from the Apes

It's Christmas vacation. Reruns today and tomorrow.

*****

Now, I'm not an anthropopogist. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn -- and steal their flag -- and I do know a thing or two about a thing or three. And one of the things I know is that pre-human hominids only became human because of the specifically trinitarian nature of the human developmental situation: mother-father-helpless baby. This, by the way, is one of the many reasons I do not believe intellignt life will ever be found on other planets, because genes and natural selection are only the necessary but not sufficient (much less formal or final) cause of our humanness.

In other words, even supposing that life arose elsewhere and began evolving large brains, a large brain would never be sufficient to allow for humanness. Rather, the key to the whole existentialada -- the missing link, so to speak -- is the extremely unlikely invention of the helpless and neurologically incomplete infant who must be born approximately 12 months "premature" so that his brain can be assembled at the same time it is being mothered. If we had come out of the womb neurologically complete, then there would be no "space" for humanness to emerge or take root. We would be Neanderthals. Literally.

The dozens of you who have read my book know that I do not find this at all incompatible with a spiritual view. For one thing, I never rule out the invisible hand of providence. Furthermore, infantile helplessness is the space where verticality enters the evolutionary picture. All other animals are completely limited and determined by their genes. Only humans have the privilege of being ushered into a transcendent, non-genetic vertical world of love, truth and beauty, which is both timeless and anterior to their discovering it. It was always "there," but only became accessible as a result of the unique circumstances of human development.

Comes now a study by two real anthropologists, Professors Stine and Kuhn, who (unwittingly) provide further evidence for the Gagdadian view: "Diversified social roles for men, women, and children may have given Homo sapiens an advantage over Neanderthals, says a new study in the December 2006 issue of Current Anthropology. The study argues that division of economic labor by sex and age emerged relatively recently in human evolutionary history and facilitated the spread of modern humans throughout Eurasia."

Coming out of the contemporary academic milieu, they apparently cannot help putting a quasi-Marxist spin on their findings, seeing them merely in economic -- i.e., materialistic -- terms rather than drawing out their psychological implications: "The competitive advantage enjoyed by modern humans came not just from new weapons and devices but from the ways in which their economic lives were organized around the advantages of cooperation and complementary subsistence roles for men, women, and children." Sort of a combination of Adam Smith and Eve.

To back up a bit, there was a time when two distinct versions of... of folks roamed the planet... much like today, actually. That would be the Neanderthals and us -- or Homo sapiens sapiens. Neanderthals emerged around 250,000 years ago, taking their bows and exiting the evolutionary stage around 30,000 ago. Signs of division of labor only appear with the arrival of modern humans (not Neanderthals) into Europe around 40,000 years ago. (Interestingly, this is right around the time of the "creative explosion" of Homo sapiens sapiens discussed in Chapter 3 of my book, an unprecedented outpouring of cave art, musical instruments, body decoration, burial of the dead, and other distinct evidence of actual "humanness.")

An article in the Times notes that, "At sites occupied by modern humans from 45,000 to 10,000 years ago... there is good evidence of different occupations.... It seems reasonable to assume that these activities were divided between men and women, as is the case with modern foraging peoples. But Neanderthal sites include no bone needles, no small animal remains and no grinding stones for preparing plant foods."

The question is, "what did Neanderthal women do all day?," since the roller derby was a far off dream, and the WNBA only came into existence in the late 20th century. Neanderthal skeletons "are so robustly built that it seems improbable that they just sat at home looking after the children, the anthropologists write. More likely, they did the same as the men, with the whole population engaged in bringing down large game."

In other words, it seems that Neanderthals were not trinitarian but essentially binarian (adult-child) or perhaps even unitarian, in that everyone, even children, participated in the hunt. The study again focuses on the economic angle, speculating that modern humans, because of "their division of labor and diversified food sources, would have been better able to secure a continuous food supply." Furthermore, unlike the Neanderthals, they wouldn't have put their "reproductive core" -- that is, women and children -- at such a great risk.

