ohwilleke

I can imagine lots of reasons to say you got it from someone else. Part of it is the "a prophet is never accepted in his own village" syndrome. It is easier to attribute an idea to an authoritative source, than to claim credit yourself, because an idea from an authoritative source is not subject to ad hominem attacks, while you are. Most of the New Testament books of the Bible, for example, are attributed not to Jesus, not even to a disciple, but to a student or scribe or clerk for a disciple. Similarly, the great works of Confucius, Plato, and Muhammed were written this way, with the actual writer (who no doubt was central to the result) claiming only to write down discussions or speeches of the great teacher who is, by the time the stuff is widely distributed, long dead.

Also, the attribution method supports a sustained priesthood, as opposed to a mere cult of personality. If Myle says he came up with the idea and so you should follow him, this is great for Myle, but sucks for his successors who gain nothing from the prior discovery. If Myle claims that Ya told him, and his successor claims that Ya told him something new, the credibility of Ya carries over to the new regime.

In much the same way, the powerful but unelected justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would never presume to say, "I came to this result because I thought it was the best policy.", even though, undoubtedly, this often happens. Instead, everything must be because the CONSTITUTION drafted by the FOUNDING FATHERS (who are now dead and beyond question) says so. It is essentially the same as claimining to follow Ya.

It also creates consent by implying a false sense of mutual servitude. You follow me, I follow the next guy, neither of us is free; neither of us is responsible. We are all servants, you and I, so this is fair and you should obey just like I obey my superiors. It is the bureacratic instinct at a much more primal level.

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: ohwilleke ]</p>