Not only reading them, William, quoting them... DA
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 6:13 AM, William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
