in this ridiculous doc....all I am interested in are the people in the waters
turn off the volume! turn off the insipid caucasian voice droning on incoherently. all we need to know is that the people at the start of the doc, in the river were there for spiritual purpose...though even that as reported by her does not have to be accurate representation of what they were doing in the water.
yet we do know about Hindu and a sense of what their ancestral waters mean to them..river water anywhere they find themselves seems. what is the spirit the people feel in the waters ::confused::
we quantify that as religious. the people themselves put all kinds of fantastic gods to to it, create huge doctrinal bases and organized behavior and reverence, worship to it ...but what was the original sense, connection that humans did not have words at the time of origin to describe?
that is what I would like to know, to do..to strip off all the intervening development or words,language and material conditions and get back to that very early time. words/language are inadequate anyway to describe accurately any reality. they help but always come up short. whats more we have limited language by codification and social class stratification so that language no longer grows freely in effort to capture reality, to convey meaning effectively.
only from the 'lower' ends do language bubble anymore, doing an excellent job in the hands and mouths of ordinary folk going about their business of survival 24/7. and when any codification of this bubble struggles out of the social trenches by the hand of some courageous rebel of the streets we call it lower end stuff, in preference for Dickens, Clemens, Pound, Baldwin and Naipaul and James etc..the CLASSICS
but those people in the waters..what would they be feeling 15 thousand years ago..the connection stripped of the current religious doctrinal crap.... ::confused::
that is what I would like to know! maybe would get a real sens of the spirit they had in mind, free of 15 thousand years of kant/cant. maybe then we would know.
{cant/Kant: hypocritical and sanctimonious talk, typically of a moral, religious, or political nature.}
turn off the volume! turn off the insipid caucasian voice droning on incoherently. all we need to know is that the people at the start of the doc, in the river were there for spiritual purpose...though even that as reported by her does not have to be accurate representation of what they were doing in the water.
yet we do know about Hindu and a sense of what their ancestral waters mean to them..river water anywhere they find themselves seems. what is the spirit the people feel in the waters ::confused::
we quantify that as religious. the people themselves put all kinds of fantastic gods to to it, create huge doctrinal bases and organized behavior and reverence, worship to it ...but what was the original sense, connection that humans did not have words at the time of origin to describe?
that is what I would like to know, to do..to strip off all the intervening development or words,language and material conditions and get back to that very early time. words/language are inadequate anyway to describe accurately any reality. they help but always come up short. whats more we have limited language by codification and social class stratification so that language no longer grows freely in effort to capture reality, to convey meaning effectively.
only from the 'lower' ends do language bubble anymore, doing an excellent job in the hands and mouths of ordinary folk going about their business of survival 24/7. and when any codification of this bubble struggles out of the social trenches by the hand of some courageous rebel of the streets we call it lower end stuff, in preference for Dickens, Clemens, Pound, Baldwin and Naipaul and James etc..the CLASSICS
but those people in the waters..what would they be feeling 15 thousand years ago..the connection stripped of the current religious doctrinal crap.... ::confused::
that is what I would like to know! maybe would get a real sens of the spirit they had in mind, free of 15 thousand years of kant/cant. maybe then we would know.
{cant/Kant: hypocritical and sanctimonious talk, typically of a moral, religious, or political nature.}
>