On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 20:43:10 +0100, ginny wilken
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I really don't see what you're getting at here. No amount of dictionary
>stuff can tell you more than what a term is used to mean to those who speak
>that language.

I was just saying that even that is filtered through the personal
viewpoint of
the dictionary writer.   Thus, a claim that something is a widespread
myth,
cannot be disproved using a dictionary, because it is written by
people who are
subject to the same myth.  (This is - not surprisingly - parallel to
the other
thread I was posting in today.)

> As for "widespread
>myths", this is often what a person or group likes to label the other guys'
>religion. I'm sure you didn't mean to "explain away" paganism, naturism,
>Shinto, Vedaism, etc. that way, did you?

What is "Vedaism"?  (there is a typo there, but I am not sure what it
is the
original word).

> And those
>"necessary social functions" are among the most effective aspects of
>religion. Some might even see such organization as the reason for a
>religion, a set of rules for a manageable society.

There are many social benefits and structures surrounding the eating
of food.

However, the purpose and meaning of food does not derive from the
social aspects
of eating.

What I am trying to combat, in this thread, is the notion, promulgated
by
materialists, that the purpose and meaning of basic needs, like food
and
religion, derive from the social structures surrounding them.

If there was only one person left on the planet after some
catastrophe, they
would still have need for food and religion.


--
Cheers,

Ken
[log in to unmask]