Posts by Islander
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Happy to do so Shep:
in Maori terms a human (this also applies to a lot of non-human animals but let's keep it simple:)
is composed of
*tinana (physical body)
*hinekaro (mental aspect of physical body- also has a lot of other ramifications but let's not go there now)
* ha- breath- when there is no breath, there is no life
*hu-huge number of meanings but ultimately, to be articulate as an individual
*ihi -essential force, power
*kehua - nearly equivalent to ghost or walkabroad
*wairua- sort of like "spirit of a human" but not a soul
-trust this helps -
Simon - "Astronomical Knowledge of the Maori" o that's a compilation by Elsdon Best, and a goodie too...yes, Polynesians knew the stars and sky-maps because - they could die if they didnt.
I very much agree: to me, science is our best tool, but our second-gained tool(I think we could argue whether utilising rocks or control of fire was the first biggie.)
For me, it is now the best tool we have- and, there is a great deal we can learn from past observations but - as stated above -some old knowledge comes loaded with some old religion (and/or cosmology.) -
O, I answered Shep in good faith to the question: I am sure we both realise the matter is tangential!
And, to make an outright but again, wordy! answer,
in case my wordy response was not understood,
Maori knowledge was a product of time & stage. The olds were *really* good observers (some of the biological observations are just starting to get their due)but 'mauri' - like 'hu', 'ha', 'ihi', 'wairua', 'kehua'
(all components of a human being) are components of a *religious* system that is now effectively dead. (All examples I have across over the past 45 years have been so infected by xtian belief as to be - null.)No, scientific knowledge -in general - is not catching up with Maori knowledge *but* there are some areas (paticularly to do with biological understanding and psychology) where today's science could learn a bit-
-
Shep, that is a truly interesting question and a truly unanswerable one- at least, from my tribe's perspective (we acknowledge that tohuka, trained in traditional knowledge, have become extinct with us
(Kai Tahu, just in case somebody didnt pick up on the 'tohuka'!))"Mauri" is a really skatey concept to define: *everything* has a mauri
(including humanity.Including individual humans. They are not one & the same.) Mauri *can* be encapsulated in a physical object
(the mauri of certain whales in earth & a stone & words on Mahia Peninsula) but not totally limited within that containment. The mauri of Aoraki-te-mauka lives on within Kai Tahu (and earlier iwi.)All I've learned is that a combination of words (and fire in certain instances, and water or earth(in various forms) in others) and a physical object can *contain* mauri - and the *contained* contained mauri can be disrupted/damaged or destroyed.
But we are looking at a system of thought - and experience & practise- that has been ...I was going to say 'corrupted' but 'adulterated' would fit too...out of effective use for generations.
Who now feeds stars?
-
(groans, smacks forehead, reminds self to *always* check spelling and meaning of a foreign term...but thanks Russell. Now ROFL I can remember, roffle roffle roffle-)
-
as in, made me laugh, made my evening, made my day (wipes tears of laughter away but rejoices in the laughing-crying-) -thanks!
-
Peter Ashby - I almost never use webspeak/geektalk/whatever but your last post was ROTFLMFO...or (weakly) something like that..
-
Grant Dexter, your "obvious truths" are neither obviously true, nor truthfully obvious to a number of posters here, including myself: they are also neither true, nor obvious.
As has been pointed out several times, they are mere assertions, and not backed by any kind of science. They are personal *beliefs* and as such, not to be argued against: to do so is tedious for most of us because we recognise that arguing with a person's belief system generates neither clarity nor light.I'm not sure what you mean by 'a more pleasant conversation' but it is very clear that - for me- continued communication on your part is a waste of my reading time, so we'll skip your future contributions.
-
As it happens Craig, this medic *was* motivated by religous belief and made a point of telling us (patient and attending family) so, and I used 'it' advisedly rather than give the arsehole's sex - 'arsehole' also advisedly because severe pain was present, and while increased morphine would eventually have led to death, it would have helped lessen the pain: the patient made it clear that he understood that death would be hastened but he needed help with pain that was causing him to cry out and he'd happily accept a more immediate death.
Several of my family group are on medication for severe clinical depression: I am well aware the illness can make people want death. This wasnt the case here.
-
A pleasure Grant Dexter!
And, to Shep's question,
yes, I am very much in favour of euthanasia
were mature sane consent is given
(I have seen what happened when such was given
and an arsehole of a medic, because of it's fatuous
religious beliefs, refused to up the morphine-)