> >There can _be_ no resolution without a third reference.
>
> Meaning is consensual - there is no-meaning without it! Meaning is
> contextual - there can be no one meaning outside of no-meaning!
>
> >[snip]
> >
> >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....
>
> This is not a "problem," it is the nature of human social life!
> Postmodernism takes that as a meaningful subject of study!
Well,once more,I can't make head nor tail of what you are on about,Lenny.
Whatever the point was that you are responding to,I cannot see the connection.
> >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.
> >
>
> This is in direct contradiction to your assertions of the capabilities
> associated with the so-called "zen mind" consciousness in other posts!
Aha.A spark of light amidst the fog.What I was talking about in the
above paragraph was the position as posed by postmodernism,i.e. 'the problem'.
I suggested 'zen mind' as a possible answer to the problem,in the service of
scientific archaeology.You seem to have confused or transposed the two somehow.
> >And nobody seems to have got an answer.....have they ?
> >
>
> It appears that the source of your own validation is the hope that what's so
> clear in your mind is not just a reflection of it!
Again,I do not understand this statement at all,Lenny.
> >The above illustrates the problem,in so far as I can outline it with
> sufficient
> >brevity to fit one e-mail.
> >
>
> Then it is the problem of being human! Thankfully it is simultaneously an
> important insight into what it means to be human!
>
> >I have suggested in earlier posts,that 'zen mind' may offer a solution to
> an
> >otherwise intractable dilemma.
> >
>
> It leads to an anti-human, anti-meaningful "understanding" of itself, which
> is not the subject of archaeology, unfortunately!
I find your conclusion bizarre.I don't know what 'anti-human',or 'anti-meaningful'
could be,at least in this context.You say that "It" - I suppose you mean my suggetion
re 'zen mind'-would lead to this strange vision that you have concocted,and which I do
not understand.It does not seem to resemble what I was proposing at all.
Chris.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|