But there is an interior side to this picture, and that is the evolutionary effect that completely devoted mothers would have had on children. In chapter 3.3 of my book, Humans and How They Got That Way: Putting the Sapiens into Homo, I argued that it is completely reasonable to assume that in the distant past, humans became human in the identical way they do today.

I can see that I won't have time to flesh out the entire theory here, but that's what the book is for. But the bottom line is that as human brains became larger and larger -- and pelvises became narrower due to bipedalism -- it became necessary for women to give birth earlier and earlier, to the point that infants had to be born neurologically incomplete, to such an extent that much of the brain's development had to take place outside the womb -- a pattern completely unique among the primates.

More than anything else, it was this delayed development, or neoteny, that created the possibility of our acquisition of humanness. But that is not all. Because human infants were born in this way, it obviously became increasingly necessary for human mothers to specialize in mothering -- otherwise, these helpless infants would not have survived. But there was an obvious benefit, as I believe this situation of increasingly helpless babies and increasingly devoted mothers created a sort of runaway positive feedback loop for greater intelligence:

"It seems obvious that, in order for babies to survive, they had to become adept at 'evoking' the environment they needed to survive -- specifically, an intelligent, caring mother. Perhaps it sounds odd, but it seems an inescapable conclusion that, in order for babies to specialize in babyhood, they had to 'select' mothers who were intelligent, capable, and empathic enough to be up to the task of caring for them. Think about it: caring for a helpless infant is at least as complex and challenging on a moment-to-moment basis as hunting for game. [Memo from relatively new father: I was not wrong about this -- ed.] Let's face it: those mothers who did not develop these complex mothering skills may have gotten their genes into the next generation, but not long enough for that generation to do the same."

As I said, I don't have time to present the full argument with all of its implications here. However, you will note on page 127 of my book that I cited research indicating that the brains of Neanderthals were actually larger than ours, but that they seem to have become fully developed at an earlier age. In other words, it seems possible that they were not born as premature, so that the window of development slammed shut sooner, so to speak. What this suggests to me is that they were more animal than human, more under the influence of genes than of humanness, i.e., the vertical. All Neanderthals were hunters because that is what their genes designed them to do. Hunting was not a "role," any more than hunting is a role for cats or coyotes. Roles were invented by modern humans, those roles being father, mother, and helpless infant.

And as I also argued in my book, once you have the abstract category of any role, then in effect you have all roles. In particular, the mother-infant diad evokes the purely social role of father, and then we're off to the races. Conversely, eliminate the role of father, and human evolution comes to a standstill. But really, if you mess with any part of this trinity, the whole human-generating mechanism collapses. This is something that is deeply recognized in particular by the Jewish tradition, and is by far the strongest argument as to why the redefinition of marriage would be a rubicon in the ultimate collapse of civilization. In order to become men, boys must desexualize the father and identify with his logos, not desire his body.

There is nothing which is more necessary and more precious in the experience of human childhood than parental love.... nothing more precious, because the parental love experienced in childhood is moral capital for the whole of life.... It is so precious, this experience, that it renders us capable of elevating ourselves to more sublime things--even divine things. It is thanks to the experience of parental love that our soul is capable of raising itself to the love of God. --Meditations on the Tarot

95 Comments:

Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Bob,
Beautiful still. One of the most valuable posts too. Foundational to proper evolution. From what we know now, the only evolution worthy of any further ‘movement’.

As Tomberg I believe turned the “World” upside down with merely a sentence, “We do not walk because we have legs. We have legs because we have a will to walk.”

12/26/2008 08:30:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Yes -- and vertically speaking, apes are descended from man, not vice versa.

12/26/2008 08:33:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

So we went from four legs to two legs. Ok…so now what?
Vertical take off, or course!
Which Tomberg points out was always our mission in the here below.

12/26/2008 08:34:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Or as Dr McCartney once prescribed, “Get back to where you once belong.”
“Get back, Jo Jo...”

