----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Response to Mike Robinson: 
    
I did expect some beating, but ended up getting what feels like a pat. Thanks, Mike. 
    
Well, we have not finished grappling with the term innate, but now we are falling into
other rhetorical traps such as about concrete and abstract notions.
 
First, I do agree with Robinson that the concrete details of an author's  writing, living
at different times and places, would be quite different. But that is the meaning of the
term concrete. If they were not different, then we would simply say: in the abstract, they
had the same thing.
 
Secondly, my bad habit of looking for the forest is conditioned by where I am in the trail
of arguments. We were at that time talking about innate sentiments/emotions/desires. I
wanted to look beyond the trees to find the forest, but you just produced a density of
leaves, making even the trees hard to find. This way, I feel lost, very much lost.
 
I am in no way denying the leaves, and the trees, but I am trying to see the route Smith
took through the forest, versus the one Marx took. I am still trying to figure out where
they converged and where they diverged. And I am being shown these leaves. They are green,
though....
 
Now, where was I? 
 
I guess I worry to much about relevance and too little about.......... great  many things.
 
I do not know why the richness of concrete diversity chases me so much while I am chasing
the sharpness of abstract outlines of the escape route.
 
What are my choices? Be rich and dull, or be sharp and poor? 
    
Maybe I wish to be an escape artist 
    
With the best regards 
Mohammad Gani 
    
  
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]