Author of the Month :  The Official forums
Join us at this forum every month for a discussion with famous popular authors from around the world. 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Gary, I appreciate your honest responses about your own work. You are a poet and mythographer, using the inductive method. Not an anthropologist. Your are foul of DrRayEye’s rules of scholarly academia. You come closer to the core content of culture than the two academic schools you described above, which is why I want you to see the error in your paradigm.
Regarding the Arizona rock art ‘dictionary’, academic “educated guesses” about the meaning of abstract shapes are vaguely useful to understand the conscious rationalisations of the artists. It is actually ethnography, not art history. Artists themselves could verbalise only rationalised aspects of abstract signs. Your source implies that these “meanings” are shared across boundaries of language and identity in your area (similar to the “pan-San” idea that academia here in Southern Africa was forced to adopt, to account for universal similarities. But they draw an arbitrary 'genetic' boundary, as you do, thus their San art remains "a very different thing from fine art or modern art" (Lewis-Williams, verbatim). They are still ”working towards a lexicon” in San rock art. Only one researcher, Sven, now in Australia, ventured to hint at a universal "world view" in rock art. That view did not catch on in academia). Thus signs are not a kind of language, nor a 'primitive writing system'. They should rather study “signs” in a global, structuralist, thus subconscious context.
Hopis “reflecting upon their ceremonies” re-express collective wisdom, they do not develop or change culture, but keep it archetypal. Which is highly structured.
You should distinguish between genetic migration and cultural diffusion. And between poetry and fact. Myth is not history. And between craft and science. Just for the sake of rigour. You could not please DrRayEye, who wants his “blue sky thinking” based on certain literature, and within existing ‘schools’. He would not recognise a new school until it were in the textbooks.
If Hopi and Zuni kachina characters “come from the sky”, then so do clan totems and minor gods everywhere, but they don't. Some major gods mirror planets, but their set is exclusive, and too small to express the full cycle of archetype. Discovery of invisible planets did not change any pantheons. Astrology use them all, even asteroids now, because nature and culture arise from archetype. Not because culture "comes from" celestial features.
Most cultures believe as you do. But this is common, garden, rationalised ethnography, not requiring any science. If rationalisation is adopted in anthropology, it leads only to correspondence theory (De Santillana, etc, and yourself). Even common sense knows that “the sky” comes from nature (Lion etc), and myth (Hercules), and legend (Perseus etc), and society (Virgin), and calendar (Plough List). Even cosmology (direction, orientation) is independent of the sky. Orientation does not come from the sky, but equally "from" earth. Language, dress, species, cooking, healing, herbs, art (of which I have massive data), building site spacing (ditto), come from re-expression of innate perception. Cultural media rarely illustrate one another, each has its own fixed structure, and its own range of options. The sky is a myth map and a structure map. Here is a version relevant to many aspects of all cultures;
We tack some of our core content and optional identity choices up there, thus the structure comes via our perception and collective expression (with a few broad archetypal features in the sky inviting our gestalt). Inherent astronomical structure has its own logic, and very little of it is independent of culture. There is more culture in species, seasons (of which only some spatial aspects are inherent in the sky, but changes with precession), ritual, society, music, language, art and architecture. Not from the sky. Thus if you find a few correspondences between kachina troupes and constellations, it is from below to above. The hermetic dictum does not explicitly state which direction correspondence goes, merely that natural and cultural media share the same structure.
Please do not quote poets as if they were anthropologists. That was the trouble with Sitchin (see Graham's eventual belated response to this irksome 'scientific' novelist, and my comments supporting Graham about two years ago). If you confuse the praxis of craft and science, you are not doing culture, or science, any favours. Copper does not come from Venus.
In Cape Town we have kachina type troupes marching on Second New Year, 2 January. The Malay temporary ritual groups are based on aspirational or humorous identities; Black movie actors; singers (Al Johlson, Sachelmouth, later Jerry Lee Lewis); cakewalk caricatures sending up slave owners, bosses and high society; cartoon stereotypes Donald Duck, Miss Millie, Popeye, Uncle Sam, rhinestone cowboys (which Elvis Presley adopted in Nashville). Eventually almost all troupes in Cape Town became Uncle Sam (Saturn?). Some characters could find parallels in constellations or planets.