12/26/2008 08:36:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

I might add that minds are clearly a function of truth, not vice versa, or there could be no truth. Truth is the very "substance" of the intellect.

12/26/2008 08:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Somebody still didn't argue their way out of humans being classified as apes.

The argument had nothing to do with how humans differ from animals. It was merely a response to the mocking attitudes held towards somebody who admitted he was an ape, and quite frankly if this whole post was about that then I'm intrigued as to how it has segued into something I wasn't even arguing in the first place.

I'm not saying your post seems wasted, but it definitely seemed defensive of some offense that hadn't been made.

12/26/2008 08:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Scatter said...

You're a disgrace. Real apes don't whine about being victimized and having their feelings hurt by mockery.

12/26/2008 08:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I certainly hope you realize that just because I recognize humans are classified as apes doesn't mean I equate them to the same level of other great (or lesser) apes.

12/26/2008 08:55:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Bob (from 8:33)
…also, from my traveler’s edition of Schuon’ s “Divine To Human”, can be found beginning with the last para on page 97 how he describes that “evolutionist error.”

12/26/2008 08:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Dupree and his Clone:

I wasn't the one that those comments were directed, nor was I offended. I was merely stating that humans are apes. Why would I be offended being called what I recognize myself to be anyway?

12/26/2008 08:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The mockery was more amusing than it was offensive as well.

12/26/2008 09:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Because I'm not overly-sensitive like Godwin is more like it.

12/26/2008 09:01:00 AM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Who let the monkeys in?

12/26/2008 09:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Listen if you want to talk about whiners why don't you ask Godwin why he devoted an entire blog post over an anonymous post from yesterday.

12/26/2008 09:03:00 AM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

The mockery is supposed to be amusing. Raccoons never engage in mockery for its own sake.

12/26/2008 09:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

Yes, Bob wrote this old post from two years ago just for you!

12/26/2008 09:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Mickey Dolenz said...

Give that mankey a banana and send him on his way.

12/26/2008 09:06:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

“I certainly hope you realize that just because I recognize humans are classified as apes doesn't mean I equate them to the same level of other great (or lesser) apes.”

That’s not any kind of explanation.
And not just because I said so. (Your technique) But because it doesn't make sense.

12/26/2008 09:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The mockery was only amusing in that it had no real effect. Imagine going to a schoolyard with a bunch of white kids mocking another white kid for being white. Ridiculous? Yes.

12/26/2008 09:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob recycled the content I understand, but making the sole subject of todays post based on that, which didn't even go into that really, well seems a little counterproductive Dupree.

12/26/2008 09:07:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

I hereby classify you as a reptile. There. That makes it so. You have therefore no further use for your brain, or heart for that matter.

12/26/2008 09:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That’s not any kind of explanation.
And not just because I said so. (Your technique) But because it doesn't make sense."

Ricky honestly if you don't get it you must think I believe monkeys can read, write, and build rocketships. I can't give you something obvious. If you don't get something that simple it isn't my fault. And in terms of what I was arguing, I didn't take the argument beyond the simple classification. I never said Chimpanzees are equal to Humans, even if both are great apes.

12/26/2008 09:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No Ricky, I only stated that Humans are apes, and they are. That is universally recognized. I didn't decide that, I only recognize that's how we are classified. I did not just randomly say "something" is "something".

12/26/2008 09:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I doubt that this topic would even remotely be an issue if I were saying humans are vertebrates, because in that instance I would doubt that many of the members here would be construing it to mean that I think humans are equal to some animal. But in this instance for some reason the community has become very upset at the comparison of humans to apes when humans are apes. Ridiculous.

12/26/2008 09:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You chordates. Let's see how offended you could be by that.

12/26/2008 09:18:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

I’m offended that your suggestion that something as important as humankind is really nothing more than biology is nothing worthy of being offensive. Your devotion to this cause is inverse morality.

