Hugh made this point as well.
Next, Glenn purports to find a contradiction in Hugh's statements about
primitive art. Suffice to say, Glenn has muddled things here (selective
quoting will do that).
Read in context, Hugh says: (1) art expression CAN be seen in non-humans
(e.g., birds). He is NOT saying anything contradictory to his view about
spiritual art.
(2) Hugh refers to the debate among anthropologists over the meaning of
"shaman art", a debate which does exist. This is a debate over a PARTICULAR,
and RECENT, form of art. Oldest possible date for this art is less than 40,000
years, so once again it does not contradict Hugh's view. That is quite evident
from the portion Glenn himself posted:
"In the case of the cave drawings and pottery fragments, the
degree of abstractness suggests the expression of something more
than just intelligence. Certainly no animals species other than
human beings has ever exhibited the capacity for such
sophisticated expression."
Hugh is clearly talking about the abstract and complex art that is less than
40,000 years old here. No contradiction.
Next, Glenn says:
<<Besides this, I have never read of any anthropologists arguing over man's
"spiritual characteristics". In fact I have never even seen "spiritual
characteristics" in the index of any anthro book.>>
I guess we should decide these matters on what Glenn has not read (???).
Interesting criterion. But just to help out, I've listed a few titles Glenn
might stick a nose in:
Eliade, Mircea, Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy, trans. by Willard
Trask, rev. ed. (1964; repr. 1989).
Taussig, M., Shamanism, Colonialism, and the Wild Man (1987).
Walsh, R. N., Spirit of Shamanism (1990).
Cambpell, Jospeh, The Masks of God: Primitive Mythology (1976)
Frazer, James, The Golden Bough.
Harner, Michael J., The Way of the Shaman (1980)
Levy-Bruh, Lucien, The Soul of the Primitive (Regnery ed. 1966)
Jim--who will be out of town for several days, so don't let the "sudden
silence" throw you! And no popping of champagne bottles, okay?