Hello again Bjorn,

> Why do you feel the need to defend yourself? If someone don't like what you
> have to say, then it's perfectly simple to delete your mails. To unsub
> because of the tone in a couple of mails is an overreaction that says more
> about the unsubber then the mails in question. Hence, no need to excuse
> yourself.

I agree.I have spent plenty of time with uncouth ruffians who enjoyed
upsetting people.As I get older,I find I prefer politeness and good
manners.I have had some dozens of private e-mails regarding this topic,and one
of the reasons that people seem inclined to write off list is because they do not 
wish to expose their more refined sensibilities to insult and injury and verbal hostility. 
 
> >It appears to me that Jesse misconstrues and misrepresents everything
> >that I say.
> 
> Well, I for one thinks that Jesse's questions are quite legitimate most of
> the time. If someone on this list postulate a certain pack of truths, then
> it must be ok for anyone to disagree and question that particular pack of
> truths. I do understand that you feel intimidated by Jesse's style of
> reasoning, but that style is the same style that you will meet on most mail
> lists, as well in the seminar room. And why bother? If he is a jerk, well,
> that's his problem, not yours.

I agree again.But I don't think that I feel in the least intimidated by
Jesse,or anyone else.I just find the endless repetitions of that style of
exchange to be boring and counterproductive.What good purpose is served by a
diversion, for example,into my opinion of what Descartes meant versus Jesse's
opinion of what Descartes meant ? I doubt that we would ever agree,and anybody
on this list is,I'm certain, perfectly capable of reading up on Descartes and forming
their own opinion as to which,if either,of us is correct.So I try to stay focussed
upon the actual topic which motivated me to write in the first place.
If I truly believed that Jesse could help me to a deeper understanding
of something that interested me,then I'd invite him to help me.As it is,I do not
intend to be sidetracked into marginal or irrelevant diversions and ego games.
 
> >This takes us right back to Protagoras:"The way things appear to me,
> >in that way do they exist for me; the way things appear to you, in that way
> >do they exist for you."
> 
> >There can _be_ no resolution without a third reference.In the case of Jesse
> >and myself,scrapping in the schoolyard,it might be the teacher,who
> >intervenes.Or the issue could be put to a vote amongst the readers.
> >In the case of Protagoras,it seems to me that Plato could only get around
> >relativism by appealing to an absolute,the Good,which is extremely vague
> >and undefinable.When you get down to it,whose version of 'the Good' do we
> >use as datum ?
> >To resolve a conflict of opinion requires the third,the policeman,the Devil,
> >the Bogeyman,the magistrate,the democratic referendum,the appeal to Ultimate
> >Truth,the Absolute,God,or some similar concept,like Derrida's irreducible
> >Justice.
> 
> No. A better way is to use your opponents ideas as a way to increase the
> power of your own ideas. View your opponent as a friend that mirrors the
> weknesses in your own reasoning. Listen to it. Ask yourself if the critique
> is relevant. Admit that there might be soft spots in your ideas. Then mend
> what is broken in your chain of ideas. Thus, critical response should be
> viewd as a positive response. 

I understand this.I understand aikido.I am my opponent.But thanks for
the enlightening remark.

> By the way, it's not *what* something means that matter, it's *how* it means.

That I find very interesting,Bjorn.Perhaps you will elaborate ?

> >A few days ago,I wrote :
> >
> >"To write responsibly and seriously is to offer meaning to the recipient.
> >The readers may find no meaning,more meaning or different meaning
> >from the intended meaning."
> 
> Of course, we all read from different perspectives.
> 
> >This is the crux of the problem.If there is no final,decisive,authorative,
> >impartial interpretation of any text,- whether it be my e-mail,or the Bible,
> >or Descartes,or any other written item - then where does that leave us ?
> >Your version is as good as mine.We may as well decide 'the truth' arbitrarily
> >in a boxing ring.
> 
> I can't understand the logic in your conclusion. Just because there are
> different opinions, different truths, why must we go into the boxing ring?
> Why not go to the pub, have a pint, and enjoy that truth is the
> unconcealment of being? A being that is dynamic and not static. Who wants
> to live in a static universe?