…or…you pointing out that we are so very similar to apes biologically, which no one here denies, is as valuable a comment here as pointing out that some airplanes have propellers. No kidding?

12/26/2008 09:18:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

Petey said, "Truth is the very substance of the intellect."

What? He's been reading Just Thomism?

Or reiterating Franklin Merrell-Wolff? I read a long entry about the "substance" of the Self just yesterday.

And just to note: I'm always surprised at how aggressive some people are. Of course, what else would we be doing on a nice day like today?

12/26/2008 09:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Jane Goodall said...

Bob,
That's the problem with trying to indulge a lesser primate, you never know what will be flung at you from inside the cage.

12/26/2008 09:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Good example. That man is a chordate reveals as much about human essence as insisting that he is atoms in motion, cellular metabolism, or an ape. Human essence -- without which we would not be human -- is not synonymous with apeness

12/26/2008 09:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"…or…you pointing out that we are so very similar to apes biologically, which no one here denies, is as valuable a comment here as pointing out that some airplanes have propellers. No kidding?"

You should tell that to your friends mocking people for claiming to be apes. I see no difference, and that was exactly what I was pointing out. So now, you've taken my stance.

"…or…you pointing out that we are so very similar to apes biologically, which no one here denies,"

And yet that's all I was really pointing out now wasn't it? I guess now you'll stop arguing?

12/26/2008 09:33:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you petey, that's what I'm saying.

Now I've got two people agreeing with me.

12/26/2008 09:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Dr. Freud said...

Interesting, the patient through his violent outbursts is coming to experience his internal hostility and religophobia while not ending his posts with namaste and peace. He may be one small step closer to discovering the paranoia associated with his persecution complex.
Or not.

12/26/2008 09:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not really violent, I guess that's part of the problem with posting online.

12/26/2008 09:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess I have to state it once again.

Humans are apes, I'm not saying humans existentially equal to other apes just because they are classified as such.

12/26/2008 09:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Yes Dr. Freud. How strange of this ape to insist that he is merely making a metaphysically empty claim. What motivates an ape to try to stir up controversy by communicating the substance of nothing?

12/26/2008 09:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Dr. Freud said...

So all of the above sans the violence? Hmmmmmmm.

12/26/2008 09:40:00 AM  
Anonymous YD Donkey said...

Yes, yes, we get it. Humans are apes. What, you want a shiny tin star for stating the alimentary?

12/26/2008 09:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Dr, Curly, Dr. Moe, Dr. Larry said...

Are you taking any new patients Dr. Godwin?
In this age of uncertainty, we're talking job security.

12/26/2008 09:44:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I’m offended that your suggestion that something as important as humankind is really nothing more than biology..."

I did not suggest nor hint that... point to or quote where you felt I did....

"... is nothing worthy of being offensive. Your devotion to this cause is inverse morality."

There is no devotion to a cause I have not taken.

12/26/2008 09:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yes Dr. Freud. How strange of this ape to insist that he is merely making a metaphysically empty claim. What motivates an ape to try to stir up controversy by communicating the substance of nothing?"

The same thing that an ape that denies being ape does by making controversy out of nothing(honestly, the original remark is as controversial as my chordata remark, and yet nobody took a second thought to that one). I wasn't making controversy, and yet that's the reaction I get.

12/26/2008 09:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

Bob limits his practice to humans. He can refer him to a good animal behaviorist, though.

12/26/2008 09:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Anonymous:

Forgive us. We thought you were trying to make a point.

12/26/2008 09:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yes, yes, we get it. Humans are apes. What, you want a shiny tin star for stating the alimentary?"

I just stated something obvious, your fellow bloggers seem to not get it. Tell them for me if you could, because I'm not expecting a shiny star, just a little rationality.

12/26/2008 09:54:00 AM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

The trolls seem to be getting more dense and myopic.
Ray was more expansive in his cramped little universe.

