Hello,
I would like to support and elaborate upon previous comments made with
respect to the subject of "zen archaeology".
I do not believe that there are any grounds for continuing discussion of
this subject. As a recent subscriber to this list I am, quite frankly,
astounded that so much that is patently not archaeology passes for such. It
seems blatently apparent that any theory associated with any aspect of
archaeology must, by definition, be associated with at least some tenious
string of fact. This fact seems to have escaped many individuals. I would
like to be able to think that archaeologists base their interpretations upon
evidence rather than the crazed rantings of self-stated `experts' upon the
fundamental thought processes of the minds of our ancestors. If an
archaeologist finds a hole in the ground it is a hole in the ground and
there may or may not be some evidence concerning the nature of it's use. To
say that it's purpose was `ritual' is blatantly ridiculous. It is most
likely to be an artefact from the mind of an individual who attempts to
persuade themselves that their personal interpretation of past societies
will somehow enrich the lives of people today. Interpretation beyond the
evidence cannot be substantiated and should not be accepted in a discipline
that aligns itself with anything that could be called scientific.
If Zen may be considered a means to free the mind from the contraints of
logic then it has no place in archaeology as logic is the only means we have
to interpret what remains to us of the past. Zen is quoted as being a means
to transcend reason, surely this kind of thinking is not acceptable to
people whoclaim to be scientists. The entire discussion has been taking
place within a scientific list, when arguably it should have been on a
philosophy list, so please take it there and allow us to proceed with our
science in a professional manner.
Ian
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|