Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Itching aitching [was Re: SV: [ANE-2] Exile and return -- dating questions

Expand Messages
  • Ariel L. Szczupak
    ... Actually I think your edited version makes more sense than my original :) ... Which is what I called sub-arguments , so yes, I agree. And exploration is a
    Message 1 of 15 , Aug 4, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      At 10:30 PM 8/3/2009, Graham Hagens wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >--- On Fri, 7/31/09, Ariel L. Szczupak
      ><<mailto:ane.als%40gmail.com>ane.als@...> wrote:
      >

      >Â --- On Fri, 7/31/09, Ariel L.
      > > Szczupak <<mailto:ane.als%40gmail.com>ane.als@...> wrote:

      >Â >... I personally think that the HBÂ Â originating in the Persian
      >period is highly
      > > unlikely. ... Personally I think the issue is undecidable.
      > > ...There's nothing wrong, scientifically, with trying to figure
      > out the HB's historicity ...
      > > ... what ...drives us non-itchers  ... into the whole gamut of clinical
      > > psychiatric conditions, is that partial argumentation and uncontrolled
      > > generalizations seem to be a pre-requisite to discussing biblical
      > > historicity.
      > >....If proper sub-argumentation can be presented (like
      > > hopefully the possibility or impossibility of the HB dating to the
      > > Persian period)then yes, it's something worth examining. If not,
      > > please give the ANitchers a break and make an appointment with a
      > > dermatologist

      >Ariel:Â Sorry about all the snips.

      Actually I think your edited version makes more sense than my original :)


      >But I suggest that things may not be as bleak as you suggest. Â
      >One approach to exploring the historicity of complex layered
      >historical-fiction such exists in the Hebrew Bible, may be to
      >explore the probability of alternative answers to specific limited
      >questions. [...]

      Which is what I called "sub-arguments", so yes, I agree. And
      exploration is a good word, because there's an analytic stage before
      any arguments are presented, a stage in which the relevant evidence
      has to be selected and evaluated. It is the manner of exploration
      that exasperated me. For example an important aspect (including to
      your Torah example) was mentioned (by NPL, I think), "composition",
      but it drowned in what was mostly useless verbiage.

      >[...] Genesis contains [...] Zoroastrian creationist theology [...]
      >absent are a number of other Zoroastrian concepts [...]

      A comparative Genesis/Zoroastrian concept analysis can provide
      insight (and I would find it very interesting). But even major
      similarities do not imply temporal causality, who influenced whom, if
      at all. Just like comparing Egyptian and Meso-American pyramids can
      provide insight (into the nature of pyramids and the men who thought
      of building them), but doesn't imply a causal link between the two.
      For causal links you need "indicative" evidence (I'm borrowing from
      the use of period-indicative pottery types in archeological
      seriation), like the lexical similarity coupled with semantic
      reversal in the case of some Zoroastrian and Hindu words/concepts.

      [...]

      >The objective here is rather to suggest that a rational process may
      >well exist by which the dating of the Torah might at least be given
      >a probability rating.

      The rational process does exist - there's no methodological
      interdiction to these methods of dating. It is the evidence needed to
      fuel the process, in this specific case of the BH, that is, so far, lacking :(



      Ariel.

      [100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]

      ---
      Ariel L. Szczupak
      AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
      POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91406
      Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203
      ane.als@...
      ---
      http://yvetteszczupakthomas.blogspot.com/
      http://undiamantbrut.blogspot.com/
    • Graham Hagens
      ...   ...   Ariel:   Your point is well taken, and the example given a good one. A significant amount of indicative evidence (if that is the correct
      Message 2 of 15 , Aug 8, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- On Tue, 8/4/09, Ariel L. Szczupak <ane.als@...> wrote:
         
        >A comparative Genesis/Zoroastrian concept analysis can provide
        >insight (and I would find it very interesting) . But even major
        >similarities do not imply temporal causality, who influenced whom, if
        >at all. Just like comparing Egyptian and Meso-American pyramids can
        >provide insight (into the nature of pyramids and the men who thought
        >of building them), but doesn't imply a causal link between the two.
        >For causal links you need "indicative" evidence (I'm borrowing from
        >the use of period-indicative pottery types in archeological
        >seriation), like the lexical similarity coupled with semantic
        >reversal in the case of some Zoroastrian and Hindu words/concepts.__,_
         
        Ariel:
         
        Your point is well taken, and the example given a good one.
        A significant amount of 'indicative evidence' (if that is the correct phrase) is required to consolidate syncretic arguments.  And it is not always easy to gather such evidence.
        However there is some concern is that this degree of difficulty has contributed to this field  not receiving the attention it deserves.  Syncretic studies remain something of an academic backwater.   I am for example unaware of any in depth research into the short remarks related to this topic which Mary Boyce made thirty years ago.
         
