It's clear you are not reading my posts, again, so I will let it go. The only response I can make to you last post is to repeat my last post.
WC --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 'Supposition?!!' I just quoted your own words. No you didn't, you took part of one of my statements and attached it to your own as if the whole was my statement. > > 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? I was talking about probabilities based on evidence of what later cultures did. 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? I already defined it twice I believe, at least. > > 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. That's an insult, not only to me but to art historians, too. You don't seem to have much understanding of art history, anthropology, etc. I presented reasonable arguments, which are mine and not some art historian's -- although I might appreciate them -- which you refute by rephrasing them, eliminating nuance, and totalizing you simplistic conclusions. You can only see things one absolute way or the other. Haven't we been here before, and before, and before? It's just more academic racism. Real discourse is impossible with you. WC > > 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:
