-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Lees <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, September 18, 1998 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: "Zen archaeology"
>> >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.
The head-and-tail of meaning is consensus and context!
>Whatever the point was that you are responding to,I cannot see the
connection.
>
Meaning is not an individual phenomena! What's so hard to grasp in this
"connection?"
>> >[snip]
>
>Aha.A spark of light amidst the fog.
The only "fog" in this thread is your insistence upon a meaningless solution
to a fabricated problem!
>What I was talking about in the
>above paragraph was the position as posed by postmodernism,i.e. 'the
problem'.
Now that's an original spark - the problem is 'the problem!' Sheesh!!
>I suggested 'zen mind' as a possible answer to the problem,in the service
of
>scientific archaeology.
And I think you've been challenged upon that, remaining undeterred in your
stance despite your cluelessness as to the critique!
>You seem to have confused or transposed the two somehow.
>
The two 'what'? The problem is 'the problem'? Or the solution is
'scientific'? Your so-called 'problem' is not, as I've pointed out, and
neither is your solution 'scientific!' Is that still too obtuse for the 'zen
mind?'
>> >[snip]
>> 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.
>
Narcissism!
>> >[snip]
>>
>> It leads to an anti-human, anti-meaningful "understanding" of itself,
which
>> is not the subject of archaeology, unfortunately!
>
>I find your conclusion bizarre.
Good! The 'zen mind' cannot grasp everything after all!
>I don't know what 'anti-human',or 'anti-meaningful'
>could be,at least in this context.
Meaning is in the context, and meaning is consensual! Since your method is
neither it cannot be an act of human nature, or have any meaning! It is
individuated and beyond the subject realm!
>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.
You put words in my mouth - must be a 'zen mind' thing, eh? Unfortunately,
such practices are not conducive to consensual and meaningful sharing of
knowledge and only further invalidates your method!
>It does not seem to resemble what I was proposing at all.
>
Then it must not be independently verifiable, another strike against your
method!
Cheers,
--Lenny__
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|