Re: "Superstitious", per Fall Guy & Michaelson, is probably right on the money

Posted by Fedora from ppp-79.col.cableone.net on January 25, 2001 at 18:08:19:

In Reply to: "Superstitious", per Fall Guy & Michaelson, is probably right on the money posted by Inbanana on January 25, 2001 at 16:51:19:

: In the absence of open proclamations from characters (cf Henry Sr.'s remark about "blasphemy"), it's problematic ascribing religious views to them. All possibilities exist, eg, Sallah may have been a follower of the Gnostic gospels (not uncommon in Cairo); he may have been a practicing Sikh, Buddhist, or Appalachian evangelical snake-handler (unlikely, but would explain his knowledge of asps...).
: He may have been a superstitious agnostic, for that matter.
: As an anthropologist, I feel duty (ha! he said "Doody"!) bound to pontificate about the dangers in ousiders' generalizing about individual interpretations of another's faith, regardless of one's scholarship in the matter. Yikes, what a sentence. And, I would add, ascribing characterizations to religions based on viewings of emotionally-charged public displays via the television news seems counter to the tolerance of cultural complexity and diversity displayed by Indy. This isn't meant to discourage initial stages of debate on the matter, just to underscore the real-life complexities and implications of discussing even these fictional portrayals.
: That's not to say that nazis don't suck, by the way.
: If anyone's interested, check out the more encylopaedic works of departed University of Chicago (yeah, THAT one) historian of religions Mircea Eliade, particularly his "digest" and multi-volume "handbook" on world religions (sorry, forgot the title).
: It rocks.
: Death is a great subject for anthropological investigation, by the way; but perhaps all of this discussion only, ultimately, reflects John Rhys-Davies' momentary wooden reading of the script!
: cheers,
: Inby

I just have to comment on this. Your remark about outsiders' generalizing about individual interpretations of another's faith being dangerous really cracked me up! What do you think the history of anthropology has been? How about outsiders, with no understanding of the particular culture being observed, interpreting this culture through their own cultural conditioning. Afterall, it is fantasy to think one can remove oneself completely from cultural conditioning. No one is raised in a vacuum, and if they were, this would be their conditioning. I love anthropology, but have never felt it was a true science. I see it more as a way of understanding, much the same way as religion. A way to make sense out of chaos. And quite entertaining in its own way. Regards, Fedora

Follow Ups:

true, true, Inby 20:23:13 1/25/2001 (2)
- Well, not to disagree, but... Michaelson 16:00:45 1/26/2001 (1)
  - I did not misspell "knowldege", I have dyslexic fingers (grins) (nm) Michaelson 16:04:06 1/26/2001 (0)
Well, my final thought for the day... Michaelson 19:52:09 1/25/2001 (1)
- Re: Well, my final thought for the day... Inby 20:09:26 1/25/2001 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : In the absence of open proclamations from characters (cf Henry Sr.'s remark about "blasphemy"), it's problematic ascribing religious views to them.  All possibilities exist, eg, Sallah may have been a follower of the Gnostic gospels (not uncommon in Cairo); he may have been a practicing Sikh, Buddhist, or Appalachian evangelical snake-handler (unlikely, but would explain his knowledge of asps...).
: : He may have been a superstitious agnostic, for that matter.
: : As an anthropologist, I feel duty (ha! he said "Doody"!) bound to pontificate about the dangers in ousiders' generalizing about individual interpretations of another's faith, regardless of one's scholarship in the matter.  Yikes, what a sentence.  And, I would add, ascribing characterizations to religions based on viewings of emotionally-charged public displays via the television news seems counter to the tolerance of cultural complexity and diversity displayed by Indy.  This isn't meant to discourage initial stages of debate on the matter, just to underscore the real-life complexities and implications of discussing even these fictional portrayals.
: : That's not to say that nazis don't suck, by the way.
: : If anyone's interested, check out the more encylopaedic works of departed University of Chicago (yeah, THAT one) historian of religions Mircea Eliade, particularly his "digest" and multi-volume "handbook" on world religions (sorry, forgot the title).
: : It rocks.
: : Death is a great subject for anthropological investigation, by the way; but perhaps all of this discussion only, ultimately, reflects John Rhys-Davies' momentary wooden reading of the script!
: : cheers,
: : Inby

: 
:     I just have to comment on this. Your remark about outsiders' generalizing about individual interpretations of another's faith being dangerous really cracked me up! What do you think the history of anthropology has been? How about outsiders, with no understanding of the particular culture being observed, interpreting this culture through their own cultural conditioning. Afterall, it is fantasy to think one can remove oneself completely from cultural conditioning. No one is raised in a vacuum, and if they were, this would be their conditioning. I love anthropology, but have never felt it was a true science. I see it more as a way of understanding, much the same way as religion. A way to make sense out of chaos. And quite entertaining in its own way.  Regards, Fedora

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]