Joan of Bark

Is it possible for you to post without extreme sarcasm, SCREAMING CAPITAL LETTERS or multiple ????

If you think your argument is so irrefutable, why don't you post it in a Christian forum? I really think you're wasting your time here.

Mandelbrot

You have a really stupid criteria for what you consider evidence.Spin Ubu spin.Apparently you are right. I was wrong, you're not an HJer your just an insane man who thinks he is the internet version of Martin Luther (who was an MJ believer right MM?).

Philos

Steve,

A critic might suspect it is because atheists are obsessed with matters religious, but that may be a little unkind.

Alex.

seattlegal

+1 for each of you.

J-D

If you are asking 'what should somebody who has pointed out an error do next?', then my answer is that somebody who has pointed out an error is under no general automatic obligation to follow that up in any particular way.<snip>What I had in mind previously was not that I did not understand what was meant in a general sense by 'cultural hegemony' but rather that I did not understand the more specific statements you were making in which you were referring to that concept. On reading the summary by Raymond Williams to which you refer me, however, I find that I don't understand that general explanation of the concept, either. I am not sure I am capable of grasping the concept as expressed there without more illustrative examples. For example, perhaps you could show me what it is that you are trying to explain here, in this particular case, when you make use of the concept of 'cultural hegemony', and then show me how the concept of 'cultural hegemony' helps in providing that explanation. So far I am afraid I have found what you have to say on the subject to be impenetrable.
<snip>I am not trying to 'crap on the maximum territory'.

When a sentence begins 'As a result', that's an obvious indicator that it's intended to follow on from something that came before it and can't be understood as intended in isolation from what preceded it. In this particular case, my preceding sentence was 'I see here (as well as elsewhere) that people don't always understand how to formulate an existence claim so that it has a clear meaning.' That defined the extent of the territory covered by the following remarks. When people don't understand how to formulate claims so that they have clear meanings (and that's a non-empty set here, and so far you haven't disputed that), then incoherent discussion follows. Of course the same problem doesn't arise when people do formulate their claims sufficiently clearly, and I never said that doesn't happen.

Given, however, that this thread is an example of the claim supposedly under discussion never having been formulated with sufficient clarity, it is relevant to point to that as predictably producing incoherent discussion and also to the fact that the whole pattern is not unique here.I made an observation clearly directed to one category of cases. It is the category into which this particular thread falls. I said nothing of any kind about other threads which do not fall into that category. I suppose you could say in a sense that I 'ignore' every thread I don't comment on, but that's the same for everybody here, and so what?Sadly, I am once again unable to understand that attempt at explanation. I wish I did know what you mean. But I don't. Once again, I suspect more illustrative examples might help me.I would consider the term 'conservative' useful in a discussion between people who attribute the same clear meaning to it, or at least approximate to that. I often see it used in discussions where that is not the case, and in those discussions it contributes to unclarity and confusion. In discussions like that, taking the term out of the discussion would be an improvement. I would say the same for many political labels.

I don't see the evidence that there is a single clear meaning attributed to 'historicist' (and related terms) by posters in discussions here, and until I do I'm going to keep thinking that the clarity of those dicussions would be improved if those terms were avoided. You tell me that the term is 'functional', 'descriptive', and 'useful', and that it 'reflects a delineation that exists', but in the discussions here, that's not what I see.Would it be too much trouble for you to repeat that view, or to direct my attention to a location where you have stated it clearly already?I am not clear on which issue it is that you are suggesting, at this point, should be aired.

<snip>

tanya

Thank you Toto, for the link to John Adams newest composition. I agree with aa5874's comment, and find it well written, as usual, notwithstanding Mandelbrot's juvenile reply. Does he even understand set theory, let alone the famous' mathematician's contribution to fractal geometry? I am dumbfounded.

At the risk of alienating J-D and spin, I think I will ignore their meaningless exchange.

