Re: Incest taboos
Gil Hardwick (gil@landmark.iinet.net.au)
Thu, 11 May 1995 07:03:48 GMT
In article <jbask1.294.2FB07EA8@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au>, Joseph Askew (jbask1@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au) writes:
>Of course not. It may be possible to imagine psychic powers
>so weak that they cannot predict the future (eg "don't talk to
>that nasty white guy with the beard let alone give him food for
>the winter") or they cannot influence anything at all (and is it
>fair to guess many people have spent a great deal of time praying
>for the deaths of others, some people must have had millions hard
>at work trying to bring about their demise) but it would be hard
>to tell this existence of weak powers from the non-existence of
>such powers. And hence logical to accept they do not exist.
Sorry, but I'm starting to get lost in all this. I am unable to
account for the assertion of these ideas in anything I have myself
written about or asserted my belief in at any time.
On the other hand, we have documentary evidence of people having died
as a result of having, say, a bone pointed at them. Documented by the
medical fraternity, I must add. How it can be "explained", on the
other hand is finally anybody's guess.
>Yes of course. He even came out on radio and said he was not
>a God thus making him less divine. Assuming divinity is some
>sort of opinion poll. Before the dropping of the bombs he was
>a God, shortly after he wasn't. How could you argue that he
>remained as godlike as he was before?
Well, let's just adhere to the historical fact of General McArthur
having prevailed upon him to make such an announcement. Let's just
note that the announcement did not come in the wake of the bombs as
such, but with the general defeat of Japan in war.
>I am not so sure about that. I suspect that the vast majority
>of Japanese knew perfectly well the political nature of the
>divine role assigned in modern times to the Emperor.
Ah, we are going around in circles here.
>Really? An interesting viewpoint. I always assumed the Chinese,
>not to mention those at Pearl Habour, HK or Darwin, would have
>wildly differing opinions about that. I do not recall anyone
>intruding anywhere in 1937 but the Japanese at any rate. But no
>matter.
Are you saying in reply, although admittedly my point was poorly
expressed, that Asians do not regard Europeans as intruders? Even
the Chinese ridicule them as *gwai lo* (excuse the Cantonese).
Any Asian will tell you that the Europeans had been intruding upon
their domain for several centuries prior to 1937, in fact.
>Perhaps this was so but again I note the Emperors failure to
>in the slightest way contribute to the Allies keeping their
>feet on the ground let alone the Japanese troops supposedly
>under his command (eg Unit 731)
Again, my apologies, but I am getting lost here. I am no longer sure
what we are discussing here, in fact.
|