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 23-Apr-18 09:50 by Edmond.

Options: ReplyQuote

Subject Views Written By Posted
Cultural Diffusionism vs. Cultural Isolationism 3138 gadavid 10-Apr-18 22:17
Re: Cultural Diffusionism vs. Cultural Isolationism 681 Edmond 14-Apr-18 09:47
Re: Cultural Diffusionism vs. Cultural Isolationism 620 gadavid 15-Apr-18 20:23
Re: Cultural Diffusionism vs. Cultural Isolationism 669 Edmond 16-Apr-18 12:53
Re: Cultural Diffusionism vs. Cultural Isolationism 619 gadavid 17-Apr-18 19:26
Re: Cultural Diffusionism vs. Cultural Isolationism 612 gadavid 17-Apr-18 23:34
Re: Cultural Diffusionism vs. Cultural Isolationism 634 Edmond 18-Apr-18 10:00
Re: Cultural Diffusionism vs. Cultural Isolationism 605 gadavid 18-Apr-18 22:18
Being hard wired 607 drrayeye 19-Apr-18 06:24
Re: Being hard wired 605 Edmond 19-Apr-18 08:54
Re: Being hard wired 587 Aine 19-Apr-18 12:34
The scientific literature 630 drrayeye 19-Apr-18 13:26
Re: Being hard wired 633 gadavid 19-Apr-18 22:54
Re: Being hard wired 591 gadavid 19-Apr-18 23:18
Re: Being hard wired 628 Edmond 20-Apr-18 07:32
If you want tobe taken seriously by scientists 612 drrayeye 20-Apr-18 15:22
Re: Being hard wired 587 Eddie Larry 20-Apr-18 16:58
Re: Being hard wired 593 gadavid 21-Apr-18 05:08
Re: Being hard wired 590 Edmond 21-Apr-18 14:53
Re: Being hard wired 582 Eddie Larry 21-Apr-18 17:27
Re: Being hard wired 578 gadavid 22-Apr-18 21:52
Re: Being hard wired 623 gadavid 22-Apr-18 22:01
Re: Being hard wired 589 Edmond 23-Apr-18 09:29
Re: Being hard wired 618 gadavid 23-Apr-18 22:21
Re: Being hard wired 581 Edmond 24-Apr-18 10:30
Re: Being hard wired 639 gadavid 24-Apr-18 23:23
Re: Being hard wired 673 Edmond 25-Apr-18 09:21
Re: Being a hard wired pain 584 MDaines 25-Apr-18 10:57
Re: Being hard wired 957 gadavid 25-Apr-18 19:38
Re: Being hard wired 600 Eddie Larry 19-Apr-18 18:31
Re: Cultural Diffusionism vs. Cultural Isolationism 666 PB Bytes 14-Apr-18 16:56
Re: Cultural Diffusionism vs. Cultural Isolationism 609 gadavid 16-Apr-18 00:15
Re: Cultural Diffusionism vs. Cultural Isolationism 633 drrayeye 17-Apr-18 21:56
Re: Cultural Diffusionism vs. Cultural Isolationism 591 gadavid 17-Apr-18 23:19
Re: Cultural Diffusionism vs. Cultural Isolationism 631 drrayeye 18-Apr-18 08:09
Re: Cultural Diffusionism vs. Cultural Isolationism 596 gadavid 18-Apr-18 22:30
Re: Cultural Diffusionism vs. Cultural Isolationism 594 drrayeye 19-Apr-18 05:26
To disprove a theory, all that is needed is a single true counter factual 572 Race Jackson 24-Apr-18 00:06
Re: To disprove a theory, all that is needed is a single true counter factual 579 Edmond 24-Apr-18 10:39

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.