12/26/2008 09:55:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

Maybe it's Hermann.

Hermann? Is that you?

12/26/2008 09:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The trolls seem to be getting more dense and myopic."

Not really. I only said one thing, a few of you have come to agree with me and realize I was just saying something ridiculously obvious anyway, and the rest of you think I'm the one causing controversy over something that some have already realized is just a little to trivial. And when they realize I was just pointing out something as trivial as biological classification, they get mad at me because I stirred up the controversy, where had they realized it was something so trivial in the first place it wouldn't have mattered, or would it?

12/26/2008 10:00:00 AM  
Anonymous jwm said...

It's the day after Christmas
And all through the house,
The idiot chatter of a nony mous...

Please take two bananas.

and take them far away.

JWM

12/26/2008 10:04:00 AM  
Anonymous YD Donkey said...

Rationality? Yes, as I said - alimentary. If you want mere logic and cold hard facts, there are a million places to go. Here, we don't stop at rationality. We started there ages ago, and followed it to its logical conclusions. Boring and not very nourishing.

12/26/2008 10:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or does this community feel a need to continue arguing biological classification with no real purpose? I could take jabs for it all day.

The progression has certainly been odd. First I said it was ridiculous to mock somebody for admitting he's an ape, which offended people. Then people come back and try to mock me for arguing that obvious fact--even though they argued that fact in the first place-- and now it's to the point that I'm being mocked for continuing a topic that has no real purpose, except the problem with that logic is it takes two to continue a conversation.

If you've come to realize it was trivial all along, then that was entirely my point. Look at how long it has taken to get nowhere, all over something that was really... nothing.

12/26/2008 10:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

YD Donkey:

"Here, we don't stop at rationality. We started there ages ago, and followed it to its logical conclusions. Boring and not very nourishing."

And with that I could point out how you haven't really gone beyond it, especially arguing something you've supposedly already bored of.

12/26/2008 10:09:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

Hah!

As though the details don't matter!

12/26/2008 10:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But, there are some people who get satisfaction by arguing, some in being right. I take it you get satisfaction by arguing.

12/26/2008 10:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

No you don't.

12/26/2008 10:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you referring to the details of the arguments? Go ahead and read them. They don't make your case look any more favorable.

12/26/2008 10:14:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

If you came here for an argument, you've gone to the wrong room. This here is abuse.

And that'll be five pounds.

12/26/2008 10:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No you don't."

Don't what? Donkey said this community is beyond rational and yet here we sit far behind(or below) rationality.

In the least, I've made you all hypocrites, and at the most I've made you liars and phonies. I'll let you decide what you are, but don't pretend you're better now, it's a little too late for that.

12/26/2008 10:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Oh well, it's Boxing Day.

12/26/2008 10:18:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you could get off the mat.

12/26/2008 10:20:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

"...it's a little too late for that."

I KNEW it! Why does this always happen??

12/26/2008 10:21:00 AM  
Anonymous YD Donkey said...

Yes, yes, yes. We're all hypocrites, liars and phonies. Do you feel better now? Good. Now have a banana and go pound your chest at some other group of folks who will be just as impressed by your silver back and poo- flinging abilities. I'm sure the females will be very impressed, and will immediately present themselves for mounting.

12/26/2008 10:22:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well good YD. I realize I'll walk away while you attempted to insult me, but that grain of salt was worth hearing it.

12/26/2008 10:29:00 AM  
Blogger Joan of Argghh! said...

I just got back from the beach, what'd I miss?

12/26/2008 10:31:00 AM  
Blogger Joan of Argghh! said...

Hey, I'm no biologist but I do know one thing about apes:

If you feed 'em, they'll grow.
If you starve 'em, they'll die.

12/26/2008 10:32:00 AM  
Blogger Joan of Argghh! said...

I might add that minds are clearly a function of truth, not vice versa,

But if alcohol kills brain cells, then would it follow that to imbibe is to do violence to the truth within us?

