Even after reading Martin Ball’s response to Keith Basso’s philosophical speculations I must say that I still agree with Basso’s ideas. Those being that what a “sacred place” is, is relative to the viewer, meaning “places express only what their animators allow them to say”. I base this solely in the fact that all different cultures consider different places sacred for different reasons, reasons that are determined by the area in which the culture occupies. For example the Japanese consider Mt. Fuji to be sacred when no other cultures do, and if the sacred place is inherently sacred then why don’t more believe it to be. I think what is sacred is all relative to the person, in that, ones landscape (where they have grown up and live) is considered to be sacred as they possess a connection with it, through ancestry or memories of the past.
David Eiserman Dec, 7, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment