Hi geoff, everyone,
>>Of course, your meaning of the,
>> so called pot, are not an objective interpretation, not even a subjective
>> interpretation, it is an metaphysical illusion of a past that never existed
>> in the first place!
geoff:
>pure functionalism? chemical/material analysis? why "of course"
>if so, then why are you bothering to have anything to do with
>such a metaphysically illusory waste of time like archaeology?
Well geoff, just because I have a different view about archaeology than
you, is that the same that I should or could not indulge in such an
entartaining business as archaeology? Are only people with the "right"
attitiude aloud to participate in the archaeological debate?
> And behind that illusion resides nothing but emptiness.
geoff:
>pessimist (or just plain buddhist?): behind that illusion resides the dreamer
>who created/thought of it - or haven't you read don quixote, or heard the old
>joni mitchell line about "all those pretty lies" or...
"Pessimist", "buddhist"? Why are so so keen to conceptualise attitudes in
static categories? For your information, I belive reality to be dynamic,
always in flux, and that's not pessimism or optimism, just plain realism.
And I'm happy that you mention Don Quixote, because that book shows exactly
why, and how, archaeologist create and belive in illusions.
>> For example, if you take apart a wagon, what exist? The essence or soul of
>> the wagon? Not likely.
geoff:
>parts of a wagon: whoever said a wagon (other than maybe a 57 caddy) had soul?
It was a metaphor geoff.
geoff:
>a wagon is a wagon is a wagon: it rolls, it carries stuff, it needed something
>to pull it, it could carry a given load, took a given amount of time
>and/or labour, material and skills to produce, and may already have been used
>and abused and exposed to various elements...
Yes, I agree, but the point was that nothing in itself has essence. Because
if you take apart a phenomena, nothing exists. And that goes for concepts
as "archaeology", "prehistory", or "wagons" too.
As I said:
> And the same goes with prehistory. If you take apart
>> your own meanings about it, nothing is left but emptiness. And the
>> artefacts are nothing else but "materiality", in it self, and of itself.
>> All meaning around this materiality are meanings that are articulated
>> through the mode of narrativity, get the picture?
>>
>no, apparently not
Good. Neither do I.
Bjorn
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|