I wish to make two points.

a. John Adams is a well known composer. I am not sure how many folks on this forum have listened to his other operas, but, he is one of the two or three most famous contemporary composers of USA. His opera, Nixon in China, is rather easy to listen to, composed about thirty years ago, and, at the time it first appeared, relatively provocative, as the "Chinese cultural revolution" had been universally condemned in western media.

I observe a similar pattern here, i.e. Adams' desire to provide a musical challenge to conventional thinking. Folks on this forum are accustomed to using text to challenge prevailing views. You need not take my word for it, but, the creative task, awaiting those who seek to challenge status quo, via music, is far more difficult, than absorbing, and then challenging, a written text, even in a foreign language.....

b. If Adams has his work cut our for him, trying to persuade those accustomed to "rock" or "pop" music, to listen to his opera, so too, do we have a challenge, here on this forum, trying our best to improve our posts, not only to satisfy the J-D's and spin's of this forum, but also to achieve self recognition of gradual change in perspective, one hopes, leading to some new accomplishment. We are not all so skillful as John Adams.....

Spin challenged me, elsewhere, months ago, about my definition of "myth". Though I have not made any great improvement in my understanding, particularly, in terms of his definition, I have begun to appreciate that there has been a change in my stance on this point, and for that, I should thank this forum, including spin.

Here's the post on this thread that caught my attention.

Here we can see, very clearly, the task at hand. AdamWho has confounded "myth" with "legend", and to the extent that other forum members engage in the same process, we cannot achieve clarity in explaining the origin and development of Christianity, in my opinion.

"'the Washington of the cherry tree account' is mythological, ..."

NO.

It is legendary, not mythological. The distinction is critical. Legends, but not myths, are potentially historically verifiable, generally exaggerated, physically possible tall tales. Myths are IMPOSSIBLE. Myths are supernatural, or invoke supernatural qualities. There is nothing about the legend of G.Wash. and the cherry tree that requires divine intervention.

"The Julius Caesar who was born of a virgin is a myth,..."

No, it is a legend.

Virginity in females is defined simply as possessing an intact hymen. The small orifice allowing outflow of menstrual flow, is large enough for sperm to find their way inbounds. There is no need to invoke divine intervention here, hence this is a legend, not a myth.

"...the Joseph Smith who was dictated the book of Moron is a myth,..." Not so. That the book of Mormon was created, or transported, by an Angel, named Moroni, is a legend. I am 100% confident that the book of Mormon was created by humans, not some kind of supernatural deity. Humans are fully capable of accomplishing the activities described.

There is no need for supernatural deities to make gold plates, or write texts.

"....the Barry Bonds who didn't take steroids is a myth."

Nope. Legend. Nothing about administration of any extant drug requires intervention of a supernatural power. This is a clear example, of misunderstanding the distinction between legend and myth.

Here's a couple of myths, not legends: Jesus waved his hands, and the little girl's epilepsy was healed. Jesus spit in the enucleated soldier's face, and his sight was restored. Neither of these activities are physically possible. Hence, both activities represent supernatural descriptions, i.e. myths.

spin

Of course not, but by the same token you are under no obligation to point out errors in the first place, especially if you are not prepared to go beyond pointing out the errors. Pointing out errors can be throwing stones at someone's windows.

I'm a little at a loss here. Perhaps if I try to introduce the idea as I see it, you might be able to get a better aim on it when using the notions that Williams supplies.

[t2]Hegemony might be seen as a fluid politically motivated set of dominant cultural values through which power is wielded, not by force, but by consent. It is fluid because those values can generally change to meet the exigencies of any current circumstances to maintain power. It is determined by the needs of those classes that share the power. It is the status quo. As long as people consent to the hegemonic values, the distribution of power is maintained. You agree to be dominated. You accept as competent the institutions that determine many of those values, legal, educational, medical, religious, media. Who are you anyway to want a hand in making such decisions that are generally beyond your expertise?