We cannot,even if we wanted to.But how could this wisdom of yours be
summed up in a nice snappy catch phrase,so that it would spread around and stop
some of the unnescessary punchups and quarrels ? People are getting killed
every day because they cannot understand what you have explained so clearly.
 
> >But it get's much worse than that, if you consider that ANY knowledge can
> >be substituted and viewed as a text.So,'reality' or 'the world',or the
> >archaeological
> >record can be considered as text....and any interpretation is as valid as
> >any other,
> >open to endless dispute.
 
> Yes, lucky for us, that's the way it is. The positivist claim that truths
> can be accumulated in a pile, is gone forever. And what would
> archaeologists do if all truth about the past suddenly appeared like a
> flash from heaven? Well, the archaeologists need not to worry, archaeology
> is, and will always be, an endless dispute. And why is that? We all come
> from different social and cultural contexts, therefore we view the world in
> different ways.

So you happily agree with Protagoras ?
 
> >That, as I understand it,is the essence of the problem which postmodernism
> >poses
> >to world civilisation....whose meaning,or which meaning,is THE meaning....
> >No objective 'truth' as a reference point anymore... except for the
> >Absolutists,they
> >who will insist that their 'truth' is the truth,just because they say it is.
> >That is,they can force their 'truth' to prevail,by political pressure or
> >other means
> >of coercion.
> 
> Where did you get the idea that postmodernism poses a problem to world
> civilisation? Do you really think postmodernism is so important that the
> civilisations of the world will even notice it? Most people on this planet
> don't give a shit about postmodernism. They are quite busy trying to get
> fed.

You are right,but I look to the future.Like Nietzsche's madman,I cry out
that God is dead,and that you all killed him,but I arrive too early.
Postmodernism is still only embryonic,a mere 2 or 3 decades of discussion by
intellectuals and academics.It has not yet collided with the entrenched mass cultures.
There are plenty who have not yet come to terms with the Enlightenment
yet,let alone Nietzsche,Foucault,Derrida...I have my own understanding
of how cultures interact.Perhaps your understanding is very different ?
 
> And the problem about meaning...well, meaningful and meaningless, it's a
> pretty stupid dichotomy don't you think? Better to talk about
> *meaningfree*. Every phenomena is meaningfree because every phenomena is
> articulated in a narrative manner. And narratives are not confined, they
> are free spirits circulating in a heterogenous web of differences. Thus,
> they have meaning. Not meaningful or meaningless, but meaningfree.

Yes,that is an excellent point.Thankyou.
 
> >And nobody seems to have got an answer.....have they ?
> 
> Anwers is not interesting, questions are. Hence, archaeology is not the
> means to an end, it is the end. We just tend to apply different sets of
> means to it.

Naah.Questions are very interesting.But answers are very interesting
too. ;-) And lead to more interesting questions...and so it goes..
 
> >I have suggested in earlier posts,that 'zen mind' may offer a solution to an
> >otherwise intractable dilemma.
> 
> Yes, the zen approach is an interesting way to view archaeology. If you
> have the time, it would be interesing to hear how the zen approach would
> question topics like time, the past, heritage, interpretations, etc etc.

Well,as I mentioned,I have had a surprising number of private e-mails
around the periphery of this forum,from people who also seem to think that a
zen approach to archaeology might be an interesting theme to investigate.
I don't think I can say much regarding these specific topics yet,Bjorn.
I am trying my best to deal with the various aspects and implications as
they arise...
Phew ! As you said so well,never static,always dynamic....too
dynamic,too fast ;-)
I was writing to someone to explain that zen masters have sometimes said
that there is only 'Mind' (what that may or may not mean is not important
here) and said that that conceptualisation is not easily digestible by Western
rationality....and no sooner had I typed it,than I hear on the radio that telepathy is
now proven by science,that a person in deep meditation can have their
mind stimulated,and a second person at a distance will have a simultaneous event,
all recordable by the latest scientific gadgetry.Presumably,this has been written up 
in a scientific paper somewhere.I can't help with that,but the details were explained 
by a reputable mainstream psychiatrist.
This would seem to indicate that consciousness,at least at the levels
encountered in meditation,is,or can be a distributed function.There are many 
mentions of such things in the traditional teachings.Maybe science can learn 
something about the practical applications of that 'new discovery' from the zen
tradition.

Chris.



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%