I wrote:

>> 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?

geoff:

>no, i'm not saying that at all; i just wonder why, if you view archaeology as
>        an metaphysical illusion of a past that never existed

Ok, my interest in archaeology is an interest in archaeology as a
phenemenona in itself. I write "about" archaeology, not "in" archaeology.

>why you would continue studying/doing/thinking about it; why don't you find
>something less metaphysically illusory to do? can you find fulfillment or
>satisfaction or whatever pursuing something you know to be an illusion? do you
>not feel dishonest? i am only asking about your motivations in this respect

This is psychobabble, and as such ad hominem.

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...

B:
>> "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.

geoff:

>i mentioned don quixote because the illusion can itself be beautiful in and of
>itself (i.e. not "emptiness").

Beauty, in and of itself, although an entity of being, but if taken apart,
you find nothing. Your belief in an essential belief in a platonic idea, is
just delusion. Yes? If not, please tell me what the essence of beauty
exists of?

>- isn't don quixote's dream of chivalry something
>to aim for rather than ridicule? cervantes satirized a literary genre, but
>there was still something noble about what quixote was fighting for, or
>else he
>wouldn't have taken such a strong root in our culture

How romantic! Nice. But not very realistic. Romance works in poetry and
fiction etc, not in archaeology. Because as a scientist, I reckon
archaeology should try to see things "as they are", not how romantic
archaeologists want to see them according to their own deluded framework.

> as for how "that book shows exactly why, and how, archaeologist create
>and belive in illusions" i think you'd have to convince me:

Ok, the nobel knight attacks the windmills because he *wants* to see them
as something else, that "else", is part of his own desire to see the world
as fiction, not reality. The analogy to your version of archaeology should
now be clear.

>the buddhist/pessimist (should maybe have added nihilist) queries were
>just trying to establish how you came to this emptiness conclusion; the
>buddhist
>illusion should be clear, the pessimist seems to go better with the denial of
>any illusion's value
>        a statement like "behind that illusion resides nothing but emptiness"
>also sounds fairly static, not "dynamic, always in flux", so either you
>contradict yourself or i'm really way off the mark here

Sure is way off geoff. Look, Emptiness, or "Differance", if you like that
concept better, is a dynamic source for everything that exist. Because
everything you see, hear, and make sense of, you make sense of just because
there is a difference between all phenomena, and even in the phenomea
themselves. Read a book, why do you make sense of it? Because there is
differences between the letters, the words, the sentences etc. And when you
read, you interpret the differences by relating them to your
preunderstanding of the language used, the culture you come from, your own
personal past etc. And the preunderstanding itself is also created of
differences. Then take the difference itself. The difference is itself made
up of differences, you will not find a core, an essence. And why is that?
Because there are not an Archimedean point, no core, no essence. The only
thing you will find is floating pieces of meaning that interrelates to you
and give meaning to you in a way you really don't no anything about. To
this we could add the important concept - abscence - but that's another
story.

geoff:

>you take apart a wagon and you get its parts; you put it
>back together and you get a whole raft of connotations like transport, people
>transported to the guillotines during the french revolution, springsteen
>and the
>great american dream of fast cars etc; i don't see how concepts like
>essence or
>soul enter into the equation, and evidently don't really understand what you
>mean in this context

Look, you take apart the wagon, you will then have wheels and other stuff.
Take apart the wheels. You have other parts, take apart all the parts, what
will you have? Nothing! Same goes with people. Take apart all memories, the
past, expectations, everything, what will you find? A soul? Well, I don't
think so. Sorry to tell you, but nothingness resides i all of us. But, if
you can't stand reality, there's always churches or other paranormal
departments around to heel your anxiety. This is, of course, my view, but
it is a view that is related to the same critique as in the enlightenment
period. A time where supernatural belief was the enemy of science. I say,
it still is.

>then what are you trying to say? if i have a wagon, it has no meaning because
>any meaning i give it i'm either writing or saying or... if (and this is
>probably a big if) i understand you correctly, you seem to be working
>backwards
>from the theory/interpretive end/scale of things (meaning) and almost saying
>that the wagon itself does not exist (nothing is left but emptiness) whereas i
>would argue that i have a wagon (i'm not going to question whether or not i
>exist and will look at the wagon as being a wagon and not something else
>altogether) and then build up to the meaning/narrative through purely
>functional
>criteria (how was it built, how much could it carry, what could have
>pulled it,
>any traces of cargo, etc.), ethnographic comparisons, symbollic and other
>analysis, etc. - argue the strengths and weaknesses of each approach and
>conclusion - basically building my case from the ground up -
> i say there is not just illusion and emptiness because i have the wagon,
>you say this material, and discount any narrative meaning applied to it...
>could
>i also turn around and say that your argument has no meaning because it is
>also
>"articulated through the mode of narrativity", or...?

geoff, I never said that everything was meaningless. Just because there are
no essences, is not the same thing that there are no meanings. I say, there
are only meanings, nothing is meaningless, because the word - meaningless -
is as well a meaningful concept. Meanings, although they are illusions,
rules the world.

Bjorn

 




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