        The example you give is probably but one of several reasons for this  lack of attention.  Syncretism is also something of a taboo subject.  None of us likes to admit that our intellectual or ideological heroes either overtly or subliminally borrowed their ideas from someone else. (Or that we ourselves do the same). Plagiarism after all is a crime in many countries.  But the sharing of ideas has arguably played just as important a role as the trade in material goods during the long evolution of what we whimsically refer to as civilization.  
         
        Graham Hagens 




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Ariel L. Szczupak
        ... This case has a high probative (borrowing again) value. Avestan and old Sanskrit belong to the same language family, so you can expect that similar words
        Message 3 of 15 , Aug 8, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          At 04:18 PM 8/8/2009, Graham Hagens wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >--- On Tue, 8/4/09, Ariel L. Szczupak
          ><<mailto:ane.als%40gmail.com>ane.als@...> wrote:
          >
          > >A comparative Genesis/Zoroastrian concept analysis can provide
          > >insight (and I would find it very interesting) . But even major
          > >similarities do not imply temporal causality, who influenced whom, if
          > >at all. Just like comparing Egyptian and Meso-American pyramids can
          > >provide insight (into the nature of pyramids and the men who thought
          > >of building them), but doesn't imply a causal link between the two.
          > >For causal links you need "indicative" evidence (I'm borrowing from
          > >the use of period-indicative pottery types in archeological
          > >seriation), like the lexical similarity coupled with semantic
          > >reversal in the case of some Zoroastrian and Hindu words/concepts.__,_
          >
          >Ariel:
          >
          >Your point is well taken, and the example given a good one.
          >A significant amount of 'indicative evidence' (if that is the
          >correct phrase) is required to consolidate syncretic arguments.

          This case has a high "probative" (borrowing again) value. Avestan and
          old Sanskrit belong to the same language family, so you can expect
          that similar words will have similar meanings. It is the reversal of
          meanings in the role of similarly named deities that indicates a high
          likelihood of volition, of a conscious decision. And it's a concrete,
          definable, example of a larger, but less definable, conceptual
          difference, reversal, where Hinduism (and later Buddhism) embraced
          fuzzy and multivalent concepts compared to the Zoroastrian strict
          dualism. [i.e. a rift, not syncretism]

          >And it is not always easy to gather such evidence.

          Indeed. Such cases are rare.

          >However there is some concern is that this degree of difficulty has
          >contributed to this field not receiving the attention it
          >deserves. Syncretic studies remain something of an academic
          >backwater. I am for example unaware of any in depth research into
          >the short remarks related to this topic which Mary Boyce made thirty years ago.
          >
          >The example you give is probably but one of several reasons for
          >this lack of attention. Syncretism is also something of a taboo
          >subject. None of us likes to admit that our intellectual or
          >ideological heroes either overtly or subliminally borrowed their
          >ideas from someone else. (Or that we ourselves do the same).
          >Plagiarism after all is a crime in many countries. But the sharing
          >of ideas has arguably played just as important a role as the trade
          >in material goods during the long evolution of what we whimsically
          >refer to as civilization.

          The problem is that both the sharing of ideas and independent
          development have case examples that support them, and there's no
          methodological reason to prefer one over the other.

          A case "closer to home" - the Mesopotamian and biblical flood myths.
          The stories are different but have some similarities. What's involved?

          First, are we reading the texts correctly. E.g. the initial
          interpretation of the Ebla texts.

          Second, are the similarity patterns we perceive real (significant) or
          imaginary. E.g. the documentary hypothesis vs. the Torah codes.

          Now, the crucial one - is there a causal link. Many civilizations and
          cultures all over the world have flood myths and to assume they all
          have a common origin implies some Velikovskian catastrophe and
          entails world wide revisions to geological, paleontological &
          archeological timelines. I.e., with very very high likelihood, flood
          myths do appear independently. So what evidence can indicate that the
          biblical & Mesopotamian myths do have causal links? [not trivial]

          Assuming a causal link is indeed established - what is its direction?
          Who "begat" who? Do both myths stem from a common ancestor? Did the
          Mesopotamian myth influence the biblical one? Or did the biblical one
          influence the Mesopotamian? [A possible scenario for the later - a
          group of pastoralists, with its flood myth, migrates (over
          generations) north-west from southern Arabia (Tilmun etc) through
          Mesopotamia until it reaches the high mountains, then travels south
          to the Levant.]

