> Translated, this suggests that an objective phenomenon (behavior) is a thing
> which is understood from it's historical context (as a cell is understood
> from it's historical context...the two historical contexts being the same at
> some point); whereby the thing which is cell and the thing which is behavior
> have in common an objective history, "development"--so that the development
> of one can be compared to the development of the other perfectly...that is,
> "development" is an objective process which manifests through both the cell
> and behavior perfectly.
>
> If we see something at the behavioral level, there is an association at the
> cellular level.
I think I'm beginning to see where you're headed, but I'm still a more
than a little unclear.
Are you saying that there is a /relationship/ between the
history/background of a behavior and the cells which make up the
individual who does the behavior? If that is right (and stop me right
here if it isn't), is this relationship or association a physical one or a
mental link we can recognize between the two physically (or maybe,
objectively) disparate *processes*?
-Prof. Tim