Thunderbolts Forum
Re: Cautionary Note <#p3385>
New post
<./viewtopic.php?p=3385&sid=93624bb41acee90faf3ff8e246a47a32#p3385>by
*David Talbott
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=58&sid=93624bb41acee90faf3ff8e246a47a32>*
on Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:19 am
A couple of preliminary notes in response to the original post by Grey
Cloud:
Archetypes. Always, when I use the term (as in these pages under
construction) I’m speaking of worldwide patterns of myth and symbol,
illuminated by their first historic expressions. The reconstruction
implies that these concrete themes arose from extraordinary natural
events. Our ancestors did not live beneath the sky we observe today.
Whether certain of the archetypes persist in a “collective unconscious”
is a worthy question to ask, but not our immediate concern. The
immediate concern is to clarify the claims of the reconstruction by
providing stylized images of things seen in the sky, then pointing
readers to the archetypes they inspired, so that the model can be
evaluated efficiently. Evaluation will then be possible by asking two
questions:
1) Does any pattern of natural experience today predict an ancient
archetype? (OR: If the archetypes reflect events that are still
occurring today, see if you can name one. )
2. Does the reconstruction predict both the archetypes and their
underlying relationships? (OR: name an archetype that would not be
expected if the claimed events actually occurred.)
Generalizations. If the model is anywhere close to accurate, then
sweeping generalizations may be quite necessary to provide the broadest
target for critics. But the greatest advantage will come from hundreds
(eventually thousands) of unique details. Here, the specific predictions
of the model are beyond dispute and can be followed in every logical
direction, from one culture to another. At this level, if the model is
fundamentally incorrect it will fail “catastrophically” :) But until one
sees why this is so, we have to avoid wasting time arguing excessively
at the level of first impressions. Here, the model will always fail,
because its every nuance will contradict things people assume they know.
My point has been that the fastest path will be right through the “phase
of dismay,” where everything appears to be overstated and unsupported,
requiring not just selective perception but relentless "shoe-horning" of
every tradition into the demands of a model. This is the nature of the
beast. Any brief summary of the hypothesis will not only strain
credulity, but invite a storm of objections. Better to get through that
phase as soon as possible and into the concrete claims of the
reconstruction, which is where (quoting myself here) “the prism turns.”
Rather than spend a couple of lifetimes producing the definitive
encyclopedia of the “Saturn Hypothesis,” the goal is to recreate the
ancient experience visually, with key pointers to the predicted
archetypes. We can then invite all interested parties to point out to us
where the claimed predictive power of the model fails. To get a decent
start will require at least a few weeks, perhaps a few months, but not
lifetimes. And if the process works efficiently for us, the required
encyclopedia will be written through the collaborate efforts of
well-read generalists, comparative mythologists, and specialists in the
different cultures.
Though other issues have been raised by Grey Cloud, and all deserve to
be addressed, I’ll leave it here for now, and will return in a few days.
The value of the Devil’s Advocate will be that he can give voice to what
many readers must be thinking as they enter the "phase of dismay."
Let’s see if this is, as I’ve suggested, an advantage.
David Talbott
David Talbott
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: The Crowns of Sages and Warrior-Kings <#p3391>
New post
*Plasmatic
on Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:47 am
GC , do you know what the comparative method is? Are you aware that
these themes presented here , are a result of the comparative analysis
of cross cultural myths ?For the answers to all these questions . and
the ones about Mars and Apollo , look up the comparative method ,and
read Martian Metamorphosis , and Starf+cker, by Ev Cochrane.
This should help you get started:
:NOTES ON THE COMPARATIVE METHOD
By Ev Cochrane
The science of mythology, as I've come to practice it, has three primary
components, each entirely dependent upon the comparative method: (1) the
demonstration of parallels between the myths and mythical characters of
different cultures; (2) the identification of various mythical
characters with the respective planetary bodies (or in some cases, as in
that of the Babylonian Sin, with some property of this or that planet);
and (3) a reconstruction of the celestial scenario behind the respective
myths-specifically, an analysis of the unique behavior or visual
phenomena associated with the planets which gave rise to the particular
myths/characters in question.
Although each of the three components should be considered necessary
steps in a comprehensive analysis of myth, it is also true that each of
the various stages of analysis may stand on their own. For example, our
documentation of the numerous parallels which exist between Heracles,
Nergal, and Indra remains valid whether or not one accepts our
identification of these particular figures with the planet Mars.
Similarly, even if one grants the possibility that Heracles and Indra
are mythical twins, each modeled upon the planet Mars, it is always
possible that some other explanation besides that of the polar
configuration can be found to explain the red planet's peculiar mythical
prominence (that of Velikovsky or de Santillana and von Dechend, for
example).
Although a satisfactory analysis of a particular myth necessarily
involves completion of each of these three steps, in actual practice-as
in psychoanalysis-one rarely achieves a complete or perfect analysis.
