----------------- 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]