Well, my final thought for the day...

Posted by Michaelson from leospace047.utsi.edu on January 25, 2001 at 19:52:09:

In Reply to: Re: "Superstitious", per Fall Guy & Michaelson, is probably right on the money posted by Fedora on January 25, 2001 at 18:08:19:

: : 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

I'll have to say that this has been one of the most thoughtful discussions of a question I've read here in a long long time. Thanks for tossing this one out, Indiana Dog. I've read some really interesting, thought provoking responses on this one. Food for thought. Thanks all! I've enjoyed this one. Regards. Michaelson

Follow Ups:

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

:  I'll have to say that this has been one of the most thoughtful discussions of a question I've read here in a long long time. Thanks for tossing this one out, Indiana Dog. I've read some really interesting, thought provoking responses on this one. Food for thought. Thanks all! I've enjoyed this one.  Regards. Michaelson

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

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