 |
 |
And even if you had a time machine and went to the > "real" past, and asked people about the pot, you would probably get > different answers depending who you asked. see bob bonichsen's article on millie's camp 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! 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? And behind that illusion resides nothing but emptiness. 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... > For example, if you take apart a wagon, what exist? The essence or soul of > the wagon? Not likely. parts of a wagon: whoever said a wagon (other than maybe a 57 caddy) had soul? 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... 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 geoff carver http://home.t-online.de/home/gcarver/ [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%