How do you get to that supposition from my sentence? Have you ever studied formal logic?
I don't know what beliefs Paleo man had. But I will "guess" and infer that IF they were human beings THEN they probably had beliefs and IF they had beliefs THEN they probably employed some magic to aid and enhance their beliefs. IF the probability I guess at turns out to be correct through some future discovery of Paleolithic practices and lifestyle THEN we will know that human reliance on magic (superstitious explanations and beliefs) is a typical human trait. Meanwhile we guess and admit it, leaving all options open or forever closed as the case may be. Nevertheless, the guess that Paleo man used some sort of magic is not without some substance. Of all instances of human use of "magic" to explain natural events or to control them or to reinforce beliefs or to impose them, most involve some types of imagery, ritual, decorated artifacts and the like. When we see the imagery, the eveidence of ritual, the decorated artifacts in otherwise unknown and unknowable cultures such as Paleolithic culture, we are not being unreasonable to suppose that such cultures employed magic. We may be wrong. But the evidence suggests that we are are more right than wrong. What else is there to say on this topic? Your twisting of sentences, the mixing up of my syntax for whatever reasons don't seem to be directed toward any position or argument. You seem to be doing this just to be express some compulsion to be contrary. Why don't you write a summative sentence on the matter and I'll say "fine". Will that help you? WC --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So our understanding of the beliefs of Paleolithic > man is that they were > 'something equivalent > to superstition or better, something used to enhance > superstitions'? > > DA > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:28 AM, William Conger > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > What is the problem with using the word magic? I > > defined it in an earlier post as something > equivalent > > to superstition or better, something used to > enhance > > superstitions. What, exactly, is the bad part of > that > > word to you? Every culture has used magic for > various > > purposes. > > > > WC > > > > > > --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > RE:' I don't have a problem with the art > historians, > > > or > > > what they say (is there a universal art > historian > > > position?). I think it's dumb to castigate a > field > > > of > > > scholars instead of just seeking truth wherever > it > > > is > > > or who knows it.' > > > > > > That's not the issue at all. I'm very happy to > seek > > > the truth as you put it. > > > I also think it is important to question > entrenched > > > ideas when they are > > > quite clearly very doubtful. That's part of > seeking > > > the truth - a very > > > important part. This 'magic' idea has been > repeated > > > over and over again by > > > various writers - eg art historians and > > > aestheticians - as if it were a kind > > > of established truth. It's nothing of the kind > and > > > that should be said > > > loudly and clearly. > > > > > > DA > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 6:50 AM, William Conger > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I'm not arguing with you because I agree with > the > > > > obvious fact that we don't know what the > paleos > > > > thought about anything. But we do know that > they > > > > lived and a bit about how they lived and from > that > > > we > > > > can make reasoned inferences. That's all. > It's > > > > guesswork but with a gloss. As for the > Egyptians, > > > > etc., we do know quite a lot about their > magical > > > > interests but, agreed, it's not a full > picture. > > > For > > > > that matter, we don't know much about the deep > > > beliefs > > > > of many contemporary cultures. > > > > > > > > I never thought artists' intentions were > crucial > > > to > > > > art experiencing. I've said that an artist's > > > > intentions may be necessary to his or her > impulses > > > or > > > > expressive interests but they are not > sufficient > > > to > > > > art or how it's experienced. At the same time > I'm > > > not > > > > at all sure that form, separate from projected > > > meaning > > > > or intentionality, can be the totality of art > > > either. > > > > So we begin with form and inject it with > > > > intentionality. In the case of the paleos, we > > > create > > > > an intention for them in order to experience > their > > > > markings and carvings as "art". Maybe. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't have a problem with the art > historians, or > > > > what they say (is there a universal art > historian > > > > position?). I think it's dumb to castigate a > > > field of > > > > scholars instead of just seeking truth > wherever it > > > is > > > > or who knows it. > > > > > > > > WC > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > RE:' And still further, by magical in the > > > reference > > > > > to art > > > > > and social practice is understood efforts to > > > > > influence > > > > > causality in the absence of proven practical