I'm conflicted, because without beer goggles, how would we achieve a viable reproductive rate for the propagation of the species?

Further investigation is necessary...

12/26/2008 10:48:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Joan:

No problem. Norm's Buffalo Theory.

12/26/2008 10:57:00 AM  
Blogger Joan of Argghh! said...

Heh. "Cheers" is one of those programs we totally missed out on, for being in another country. Oh sure, we got The Simpsons in Spanish, but I doubt, "Cheers" held any sway over the Mexican imagination. I mean, the folks that invented tequila must be pretty smart and erudite.

Hmm... The holidays must make a lot of people smarter.

12/26/2008 11:02:00 AM  
Anonymous jwm said...

...so this ape walks into a blog, sits down, and orders an insult. Now the blogtender figures- hey- what does an ape know? So he says,"...


You guys can take it from here. I'm going out for a walk. I'll be back later.

JWM

12/26/2008 11:23:00 AM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

jwm,
Not much of a toy to bat around, what with it being such a slowskie. Glued in one spot & simply revolving in place ain't much of a challange.

When they come with springy-things on top - colorful feathers are a plus - now we're talkin.

12/26/2008 12:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Nova said...

Holy Cow, into this already only a day after Christmas??

Back to consumption, people! There are sales going on!

I'm surprised Planet of the Apes jokes haven't popped up? Anyone going to take a stab at one?

Me first..."Get your hands of my blog, you damn dirty ape!"

12/26/2008 12:36:00 PM  
Blogger Dougman said...

Movies?

The Great -Esque Ape?

12/26/2008 01:25:00 PM  
Blogger Dougman said...

That might read better as:

The meaning of life for the anonymous crowd.
"The Great -Esque Ape."

12/26/2008 01:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gagdad Bob said...

Joan:

No problem. Norm's Buffalo Theory.

i coulda swore that it was Cliffy who spun that yarn.....but then i drink Scotch which must knock off the leaders.
I'm descending to ape-hood and might soon be competition for the troll.

12/26/2008 03:13:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

You could be right.... I never actually watched the program, just learned about the theory in grad school...

12/26/2008 03:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"jwm,
Not much of a toy to bat around, what with it being such a slowskie. Glued in one spot & simply revolving in place ain't much of a challange."

I've been pretty swift to respond most of the day Ximeze. I also told YD(you should probably reread his last post and rethink what you said) that I was satisfied and was leaving. I'm sorry I didn't entertain you, I guess you were hoping for some fun. Not today I guess.

12/26/2008 03:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My, what a good boy are you!
You're a dimwitted moron and are making the rest of us look bad.

12/26/2008 05:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Damn right! Who died and left monkey-boy as our spokesman.

12/26/2008 05:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Saddam said...

I was in Baghdad while you were still in Dad's bag?

12/26/2008 05:32:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

Anon 3:18
Chattering back does not make you swift.

Hmmm... a dullard & a lier. After promising to leave, back you came again.

12/26/2008 06:39:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

For anycoon interested in getting closer to a true history of Watergate:

"George Friedman, President of Stratfor has written an essay that helps to cuts through the thick smokescreen being emitted by the Post and the rest of the drive-by media to enshroud Watergate in a fog of confusion... Friedman hits this one out of the park."

TW/AT

12/26/2008 07:49:00 PM  
Anonymous austracoon said...

"Roles were invented by modern humans, those roles being father, mother, and helpless infant."

Isa 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;

12/26/2008 08:40:00 PM  
Blogger Magnus Itland said...

It is not unreasonable that Bob could write an answer two years ago to a post that was written yesterday. After all, the prophets wrote answers thousands of years ago to questions we ask today.

12/27/2008 04:15:00 AM  
Blogger ge said...

MAN= Ape?

maybe from Ape's POV...
MAN as THE COSMOS
serves Truth understanding + growth better
[Schwaller de Lubicz's Egypt revelation]

12/27/2008 07:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon 3:18
Chattering back does not make you swift.