You are usually born into hegemony, so you normally don't notice its existence. It even functions best not being noticed. Hegemony is more than the sum of those dominant cultural values, because it has institutions to maintain it. It is extremely difficult for the individual to perceive its existence. We perceive the values that function in hegemony are useful, whether they are or not. They are familiar to us and become second nature. But they are only our values in that they are the ones we received. They are not necessarily for our benefit.

Those values that we don't learn from our parents, schools often attempt to provide, preparing us generally to be good citizens. As a safety net the various mass media reinforce the values of our society or keep us entertained enough to have no interest. Of course your consent is also manufactured by your desire to possess the products available as an incentive for you to work and participate in the circulation of value by buying. The child wants the toy. The child wants the lolly. The child wants the toothrot. In our society the child is early hooked into accepting hegemony.

It is usually only through accidents or changes of perspective (such as are gained by leaving the particular hegemony and entering another) that one can begin to perceive the reality of hegemony. Or maybe through a more expressive communicant of the idea than me. And if by chance you develop vocal opposition to hegemonic values, well, that's usually fine, for you as an individual can say whatever you like against hegemony, but lacking access to the means of mass communication, you'll waste your breath. Winning hearts and minds one person at a time is bound to fail to have effect against a society as large as ours, but if you are able to start affecting a wider section of the population, then there are means for dealing with that as well.[/t2]

There are sins of commission and sins of omission. It is the second category that I was complaining about.

You get a brownie point for the irony, but forfeit one for expecting people to function the way you desire.

No, the issue is that you need to pay for the whinge.

It seems it would take more explanatory power than I am currently capable of to provide you with what you need. Illich was interested in the the effects of institutions on individuals and how to circumvent those effects. Although he doesn't talk about it, the institutions themselves are manifestations of hegemony that help maintain the hegemony. He argued that the members of the society were more important than the institutions. Perhaps his work called "Tools of Conviviality" might help you.

A historicist in discussions here is a person who believes that Jesus is a historically identifiable real figure.

(I've somehow screwed up the depth of quotes and should be two levels deeper, but to answer the question regarding my view--which I should have answered the first time--, the "historical Jesus" is a person who we know through historiographical methods participated in the past. Jesus may have been real but without validated historical evidence he cannot be "historical". Historicity is determined through the application of historiographical methods on the available evidence. If historicity cannot be determined, that fact doesn't negate the possibility of existence. It just means no substantive claims can be made based on his existence.)

Your concerns regarding the significance of the "historical Jesus". You might beat out the content of the term in a new thread.

mountainman

Can anyone translate Mandlebrot's statement?

Adam

Yes, I have realized that there are iron-clad presuppositions here that cannot be overcome. That's why I shifted my Gospel Eyewitnesses thread over to your preconceptions and worked up my Gospel According to the Atheists. See the link below to my OP in Falling Dominoes to my Post #534 in Gospel Eyewitnesses, supplemented by posts #526, 555 and 561.
Yes, I serialized my peer-reviewed article

Significance of John in posts #1, #2, #13, #30, #45, #57, #59, #63, #77, and #80 and related links in #50 to my Noesis articles.)
In my other threads everyone howls for "evidence", but they don't bother to read the thread that does provide evidence at the scholarly level.

But even on my "popular" threads, I don't get substantive responses. spin under-estimated me and gave too simple responses to peripheral issues, but my challenge still stands as before here in my recent OP Falling Dominoes ?
You clearly have not looked at my postings or my blog here, but accept the usual Argument from Authority of your compatriots here.

Roger Pearse

No....

There are the 4 canonical gospels, which the churches that the apostles founded preserved, all first century. There were probably others from the same period which have not survived.

But from the second century down to our own day, a certain sort of fraudster has found it advantageous to invent "gospels" in order to peddle some sort of story of his own. They're still being manufactured, indeed. Always the motive is money or influence.

In our own day, of course, the fraudster mostly refers to the ancient frauds as authentic and tries to pretend that they have the same status as the originals.

All the best,

Roger Pearse