> >> While there are successful cross-cultural dramatic forms, I have
> >> yet to encounter a successful cross-cultural belief.
> >>
> >Don't we define cultures largely on the basis of differences
> >in beliefs?
>
> Do we? No, I don't think so. Language, social forms, rituals, types of
>
> warfare, laws, yes- beliefs are largely ancillary, slippery, and
> mostly
> created by the priest class, and/or used by the merchantile class.
>
Umm, I can see a reason to distinguish beliefs from all these
other things, but I doubt that it's the same reason as your's.
To me, all these make up one coherent causal network, with
beliefs to some extent determining language, social forms,
rituals, etc, except for the Buddhist/memetic perspective in
which an individual is in thrall to memes that they really
"believe in", and not to those that they merely use to further
their (the individual's) own ends. (Where "my" ends can be
shared, to the extent that they're pro-social, so "my own ends"
are not necessarily selfish.)
> >> This is why I
> >> consider the dramatic a true form, and religion a false one.
> >>
> >What is a "form", and why are some true and others false?
>
> A form of communication. A design of language, action, and thought.
>
Ah, you mean a meme-complex! But I still don't know why
some are true and others false. Unless it's because you
think that religions depend on people really believing, in
which case you'd be wrong in the case of Buddhism, but
right in my eyes to a significant extent about most/all of
the others! (Well, of the modern religions, anyway, but
let's not get into that one right now.)
Robin
(up at 4am due to indigestion -- my own fault, due to
munching too many biscuits (cookies) on top of the
Xmas family meal while watching an old film on TV
(The Philadelphia Story, Cary Grant, Kathleen
Hepburn, Jimmy Stewart -- brilliant, even though the
conflict is resolved along class lines!))