On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Carl Thames <cthames@cent...> wrote:
>> The statements are just statements. What is important is what they
>> represent in terms of Quality. Have you read his books with that in
>> mind? Why would he say that intellectual thought began about 3000
>> years ago? Have you thought this through or are you still on a
>> superficial read of Lila and ZAMM?
> This is just bizzare. Haven't they dated the pyramids to over 10k years
> old? Don't they represent intellectural thought? This one threw me. Then
> there are the cave paintings in France. The paintings are of stylized
> animals, not direct representation. They are over 20k years old. Then
> there are the archeological sites with graves containing grave goods, which
> were weapons, personal effects, whatever that the people felt the dead
> person might have a use for in the afterlife. They are over 40k years old.
> Do you see why a statement like that would throw me? Also, Greg Braden was
> on Coast to Coast last night, and he said that there are some archeological
> finds now that are casting a LOT of doubt on Darwin. They call them
> "archeological anomalies" and ignore them. Strange.
Yes, I know. My statement was meant to be a rhetorical question, not
with any real meaning. You are correct, it is like the Christian
statement that the world is only 4,000 years old (or whatever it is
said that they say). I think my point was that Pirsig uses the
rhetoric he does to make a point, not to be accurate. For such truths
are really inconsequential in my opinion.
> Sorry for the brief interruption. It was just that "intellectual thought
> began about 3000 years ago" thing. I know YOU weren't saying that, just
> commenting on Pirsig. I don't know why he would say that either. It makes
> no sense.
There are times when Pirsig does not make much sense to me either. So
I try to understand why he would say something in order to present
Quality. For example, I do not believe that we are any more
intelligent than we were 8,000 years ago, while he does (even smarter
than the Victorians for example). We just have more knowledge.
Sometimes such knowledge only confuses us more. I would think that
the Egyptians had a much clearer picture than we do now.
We have very little history on what happened before the great flood.
All this research will take time, and any ideas we have about man's
evolution will change. Complex structures are being found that are
12,000 years old, which according to the anthropologists is way before
the "stone age". There are a lot of interesting discoveries being
made all the time which have not reached the tabloids. So
anthropologists will have to rethink their current theories, I think.
It is always hard to let go of "certainty"; scientist think that it
makes them look stupid, and they loose their status as the "presenters
of reality". They need the grant money. All our theories of today
will at some point be shown to be incorrect, for that is the way
science works as far as I can tell.