          Point is twofold - analyzing such cases is tricky but it provides insight.



          Ariel.

          [100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]

          ---
          Ariel L. Szczupak
          AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
          POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91406
          Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203
          ane.als@...
          ---
          http://yvetteszczupakthomas.blogspot.com/
          http://undiamantbrut.blogspot.com/
        • Ariel L. Szczupak
          And now let s see if this cognitive-magic trick worked :) This ... ... ... is false. Ask yourself if you fell for it. The problem was presented as a
          Message 4 of 15 , Aug 9, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            And now let's see if this cognitive-magic trick worked :)

            This ...

            At 10:20 PM 8/8/2009, Ariel L. Szczupak wrote:
            >Assuming a causal link is indeed established - what is its
            >direction? Who "begat" who? Do both myths stem from a common
            >ancestor? Did the Mesopotamian myth influence the biblical one? Or
            >did the biblical one influence the Mesopotamian? [A possible
            >scenario for the later - a group of pastoralists, with its flood
            >myth, migrates (over generations) north-west from southern Arabia
            >(Tilmun etc) through Mesopotamia until it reaches the high
            >mountains, then travels south to the Levant.]

            ... is false. Ask yourself if you fell for it.

            The problem was presented as a branch/node tree-like problem, with
            strict dualism (excluded middle) used to define the elements. It's a
            very useful way of dealing with problems and it seems one of the
            hard-wired ways in which the human mind solves problems. But not all
            problems can be expressed this way.

            From what we know about the formation of story cycles, folk tales,
            epics, myths, etc, the appearance of a radically new tale is the rare
            exception, not the norm. In most cases it's a process involving many
            variations of the tale which, sometimes, results in one, or a few,
            "frozen in time" versions.

            An example of this process taking place today is Christmas stories.
            The stories have a few key elements that identify them as Christmas
            stories but the variations range wide. These versions "interact" with
            each other by exchanging ideas & motifs. Only a few of these stories
            are remembered after a few years and we can't tell which of these
            will survive (will have an audience interested in hearing them) 100
            years or more.

            The most likely origin of the flood myths is one or more events of
            people surviving a water-danger event of some sort, minor or major.
            Since it's an appealing story, something to be told in gatherings
            etc, the process of the tale being retold in various ways begins. And
            with a literary framework that is known to be interesting, some
            authors can use it to express ideas and ideologies that have nothing
            to do with the basic tale. We even have some hard evidence of this
            process taking place in the differences between the Atrahasis and
            Gilgamesh versions of the tale.

            So it's likely, at least to a better-than-average degree, that the
            similar key elements in the Mesopotamian & biblical myths indicate
            they both belong to the same tale-creation process, but the model is
            a network, not a tree. The causality is not one of who "begat" who,
            but one of being products of the same process.

            "Triki, triki, triiiiiki, triiiki, triki, Mon Amour, triki, triki,
            triki, triiiiii" said Demis Roussos :)

            [If you're wondering where I got the idea to try this cognitive
            trick, it started with a documentary on TV a few days ago. It was
            about the recent theory that the neolithic Atlit-Yam village was not
            abandoned but hit by a major tsunami, one caused by a flank of mt.
            Etna sliding into the sea. This reminded of one time I was at
            Neve-Yam (not far from Atlit), probably aged 6 or so. I was in the
            water, not far from the shore when suddenly I was sucked into a wave,
            lifted, and deposited on the beach sand, several meters from where I
            stood before. It was probably a mini-tsunami caused by some minor
            tremor, nothing to be written in human annals but very impressive to
            me. I still have the raw sensual memories of this event, I can "re-live" it.]



            Ariel.

            [100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]

            ---
            Ariel L. Szczupak
            AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
            POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91406
            Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203
            ane.als@...
            ---
            http://yvetteszczupakthomas.blogspot.com/
            http://undiamantbrut.blogspot.com/
          • Graham Hagens
            ...   One should be careful not to imply that there s no methodological reason to prefer one over the other   is a universal condition. One good
            Message 5 of 15 , Aug 13, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              --- On Sat, 8/8/09, Ariel L. Szczupak <ane.als@...> wrote:

              >>And it is not always easy to gather such evidence.

              >...Indeed. Such cases are rare.

              >>... the sharing of ideas has arguably played just as important a role as the trade
              >>in material goods....

