Re: Incest taboos
Joseph Askew (jbask1@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au)
Wed, 10 May 1995 08:51:52 GMT
In article <735@landmark.iinet.net.au> gil@landmark.iinet.net.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>>I would say that the fate of the Hawaiians is living proof of
>>either the non-existance or uselessness of psychic powers or
>>realities if you must. In fact I think arguing from the fate
>>of nearly all Stone age peoples, if they have psychic powers
>>they don't seem to be doing them much good at all.
>Well, Joseph, let me point out to you that these "psychic powers" are
>no better protection against the sword than any other forms inherent
>in human communication.
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.
>Perhaps you would have us believe that Emperor Hirohito's divinity
>having somehow failed to protect Hiroshima and Nagasaki from being
>nuked into oblivion therefore made him less divine, yes?
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?
>Many Japanese would have disagreed with you thoroughly, while indeed
>the Americans just went ahead imposing their own ideas through force
>of arms anyway.
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.
>I do not argue here on the right or wrong of the events, merely the
>process. That the Allies had directed such an overwhelming military
>might against the metaphysical in its own domain, substantiates our
>observation of their own peculiar obsessions having built up to fever
>pitch. It was they the intruders, as I recall.
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.
>The whole sorry business might have proceeded far less destructively,
>if you get my drift, were all parties to have kept their feet on the
>ground from the outset.
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)
>But you are a warrior of neither ilk, isn't that so? Are you not an
>anthropologist, charged with taking the whole quite impartially into
>your account?
No I am not that either. But no matter, we have strayed into
a separate field altogether
>>PS I can tell my smug self satisfied tone is going to cause
>>some slightly nasty E-Mail. Am I psychic yet?
>Indeed! Damned poor show. Extremely poor quality research . . .
Exceedingly, as I am still waiting.
Joseph
|