Comment by fsckboy
20 hours ago
it is your critique that does not make sense. I was not applying any hierarchy or subsetting whatsoever. Inseparable unity would be closer to the point.
I was making the point that the cave painters believed everything including rocks and trees were deeply invested with spiritual power, and they didn't draw a cave painting without investing it with spiritual ideas. Even if one of their goals was to capture an accurate image of some animals, and indicate when in the lunar or solar cycle they were expected to calve, when they went hunting for one a part of the goal would be cut out its heart and eat it raw because of the power contained within, and give thanks to the great mother. Inseparable.
even though I am not spiritual at all, I find your worldview too barren to explain human endeavor.
I still don't know what your comment has to do with the article at hand. If you want to branch the conversation to animism and spirituality, I guess that's fine (although rather far-fetched and arguably off-topic) but you should probably do it in a way that actually offers some insight.
i was replying to someone else's comment, their comment was to the article. I was not replying to the article.
> I was making the point that the cave painters believed everything including rocks and trees were deeply invested with spiritual power, and they didn't draw a cave painting without investing it with spiritual ideas.
Nonsense. We don’t know what prehistoric cave painters believed.
> when they went hunting for one a part of the goal would be cut out its heart and eat it raw because of the power contained within
Do you have a pointer to the cave paintings that show hunting animals at certain times in the lunar cycles and eating their hearts raw to harvest this power? Because this sounds made up.
Also this says nothing about art.
>Nonsense. We don’t know what prehistoric cave painters believed.
you need to study a bit more history, psychology, anthropology, etc., you have absolutely no reason to believe they thought anything different than we do today and what today's hunter gatherers believe. the evidence is on my side. If you have counter evidence, offer it.
>Also this says nothing about art.
I said something about art, whereas till I said it, art was void in the conversation which I think is a glaring mistake which is why I said it. If you have something to say about art, say it, otherwise you don't have a dog in this fight.
> you have absolutely no reason to believe they thought anything different than we do today
People don’t believe this today. What are you talking about? Do you think most people today are hunting animals to eat their raw hearts to gain their power at certain times of the month?
> If you have counter evidence, offer it.
I’m not the one claiming deep insight into the beliefs of prehistoric peoples. Burden of proof is on you.
> I said something about art
You really didn’t. You said nothing meaningful about art except to substitute it for the word picture. And then the rest of your replies have also had nothing to do with art.