              >>The problem is that both the sharing of ideas and independent
              >>development have case examples that support them, and there's no
              >>methodological reason to prefer one over the other (.
              ...
              > the Mesopotamian and biblical flood myths.
              >The stories are different but have some similarities. What's involved?
              ...
              >...are the similarity patterns we perceive real (significant) or
              > ...imaginary. E.g. the documentary hypothesis vs. the Torah codes.

              > ...Now, the crucial one - is there a causal link. Many civilizations and
              >cultures all over the world have flood myths and to assume they all
              >have a common origin implies some Velikovskian catastrophe and
              >entails world wide revisions to geological, paleontological &
              >archeological timelines. I.e., with very very high likelihood, flood
              >myths do appear independently. So what evidence can indicate that the
              >biblical & Mesopotamian myths do have causal links? [not trivial]...

              >...Assuming a causal link is indeed established - what is its direction?
              > Who "begat" who? Do both myths stem from a common ancestor? Did the
              >Mesopotamian myth influence the biblical one ....

              >Point is twofold - analyzing such cases is tricky but it provides insight.
               
              One should be careful not to imply that 'there's no methodological reason to prefer one over the other'  is a universal condition.
              One good example of the process by which a search for syncretic insight seems to have succesfully overcome the sort of challenges to which you refer, may be found in recent research into the origins of Greek philosophy. 
               
              I am thinking of the monumental effort which M. West, W. Burkert and others undertook  to demonstrate that early Greek philosophers were deeply influenced by oriental thought.  
              However hesitant and grudging was the reception of that effort,  their ideas are now widely respected. One author who did accept them (I roughly remember the quote, but forget his name) conceded that 'West convinces by exhaustive persuasion' - that is to say the vast number of examples he provided finally made denial of the hypothesis untenable. 
              This quote from West's Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient, is frequently cited :“Anaximander’s concepts cannot be derived from Greek antecedents, and to suppose that they chanced to burgeon his mind without antecedents, at the very moment when the Persians were knocking on Ionian doors, would be as preposterous as it is pointless.” (1971: 97).
              A particularly interesting aspect of this particular process was the fiercely nationalistic fervor with which many western European  ('it was so invented here') lobbyists opposed the idea. And some still do.
               
              Graham Hagens




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jean-Fabrice Nardelli
              Dear Graham, West and Burkert met with much opposition, and still are undervalued in France, for a great many reasons not all of which stem from bigotry and
              Message 6 of 15 , Aug 14, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Graham,

                West and Burkert met with much opposition, and still are undervalued in
                France, for a great many reasons not all of which stem from bigotry and
                old prejudices. In the past, hellenists such as Victor Bérard and Franz
                Dornseiff, both of whom unearthed scores of Greco-Semitic parallels
                which still stand, Orientalists of the calibre of Cyrus Gordon and
                Michael Astour who ventured to link the culture of protohistoric Greece
                with the Levantine civilisations, did more harm than good by their too
                obvious passion and what appeared, in the eyes of Greek scholars, to be
                a fondness for extempore generalisation in their works, not to say the
                lack of theoretical reflection. Bérard in particular went so
                spectacularly wrong in his notion that, behind the Odyssey Phoenician
                "Instructions nautiques" and Periploi stood, that he durably compromised
                the quest for non-Greek clues in Homer, in the same way that Peter
                Jensen, in his two-volume work on the Gilgamesh, led the panbabyloniansm
                to its collapse. These defects were made good by Burkert, thanks to an
                unusual gift of exposition and a sharp eye for details, and by West
                through sheer productivity ; their models do not claim to account for
                each and every datum, they show what the evidence is, what problems
                still dog the field, and call for further interdisciplinary research.
                How revealing of the contrast in quality with Bernal's "Black Athena" it
                is that, when at long last its final volume appeared, its massive
                linguistic and lexical evidence for Greek as deeply influenced by the
                Egyptian language utterly failed to impress those qualified to judge
                it ! We don't need rhetoric and biased erudition to conceal the
                well-founded fact that Egyptian seldom left any mark on Greek ; what is
                required is observation, coupled with philological care (something which
                Bernal has yet to acquire). The net shall not be cast too large, lest we
                only catch garbage ; for example, the comparative study of mental
                processes, such as love and affection, has much to teach us provided
                that we never forget we compare texts in need of specialized scrutiny,
                not detached snippets of Greek and Semitic languages which can be
                treated in a crude way through lexica and concordances.

