nossir you are wrong
'pathetic fallacy' is a clear category of the poetical arts
which indicates that the speaker is attributing human capacities
to inanimate objects - as when you claim that the physical universe
does not CARE
and i am more interested in your expressed sentiments as typical of a whole collectively-held avalanche of 'em
than i am in anything you here choose to call 'you'
i mean, this is not some godforsaken pub where you ask me to 'step outside' or something, is it?
so punk (!), tell me where the missing capital letters and punctuation should be and i'll tell you where we're at..
there is nothing unclear or excessively verbal about your excerpt from me; unbless of course your account of the birth of science is blitheringly bogged down in this 'storytelling' concept
what's not to understand? A context is an inescapably cultural & ritually-rendered narrative of causality that even the (aforequoted) Tolstoy was onto in a flash!
RB, what to say, i'm plum ashamed of you - you seemed always to me to be a man of particularly illustrious energy - i havenot the slightest interest in being offended
- i am simply interested in learning about the nature of local taboos
(and btw does Gio even know what a 'pathetic fallacy' means ?)
Russell, do you intend do give me a better idea of just what it is that i do wrong here, how i sin so quickly and ineluctably, or do you not?
that low-grade asparagus
and why am i now suudenly trolling, pray tell?
chilling out is all very well
but how's a fella supposed to learn about any of this
when you have so many undeclared lines
that may be transgressed just like that?
c'mon, educate a person, please!
it's just the seemingly 'casual, throwaway' statements that certain posters make in the course of posting that nonetheless grab my goat by all six of its horns and wel!l
- but i can see already that the pathetic fallacy - whether or not the universe 'cares' or not, is about as far as you wish us to get!
that and throwing Christianity into the myth bin without any curiosity it seems about how and by what means exactly we ever came to be aware that there were these 'myths'
(i mean, it's very very far from 'just you'
countless human creatures speak just about identically to the way you do)
without a serious, ie an anthroplogical *basis for dialogue* between believers and non-believers, this world is gonna be a progressively unhappy place, 'believe me'!
but at some point this 'literal truth' as you put it , inasmuch as you do possess such a notion at all, must come to be evaluated in the very same light as that notion of what you believe not to be LT, and even vice versa, no? How do you manage i wonder to succeed in being so compart-mentalized?
what is your *problem* with truth being a particular truth?
you depend on what you accept to be the universal truth of science for your well-being and so forth
but happily shunt off yr conscientious coil when it comes to celebrating what ya believe to be yr actual role as a human?
this to me seems just flat-out schizoid
no further statements at this time yer honor
not going BOOM is of the essence, i know!
what interests me most of all Gio is that, after rising slowly but surely on that great centuries-old castle of evermore context-free/metaphysical statements about our world and universe (and IS THERE a universe?), scientifically-armed as it were to the teeth, we now find it desirable and even necessary at all costs for us to return to the 'story' of how we emerged in the first place; that we will not lose all sight of what it is to be, and what makes us, human; and the oddest question of all is, just who will be in exclusive possession of this story? How will it manage to include everybody in the telling thereof? Cultures must ultimately be subsumed somehow in the systems-of-exchange... !
maybe i can just tell a little Obama joke at this juncture..
Giovanni Tiso said: I draw the lesson that astrology was once, in my culture too, woven with astronomy, and myth was an important means of knowledge transmission; which I guess I already knew academically, but experiencing it is a whole nother thing. Also, I have this theory that poetry in the beginning was a tool for remembering essential information, and I find that anthropologically interesting and relevant because scientists and tehcnologists too are storytellers. But mostly, on the non-Maori thing, I never feel left out of Matariki, as if I were on the outside looking into something. It is a truly incluse celebration and it's not as if I can say the same of, for example, Christmas."
to anyone at all conversant with the real roots, origins, and even historiography of modern science, this kind of talk is just horsedog. More storytelling indeed.. How profoundly ungrateful for the mental blood sweated by men who made possible what we humans enter equipped with in the, let's just say here, 20th century?
the principal, minimal requirement for anything one can properly call viable science, ie, independent-of-culture and ultimately transmissable across all of them, is the ability to make statements suffiicentlly generalized as to freely obtain out of any *context*
reckon your notion regarding why human beings are motivated in the first to"'tell stories" (as you quaintly put it) is deeply sentimental, as well. Human beings initially "told stories" precisely because of sin, or because there has been, iow, a trangression of their heretofore intact, or thus far ritually-preserved, scene-of-representation..
within Maori culture. perhaps it is fair enough to say that all of that which might most loosely be dubbed by someone 'astrology, astonomony, and myth' are truly all mixed up together - but is that any reason to cast unspeakably resentful slights on christian culture - itself always in the business of revealing what manner-of-thing it is that really generates this 'Culture' from the beginning?
the Inedible Head
so what 'sophisticated tools for orientation'
do you, presumably not a Maori
draw from any of this now?
i mean, do we, by this 'orientation' word
mean to indicate our ability to find our seaward way to
a heretofore unheard of blob of land that will one day
be called 'Aotearoa'
or do we mean by it simply to signal
the present ntensity-level of our piety?