'Supposition?!!' I just quoted your own words. Re: 'F 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.'
This is a very strange statement. 1.. How will we ever know? 2. Why would what Paleolithic man believed (and that would cover an awful lot of different groups spread across many regions!) necessarily be 'a typical human trait'? Do we for example believe it (whatever it is...) ? 3. And again what do you even mean by 'magic'. Harry Potter? If not what? Re: 'We may be wrong. But the evidence suggests that we are are more right than wrong. " Sorry. There is NO evidence. How could there be? Archaeologists are flat out working out such basic things as how they killed animals and how they buried their dead. Their beliefs are lost forever. Not only theirs of course but cultures much closer to us in time. (What did the people who made the Cycladic feminine figures believe? And they were Neolithic. ) You seem to me to share the common art historian's blissful belief that a wild guess can be regarded as evidence if it said with enough confidence and repeated enough times. DA On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:26 PM, William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