                J.-F. Nardelli
                Université de Provence
              • Ariel L. Szczupak
                ... [...] ... [...] ... I m not sure what you mean by universal condition . When you have case examples supporting two opposing options and no way to define
                Message 7 of 15 , Aug 14, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 04:19 AM 8/14/2009, Graham Hagens wrote:
                  >--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Ariel L. Szczupak
                  ><<mailto:ane.als%40gmail.com>ane.als@...> wrote:

                  [...]

                  > >... the sharing of ideas has arguably played just as important a
                  > role as the trade in material goods....
                  >
                  >The problem is that both the sharing of ideas and independent
                  >development have case examples that support them, and there's no
                  >methodological reason to prefer one over the other (.

                  [...]

                  >One should be careful not to imply that 'there's no methodological
                  >reason to prefer one over the other' is a universal condition.

                  I'm not sure what you mean by "universal condition". When you have
                  case examples supporting two opposing options and no way to define
                  criteria that will tell you which of the two options to prefer,
                  you're left with "undecidable". The only way to have one option
                  likelier than the other is to have some other type of evidence,
                  besides the conceptual similarity, that supports either influence or
                  independence.

                  [...]

                  >This quote from West's Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient, is
                  >frequently cited : "Anaximander's concepts cannot be derived from
                  >Greek antecedents, and to suppose that they chanced to burgeon his
                  >mind without antecedents, at the very moment when the Persians were
                  >knocking on Ionian doors, would be as preposterous as it is
                  >pointless." (1971: 97).

                  That reminds me of a "Geraldo argument". E.g. a few months ago there
                  was this plane that crash-landed (safely) on the Hudson river. A few
                  hours after it happened I saw Geraldo on Fox claiming that it was
                  unthinkable that geese had hit *both* engines, hinting at something
                  sinister, vowing emotionally to investigate ... [Geraldo, bless him,
                  is a constant source of examples for faulty reasonings]

                  Following the same reasoning, the Persians had to get these concepts
                  from someone before them, and so on and on and on ...

                  Personally I favor a Persian influence, but without some supporting
                  evidence it's still undecided. Note that the principle I find most
                  telling, strict dualism, was used by the Persians in their theology
                  but by the Greeks in their "secular" philosophy while their theology
                  remained based on natural powers - it wasn't a simple transfer (if
                  there was influence). AND, we're talking about expressed, verbalized
                  strict dualism, because strict dualism, as a mental process, was
                  being used long before - you can't have complex architecture without
                  yes/no decisions and some math/geometry.



                  Ariel.

                  [100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]

                  ---
                  Ariel L. Szczupak
                  AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
                  POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91406
                  Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203
                  ane.als@...
                  ---
                  http://yvetteszczupakthomas.blogspot.com/
                  http://undiamantbrut.blogspot.com/
                • Graham Hagens
                  ...   ...   Really Ariel.  I would have expected more from you.  This statement is unsustainable. Certain individuals do come up with completely original
                  Message 8 of 15 , Aug 14, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- On Fri, 8/14/09, Ariel L. Szczupak <ane.als@...> wrote:
                     
                    >Following the same reasoning, the Persians had to get these concepts
                    >from someone before them, and so on and on and on ...
                     
                    Really Ariel.  I would have expected more from you.  This statement is unsustainable.
                    Certain individuals do come up with completely original thoughts.
                    Who before Einstein seriously considered the consequences of riding on a sunbeam?
                    So, the tradition preserved by the Magi that one sunny morning Zoroaster encountered an angel called Good Intentions (Vohu Manah) who took him for a walk and taught him astonishing things, could just be true.

                    >Note that the principle I find most
                    >telling, strict dualism, was used by the Persians in their theology
                    >but by the Greeks in their "secular" philosophy while their theology
                    >remained based on natural powers -
                     
                    This is a bit over simplified: different schools of Greek philosophy utilized the same imported concepts in a variety of ways.  Some of their interpretations were quite deistic (perhaps even monotheistic, e.g. Xenophanes),  while other (the materialistic atomists)  were commited atheists. The dualism of Heraclitus appears to have been deistic, that of Anaximander was clearly secular.
                     
                    >it wasn't a simple transfer (if
                    >there was influence). AND, we're talking about expressed, verbalized
                    >strict dualism, because strict dualism, as a mental process, was
                    >being used long before - you can't have complex architecture without
                    >yes/no decisions and some math/geometry.__
                     
                    What I find interesting about the Persian period is the evidence that a variety of concepts crossed cultural boundaries with different consequences.  The belief in reincarnation - which was apparently a post-Vedic south Asian (and definitely not a Zoroastrian concept)  made its way to Ionia very early on (Pythagoras, Pherecydes), but it would be centuries before hints of this idea appear in the Judeo-Christian records.  On the other hand the Zoroastrian purity laws appear to have been adopted by the Hebrews and no one else by the 5th century (if one accepts the conventional chronology). And as you point out dualism made an appearance in various guises. 
                     
