Contents | Previous | Next
Date: 22 Aug 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Subject: Re: What Ifa says
Message-ID: <20000822143126.01991.00000175@ng-cj1.aol.com>
References:
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.orisha
X-Admin: news@aol.com
Subject: Re: What Ifa says
>From: Eoghan Ballard eballard@sas.upenn.edu
>Date: 8/22/00 12:35 PM EST
>Message-id:
>
>In article <20000822104908.07887.00000562@ng-ce1.aol.com>,
>
>> As I said early on in this discussion, your target has about it the feel
>> of
>> straw.
>
>The response has more of that fiber than my point. However, tit for tat
>is poiontless and it's clear that's where you're going. good day.
>
What I was suggesting, Eoghan, is that if the grand point *you* have been
trying to make is that *I* have no regard for historical forces and how those
affect religion and religious discourse, then you are taking aim at a
straw-man. You are arguing against a position that nobody took. Of *course*
time brings with it change. But all change is not created equal. Inner
substance and outer form are on two different planes entirely if you want to
talk about change. So, show me where the Ifa corpus has changed, and show me
where iwa pele is a post-colonial invention, and I'll sit up and take notice.
I speak plainly. I wish you would do the same. Otherwise, a good day to you
too, and let's move on.
>Eoghan
Peace,
Grisso
--------------4E4ABEB3A14F2B76D67C38BA--
Contents | Previous | Next
Tips for your pocket: