Just a thought....was it the Society of primates that the child was in
that prevented him from learning how to walk? (or "discouraged" him)
or was it the Biological setting? Perhaps he didn't need to walk in
the biological setting he was in and that's what kept him on all fours
(i'm assuming he travelled on all fours)
Shalom
David Lind
Trickster@postmark.net
Jonathan B. Marder wrote:
> JONATHAN LEAVES THE INTELLECTUAL vs. SOCIAL DEBATE
> AND MUDDIES SOCIAL vs. BIOLOGICAL
>
> Hi all,
>
> We all know what the biological level includes, right?
> Well what about this:
> Last night the BBC World Service reported the case of a human boy found
> living among monkeys in Uganda - a real-life Tarzan. He was apparently
> abandoned as a toddler and only found again 2 years later.
> Not surprisingly, the child couldn't talk, but what really struck me was
> that the child couldn't WALK either. This wasn't a physical problem,
> since he quickly learned to walk after his rescue. It suggests to me
> that the SOCIAL level has something to do with even the very basic
> "biological" function of walking. and the whole distinction between
> social and biological is blurred.
>
> Comments?
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:12 BST