Re requests to change the thread:I agree that the discussion of this topic
needs to end now.I will post a URL in due course so that those who have 
shown an interest can find a more detailed and focussed explanation. 

Ian,


> 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

I believe that one of the subjects which this list was set up to discuss is
epistemology.In my view,zen is immensely and directly relevant to epistemology,
the very matter that you refer to below.
 
> 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.

Exactly.So the problem is 'what would be the optimal frame of mind from
which to operate so as to minimise misinterpretation or interpretation
beyond the evidence ?',and my remarks at the start of this thread were
addressed to that very problem,in the hope that readers would understand that
there is a potential way forward.How can a scientist view the actual evidence
in a manner which minimises distortion by their 'cultural conditioning',
personal preconceptions,unwarranted assumptions,prejudices,etc,etc.
I am gratified that some people have seen my ideas as relevant and helpful.

> 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.

I take issue with this,because your assumptions are not correct.
The notion that zen converts someone into an imbecile incapable of logic,
or means that one operates via 'out of body' experience or similar nonsense
is absurd travesty.You will perhaps appreciate my frustration with people
who insist upon imposing ridiculous interpretations upon something which
they do not understand,-in this case zen,-as being exactly parallel to your
description above,of people imposing an unjustifiable interpretation upon
archaeological artifacts and proclaiming them 'ritual'.
There is no incompatibility whatsoever between zen and science.
This is accepted by some very eminent,highly qualified and respected scientists,
for example,S.Blackmore.> http://www.memes.org.uk/meme-lab/DART96.HTM

My thanks to all,and apologies to those who did not find the topic useful or
interesting.

Chris.



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