                    Graham Hagens
                     
                     
                    _
















                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Ariel L. Szczupak
                    ... Am I missing something? Isn t that the point I was trying to make? ... Yes, it s very simplified. One reason is that I haven t dealt directly with the
                    Message 9 of 15 , Aug 15, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 12:11 AM 8/15/2009, Graham Hagens wrote:
                      >--- On Fri, 8/14/09, Ariel L. Szczupak
                      ><<mailto:ane.als%40gmail.com>ane.als@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > >Following the same reasoning, the Persians had to get these concepts
                      > >from someone before them, and so on and on and on ...
                      >
                      >Really Ariel. I would have expected more from you. This statement
                      >is unsustainable.
                      >Certain individuals do come up with completely original thoughts.
                      >Who before Einstein seriously considered the consequences of riding
                      >on a sunbeam?
                      >So, the tradition preserved by the Magi that one sunny morning
                      >Zoroaster encountered an angel called Good Intentions (Vohu Manah)
                      >who took him for a walk and taught him astonishing things, could just be true.

                      Am I missing something? Isn't that the point I was trying to make?

                      > >Note that the principle I find most
                      > >telling, strict dualism, was used by the Persians in their theology
                      > >but by the Greeks in their "secular" philosophy while their theology
                      > >remained based on natural powers -
                      >
                      >This is a bit over simplified: different schools of Greek philosophy
                      >utilized the same imported concepts in a variety of ways. Some of
                      >their interpretations were quite deistic (perhaps even monotheistic,
                      >e.g. Xenophanes), while other (the materialistic atomists) were
                      >commited atheists. The dualism of Heraclitus appears to have been
                      >deistic, that of Anaximander was clearly secular.

                      Yes, it's very simplified. One reason is that I haven't dealt
                      directly with the source materials for some years now. That may
                      change soon, as my son will start his philosophy minor in a couple of
                      months :) [though it's sad father/prof Marcel Dubois is no longer
                      here to thunder "to ti en enai" in young ears ...]

                      The other reason is that "Greek philosophy" is not something that is
                      easily defined (except for belonging to a certain time/space locus).
                      The topics cover most of the current philosophical issues, and so do
                      the methods of dealing with them. And when you deal with metaphysics
                      and ethics, you can't really avoid encroaching on the domain of the
                      gods ... But the overall picture is that the Greeks did "reason
                      applied to the universe" while the Persians did "religious dogma"
                      [yes, major simplifications], and if some concepts were imported,
                      they were not imported "as is".

                      >What I find interesting about the Persian period is the evidence
                      >that a variety of concepts crossed cultural boundaries with
                      >different consequences. The belief in reincarnation - which was
                      >apparently a post-Vedic south Asian (and definitely not a
                      >Zoroastrian concept) made its way to Ionia very early on
                      >(Pythagoras, Pherecydes), but it would be centuries before hints of
                      >this idea appear in the Judeo-Christian records. On the other hand
                      >the Zoroastrian purity laws appear to have been adopted by the
                      >Hebrews and no one else by the 5th century (if one accepts the
                      >conventional chronology). And as you point out dualism made an
                      >appearance in various guises.

                      Reincarnation is a good example of the methodological problem. You
                      have it, as one of many possibilities, in Greece, and you have it in
                      the SE Asia. In the middle you have the Persians with
                      post-judgement-day resurrection of the righteous.

                      Was there Asian/Greek (causal) influence? There is no non-conceptual
                      evidence (e.g. linguistic) to support it (that I know of).

                      Is there evidence that would support independent appearance of such a
                      concept? 10 google minutes and I have e.g.:

                      Antonia Curtze Mills & Richard Slobodin (ed), "Amerindian rebirth:
                      reincarnation belief among North American Indians and Inuit"

                      Bronislaw Malinowski, "The Family Among the Australian Aborigines: A
                      Sociological Study"

                      [both accessible on google books, but I can't get working URLs that
                      can be pasted here]

                      I.e. arguing that the reincarnation concept has a unique point of
                      origin is basically arguing something like "out-of-Africa
                      reincarnation" [which would probably make Clyde Winters very happy
                      :)]. Lucy walks among us! ...

                      And reincarnation is not a "natural" concept, one that is easily
                      observable, or one that routinely comes up in the minds of curious
                      children in various cultures.

