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

3378Re: [gthomas] Re: Re: The Sermon on the Light

Expand Messages
  • Jim Bauer
    Jan 3, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Rick Hubbard" <rhubbard@...>
      To: <gthomas@egroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 10:28 AM
      Subject: RE: [gthomas] Re: Re: The Sermon on the Light


      > >
      > In response to Jim Bauer's poignantly obtuse remarks on the "Sermon on
      > Light" [gthomas 12/18/00],
      Why do you call my thought "poignantly obtuse"? What do you mean by that,
      anyway? & don't you think that someone in your discipline might sound
      "obtuse" to a sociobiologist?
      >
      .
      >
      > Jim Bauer's assessment that the "Sermon on Light" is "a-historical &
      > a-cultural. a mish-mosh" [gthomas 12/18/00] completely fails to recognize
      > the point that James' post seems to imply. While Bauer's assertion that
      > "the twin archetypes of light and darkness were derived from early
      adaptive
      > structures by which organisms became self-aware & (sic) became eventually
      > developed language & (sic) cause- & -effect" [gthomas 12/18/00] may
      > represent a viable hypothesis in evolutionary philosophy, it does not seem
      > to be relevant either to Bean's poesis or to the source texts which he
      > utilizes.

      My point was simply that if you go around cutting & pasting together
      bits-&-pieces of literature you're not understanding it in a holistic sense
      & you can get it to "mean" just about anything. Such literary meanderings
      are useless from a scientific perspective. They have about the same degree
      of validity as the "Bible codes" the Fundamentalists talk about. Reading
      every tenth verse (or whatever) is supposed to have a "hidden meaning".
      >
      > If there is an example of what Bauer argues to be a progressive
      development
      > in light darkness symbolism [gthomas 12/18/00] it seems to begin later
      > rather than earlier in the literary artifacts of antiquity, and then in
      > philosophical speculation, not in religious affirmation. This would seem
      to
      > bring into serious question his "hypothesis" that "sleep and the entire
      > light-darkness symbolism derived from [a primordial?] adaptation to the to
      > the day-night nocturnal cycle." If this is the case, where is the evidence
      > in the literature? I submit that such evidence is entirely absent.

      Archetypes evolve much more slowly than memes so of course there's no
      evidence in the literature. To those unfamiliar with the jargon, a meme is
      a gene analog, a replicating system. This includes ideas & other
      socio-cultural artifacts. In a conversation with Bill Wimsatt I once
      stated, "an archetype is a sign-stimulus married polygamously to the
      environment." His response was, "you could also say thar archetypes are
      pleiotropic (multi-functioned) memes." However, they do possess a genetic
      element (at least in theory); the evolution of religious & philosophical
      texts is an upper-level phenomen & so it evolves on a much shorter
      time-scale than archetypes. The type of memes--ancient texts--which you
      cite here will never enter the collective unconscious as there is no
      Lamarckian selection.

      If you have trouble with the jargon, look it up, you're on the web.

      Jim Bauer>
      >
      >
      > -------------------------------------------------
      > To post to gthomas, send email to gthomas@egroups.com
      > To unsubscribe, send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@egroups.com
    • Show all 7 messages in this topic