Responding to Hans-Christoph von Imhoff (4 November 2003):

Please excuse me, Hans-Christoph:  I had already responded to Stephen de
Clerq's message before seeing your message.

I have thought about your comments on "scientific and cultural heritage",
and suggestion of a shorter, summarising use of "human heritage".
I continue to think that the response I made after Steven's suggestion is
the better one: (..."promoting knowledge, appreciation and conservation of
the natural world and the cultural and
scientific heritage of humanity".....) rather than condensing the reference
as tightly as you have proposed: (...."promoting knowledge, appreciation
and conservation of the natural world and the  heritage of humanity").

To my mind, there are two crucial underlying concepts structuring the
definition I proposed:

(a)  "knowledge, appreciation and conservation of the natural world" -  is
a phrase to acknowledge the important responsibilities we have to the
'world we inherit' and all the creatures and interconnecting life-systems
it supports (i.e. our biosphere responsibilities);

(b) "....and the cultural and scientific heritage of humanity" - is a
phrase to summon up all aspects of the 'world we create' as human beings,
through language, structured kinship, value systems, social organisation,
rationalisation of a relationship between different phases of time
(history), and the huge spectrum of structured, purposive activities we see
as branching into all aspects of the sciences and arts (i.e. our
sociosphere responsibilities).

Your suggested "heritage of humanity" alone would leave us with a much
smaller expression trying to carry a huge number of activities about the
human-created world, and it could easily seem that science (especially)
might have been devalued.

My further reason would be that more particularised descriptions are
important components of the international legal instruments for protection
of what you have called "human heritage" world-wide. (There are a number of
recurrent, differently arranged, but fundamental distinctions operating if
you look at the contents of UNESCO conventions, for example).
e.g.
1972: Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and
Natural Heritage. Paris, 16 November 1972
or:
2001:  Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage.
Paris, 2 November 2001

(notice that this latter convention, with shipwrecks especially in mind,
distinguishes 'cultural heritage' within the underwater (or
Fr.'sub-aquatic) biosphere - an important distinction within the purposes
and terms of the convention)

Meanwhile I thank you very much for your comments, Hans-Christoph.
Bernice Murphy

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
archives at:  http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html