                      This is an important point. A concept like strict dualism cannot be
                      avoided even if it is not consciously, explicitly, defined -
                      Heraclitus' flux may keep changing, but a pillar either stands or,
                      ouch, falls ... But reincarnation is not a "necessary" concept and
                      yet it (very likely) appears independently in various cultures.

                      I.e. identifying something (similarity, pattern, etc) is a mental
                      activity and doesn't necessarily imply it's real. It's an example of
                      the Platonic falsity ("I know something, therefore there is a
                      something to be known") which leads to ethereal, ideal chairs which
                      no one can sit on ...



                      Ariel.

                      [100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]

                      ---
                      Ariel L. Szczupak
                      AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
                      POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91406
                      Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203
                      ane.als@...
                      ---
                      http://yvetteszczupakthomas.blogspot.com/
                      http://undiamantbrut.blogspot.com/
                    • Ariel L. Szczupak
                      At 11:47 AM 8/15/2009, Ariel L. Szczupak wrote: [...] ... It s been pointed to me offlist that physical likeness and behavioral similarities to dead relatives
                      Message 10 of 15 , Aug 15, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 11:47 AM 8/15/2009, Ariel L. Szczupak wrote:

                        [...]

                        >And reincarnation is not a "natural" concept, one that is easily
                        >observable, or one that routinely comes up in the minds of curious
                        >children in various cultures.

                        It's been pointed to me offlist that physical likeness and behavioral
                        similarities to dead relatives could be not-so-rare observable causes
                        for coming up with the idea of reincarnation. I stand corrected.



                        Ariel.

                        [100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]

                        ---
                        Ariel L. Szczupak
                        AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
                        POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91406
                        Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203
                        ane.als@...
                        ---
                        http://yvetteszczupakthomas.blogspot.com/
                        http://undiamantbrut.blogspot.com/
                      • David Chibo
                        ... You’ve touched upon an interesting point. Modern nationalism is a relatively modern concept that initially swept Europe during the 18th century. The
                        Message 11 of 15 , Aug 16, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > A particularly interesting aspect of this particular process
                          > was the fiercely nationalistic fervor with which many western
                          > European ('it was so invented here') lobbyists opposed the idea.
                          > And some still do.

                          > Graham Hagens

                          You’ve touched upon an interesting point.

                          Modern nationalism is a relatively modern concept that initially swept Europe during the 18th century. The modern nation state was compelled to define a shared and homogenous culture, language, religion and even romanticised history.

                          It was during this colonial period that the European powers – with Darwin’s survival of the fittest concept in mind - fell back on antiquity to define their romanticised histories.

                          The European powers traced their cultural descent as far back as ancient Greece and then deliberately drew a sharp defining line between the progressive, enlightened and democratic West and its Other, the regressive, despotic and religious East in a deliberate policy that came to be termed Orientalism. Edward Said refers to this Western version of Eastern history when he describes how the East was conquered culturally before it was ever conquered militarily.

                          This sharp defining line originally looked quite reasonable considering that ancient Greek writing unlike cuneiform or hieroglyphics were easily deciphered by Europeans at the time. However over the course of the last 150 years as the ANE texts have been slowly discovered and translated a remarkable picture has emerged. Many of the building blocks of civilisation were discovered to have their antecedents in the East.

                          Faced with overwhelming evidence Western scholars trained within this Orientalism framework began to grudgingly acknowledge the Eastern building blocks of civilisation. However they continued to insist, some deliberately, some inadvertently, that it was the West that took these building blocks and made them truly sublime.

                          Ariel said:
                          > Personally I favor a Persian influence, but without some supporting
                          > evidence it's still undecided. Note that the principle I find most
                          > telling, strict dualism, was used by the Persians in their theology
                          > but by the Greeks in their "secular" philosophy while their theology
                          > remained based on natural powers - it wasn't a simple transfer (if
                          > there was influence).

                          Your remarks are reminiscent of other well known examples such as, the ANE may have developed collective governance but it was the West that developed democracy. The ANE may have developed Astrology but it was the West that developed Astronomy. The ANE may have invented the Abjad but it was the West that developed the Alphabet etc.

                          This should not be an attempt to revive the now discredited pan-Babylonisim but an attempt to trace back our shared culture back to the geographical location at the confluence of three continents that has been aptly described as ‘The Cradle of Civilisation.’