Hmmm... a dullard & a lier. After promising to leave, back you came again."

I didn't promise I'd not come back. And you didn't really have anything to say against what I did so maybe if you could come up with an argument I wouldn't be inclined to believe you're just talk... I mean, you did say I was a liar for something that I didn't actually promise. And since you clearly have no reading comprehension I'm not really taking your claims to seriously(I mean, if you say I'm a slowskie and you don't even know what I'm writing you're just talking, without actually saying anything.)

And to GE I never said Man = Ape, I said humans are apes. I never mentioned or implied that humans are a spiritual equivalent to other apes.

12/27/2008 07:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And it's not really that easy to take somebody seriously for just making claims without actually providing any real rebuttal. If you could, you'd be the first to show me, because everybody else ended up proving they didn't understand me or realized what I was saying was just an obvious observation. And somehow I'm the slow one when nobody actually ever countered my argument.

Most of my posts have been correcting people's wrong interpretation of what I was saying, and when they finally figured it out they were mad that my whole point was just a simple observation.

12/27/2008 07:29:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Heh - they really can't quit you, Bob.

12/27/2008 07:33:00 AM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

This one is even worse & less nimble than Ray. Good Lord.

Ok Anon, I give up.

12/27/2008 08:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This one is even worse & less nimble than Ray. Good Lord.

Ok Anon, I give up."

You never really started,and there's no better way to show you never really had anything. I would love to see your post where you actually addressed the issue. I guess maybe you tried, but once you realized you were in the same boat you just gave up as if I'm impossible when you're the one who didn't even address it. All you did was hurl insults. Shoot, I could do that. I guess maybe this "slow" guy is a little too slow to brush off all those little grains of salt you threw at me. Congratulations, you've proven a valiant salt shaker.

12/27/2008 09:29:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

My oh my, I do believe this is the most worthless troll we've ever had... arguing a 'point' not worth making.

Relax ninny, we aren't mocking you for what you said, only for having thought it worth saying.

And by inference we aren't mocking you for your words, but only for being who you truly are, for being so well represented by the words you took the time to assemble around the place where a point should have been.

You are a-non-why-mouse.

12/27/2008 10:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

Apes have been known to break through doors that are unlocked.

12/27/2008 10:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Had libertarianism in its modern form existed during the pre-neolithic, how would the communal problem solving (which cro-mags were obviously better at than Neanderthals due to intellectual diversity) also have existed? How would solutions have been implemented?

12/28/2008 10:47:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"My oh my, I do believe this is the most worthless troll we've ever had... arguing a 'point' not worth making.

Relax ninny, we aren't mocking you for what you said, only for having thought it worth saying.

And by inference we aren't mocking you for your words, but only for being who you truly are, for being so well represented by the words you took the time to assemble around the place where a point should have been.

You are a-non-why-mouse."

Van, I might remind you that you are also arguing a point not worth arguing, and yet again, mocking somebody for something that you are yourself fully part of. You just don't get it.

12/28/2008 03:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I absolutely love it that Van has found a reason to mock me that happens to be the exact thing he is doing himself.

You can't really be serious Van, or perhaps when you were taught how to pick a fight they didn't tell you to throw the punches at the other guy.

12/28/2008 03:33:00 PM  
Anonymous anonymouse said...

Van’s not a pragmatist, but an ideologue and ideologues seem to enjoy shadow boxing. Reminds me of when I was young.

12/28/2008 09:03:00 PM  
Anonymous anonymouse said...

But I must admit that do like the multidimensional aspect of cro-mags opposed to the single minded Neanderthal, as was presented. N’s may have been more ‘Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes’ superapelike, but humans took the jump into introspection with a purpose. Well, with the exception of the occasional anomaly, as is Van’s case.

12/28/2008 09:12:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

anonwhymouse typed "Reminds me of when I was young"

Past tense? As if.

12/30/2008 08:22:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home