[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion Orion 1. Cognitive dissonance, 2. "The Essene Shore"
[The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
[Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
Good morning, Sigrid, Fred, and all,
I am behind in my correspondence and have obligations elsewhere now.
Several proposals have been made that may be worth further discussion, in
my opinion. But, for now, if I may, merely two brief notes:
1) Having been reprimanded for writing "cognitive dissonance," I visited my
friendly local reference librarian, who handed me a book, Thesaurus of
Psychological Index Terms, eighth edition, 1997, copyright by American
Psychological Association. It includes a definition for the term (evidently
not "shelved" yet) and lists 1086 usages of it on its index. "Psychological
conflict resulting from incongrouous beliefs or attitudes held
simultaneously, or from inconsistency between belief and behavior."
Definitions cited by Dr. Peterson also used terms such as "beliefs or
assumptions." Some orion readers may recall attacks on "beliefs or
assumptions." I am content to leave it at that and let readers decide for
themselves whether my usage--"folk" terminology or not--was apt, in the
context. In any case, I assume it is not the most important question before
orion currently. Translating Pliny; reading the ostracon; and interpreting
the archaeology of Ein Gedi are among the matters of importance, I think.
Chronic declarations of the "death" of the "Essene hypothesis" may be
rather less useful.
2) Fred Cryer (quoted below) expressed agreement with Sigrid Peterson "that
the term 'Essene' seems inappropriate to the DSS discussion." Forgive me,
but, whatever Sigrid may wish to write in the future, her last two posts, I
offer in suggestion, do not say quite what Fred's paraphrase does.
For Sigrid Peterson's two post with this heading, please see the previous
Fred Cryer wrote:
>Sigrid Peterson correctly noted that I did not use the term "cognitive
>dissonance" in my original contribution. Having translated a book based on
>Festingerīs famous (and long falsified) study back in 1983 from Swedish to
>English, I knew the concept and would not have considered it in this place.
>In any case, the term "cog. diss." has nothing to do with the failure to
>abandon a previously-held *theory* if its underpinnings become falsified.
>Even when current, it was not an epistemological tool.
>I also quite agree with SP that the term "Essene" seems inappropriate to
>the DSS discussion.