                          Regards,
                          David Chibo
                          www.gilgameshgames.org


                          __________________________________________________________________________________
                          Find local businesses and services in your area with Yahoo!7 Local.
                          Get started: http://local.yahoo.com.au
                        • Niels Peter Lemche
                          Only one correction: nationalism swept Europe during the 19th century. Niels Peter Lemche ... Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På
                          Message 12 of 15 , Aug 17, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Only one correction: nationalism swept Europe during the 19th century.

                            Niels Peter Lemche

                            -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                            Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af David Chibo
                            Sendt: 17. august 2009 08:54
                            Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                            Emne: [ANE-2] Re: Conceptual "begat"s


                            > A particularly interesting aspect of this particular process
                            > was the fiercely nationalistic fervor with which many western
                            > European ('it was so invented here') lobbyists opposed the idea.
                            > And some still do.

                            > Graham Hagens

                            You've touched upon an interesting point.

                            Modern nationalism is a relatively modern concept that initially swept Europe during the 18th century. The modern nation state was compelled to define a shared and homogenous culture, language, religion and even romanticised history.

                            It was during this colonial period that the European powers - with Darwin's survival of the fittest concept in mind - fell back on antiquity to define their romanticised histories.

                            The European powers traced their cultural descent as far back as ancient Greece and then deliberately drew a sharp defining line between the progressive, enlightened and democratic West and its Other, the regressive, despotic and religious East in a deliberate policy that came to be termed Orientalism. Edward Said refers to this Western version of Eastern history when he describes how the East was conquered culturally before it was ever conquered militarily.

                            This sharp defining line originally looked quite reasonable considering that ancient Greek writing unlike cuneiform or hieroglyphics were easily deciphered by Europeans at the time. However over the course of the last 150 years as the ANE texts have been slowly discovered and translated a remarkable picture has emerged. Many of the building blocks of civilisation were discovered to have their antecedents in the East.

                            Faced with overwhelming evidence Western scholars trained within this Orientalism framework began to grudgingly acknowledge the Eastern building blocks of civilisation. However they continued to insist, some deliberately, some inadvertently, that it was the West that took these building blocks and made them truly sublime.

                            Ariel said:
                            > Personally I favor a Persian influence, but without some supporting
                            > evidence it's still undecided. Note that the principle I find most
                            > telling, strict dualism, was used by the Persians in their theology
                            > but by the Greeks in their "secular" philosophy while their theology
                            > remained based on natural powers - it wasn't a simple transfer (if
                            > there was influence).

                            Your remarks are reminiscent of other well known examples such as, the ANE may have developed collective governance but it was the West that developed democracy. The ANE may have developed Astrology but it was the West that developed Astronomy. The ANE may have invented the Abjad but it was the West that developed the Alphabet etc.

                            This should not be an attempt to revive the now discredited pan-Babylonisim but an attempt to trace back our shared culture back to the geographical location at the confluence of three continents that has been aptly described as 'The Cradle of Civilisation.'

                            Regards,
                            David Chibo
                            www.gilgameshgames.org


                            __________________________________________________________________________________
                            Find local businesses and services in your area with Yahoo!7 Local. Get started: http://local.yahoo.com.au


                            ------------------------------------

                            Yahoo! Groups Links
                          • George F Somsel
                            Perhaps I m being a bit picky, but it seems you have a wrong understanding of Western civilization s relation to Greek (and Hebrew).  It was not a matter
                            Message 13 of 15 , Aug 17, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Perhaps I'm being a bit picky, but it seems you have a wrong understanding of "Western" civilization's relation to Greek (and Hebrew).  It was not a matter of "deciphering" the languages.  They were always known even if not widely known. 
                               george
                              gfsomsel


                              … search for truth, hear truth,
                              learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                              defend the truth till death.


                              - Jan Hus
                              _________




                              ________________________________
                              From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...>
                              To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 2:13:54 AM
                              Subject: SV: [ANE-2] Re: Conceptual "begat"s

                               
                              Only one correction: nationalism swept Europe during the 19th century.

                              Niels Peter Lemche

                              -----Oprindelig meddelelse-- ---
                              Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups. com] På vegne af David Chibo
                              Sendt: 17. august 2009 08:54
                              Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
                              Emne: [ANE-2] Re: Conceptual "begat"s

                              <snip>

                              This sharp defining line originally looked quite reasonable considering that ancient Greek writing unlike cuneiform or hieroglyphics were easily deciphered by Europeans at the time. However over the course of the last 150 years as the ANE texts have been slowly discovered and translated a remarkable picture has emerged. Many of the building blocks of civilisation were discovered to have their antecedents in the East.


                              Regards,
                              David Chibo
                              www.gilgameshgames. org
                              .






                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.