As with all historical reconstructions, there are always pieces of the
puzzle which remain elusive. There are several reasons for this
situation, including the fragmentary nature of the myths themselves; the
intrusion of foreign elements into a cult resulting in a modification or
confusion of the original myth; problems caused by the faulty
transmission and/or translation of a particular myth; gaps in our
knowledge regarding the chronology of the events surrounding the
formation, evolution, and eventual dissolution of the polar
configuration, etc. "
Read the rest here:
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThotII11.txt
Also go here and read the pdfs:
http://www.maverickscience.com/mars.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Cautionary Note <#p3425>
New post
*Grey Cloud
on Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:51 am
Plasmatic, you will no doubt be pleased to know that I have taken your
advice on board and read some (not yet all) of the stuff from the links
you provided. You will probably be not quite so pleased with what I
found, or more corectly, didn't find.
I read the stuff on the actual website and have downloaded the pdf articles.
The pdf I read last night was 'The Death of Heracles'. I'm not going to
go into a detailed critique of this article, I'll just mentioned a few
things that cropped up, mostly with regard to his souces and references.
On page 8 he states:
"Of decisive importance for the interpretation of Melikertes'
"boiling" is a famous
cista from Praeneste, in which the Latin god Mars is depicted as an
infant emerging from a vat of boiling water. This scene, which dates
to the fourth century BCE and has close parallels in Etruscan
mirrors of the third century BCE, ..."
His reference for this is an article "The Origin of the Ludi
Saeculares," in Studies in Roman
Literature, Culture and Religion. Fair enough but ludi saecularis means
secular games so doesn't appear to have any great significance to myth
and a cista is a 'small box or basket which may contain anything'
(http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... Cista.html
).
Again this hardly seems particularly great. There appear to be lots of
cista(e?) from Praeneste and I could not find anything (via Google)
about 'a famous' one. Perhaps you can come up with one?
On page 9:
"For example, how are we to interpret the curious scene in which the
hitherto impervious body of the Greek strongman becomes deformed and
wastes away under the influence of the hydra's poison?"
The body of Herakles was never impervious to anything. The skin of the
Nemean Lion which he wore was impervious to anything manmade.
Page 10:
" Note the apparent relationship between Mars and the Latin word
marceo, signifying "to wither, shrink, shrivel, droop."
I'm not a latin scholar so I am prepared to be corrected on this but I
came up with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_%28god%29
"As the word Mars has no Indo-European derivation, it is most likely the
Latinised form of the agricultural Etruscan god Maris".
For the record, I don't consider Wikipedia to be the definitive source
for anything, just a useful jumping off place for stuff I am unfamiliar
with or need a quick refresh on. Again, if you, or any latin speakers
out there, can come up with something better, please do.
P12:
"The same celestial scenario will also resolve a long-standing
mystery surrounding the mythus of Heracles; namely, his appearance
as a Dactyl-like dwarf.This tradition—so difficult to reconcile with
the gigantic form elsewhere attributed to the
Greek strongman—inspired Diodorus, among others, to distinguish
between the Daktyl Heracles and the son of Zeus/Alcmene".
Herakles wasn't 'gigantic' - he was just a big muscular man. I don't
claim any particular expertise regarding Herakles but this dwarf thing
was a new one on me as was the term Daktyl. So a quick search and:
"Daktyl (Dactyl)
From the Greek word “dactylos” meaning Finger; in poetic meter it is
expressed as a brief series of one long and two short syllables thus:
long-short-short". That from:
http://www.mythagora.com/encyctxt/subtextd/daktyl2.html
Diodurus Siculus wrote:
"And writers tell us that one of them [the Daktyloi] was named Herakles,
and excelling as he did in fame, he established the Olympic Games, and
that the men of a later period thought, because the name was the same,
that it was the son of Alkmene [the Herakles of the Twelve Labours] who
had founded the institution of the Olympic Games. And evidences of this,
they tell us, are found in the fact that many women even to this day
take their incantations from this god and make amulets in his name, on
the ground that he was a wizard and practised the arts of initiatory
rites; but they add that these things were indeed very far removed from
the habits of the Herakles who was born of Alkmene."
Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 5. 64. 3 (trans. Oldfather) (Greek
historian C1st B.C.)from:
http://www.theoi.com/Georgikos/Kouretes.html
The above link offers a pretty comprehensive account of the daktyloi and
the usual comprehensive list of sources, none of which appear to
associate them with Herakles.
Cochrane continues:
"However, the truth is that Heracles' status as a Daktyl is
well-attested in Greek cult. It was in this [Dacktyl] form that the
hero founded the Olympic games".
In support of this he references the very same Diodorus who he has just
deemed to be mistaken!
"Heracles as Daktyl is elsewhere found in close association with the
cult of the mother goddess. In Mykalessos, for example, Heracles
served as the doorkeeper to Demeter".
To support this he references Pausanius IX:19:5. Here is the full text:
"[9.19.5] On the way to the coast of Mycalessus is a sanctuary of
Mycalessian Demeter. They say that each night it is shut up and opened
again by Heracles, and that Heracles is one of what are called the
Idaean Dactyls. Here is shown the following marvel. Before the feet of
the image they place all the fruits of autumn, and these remain fresh
throughout all the year".
From:
http://www.theoi.com/Text/Pausanias9A.html
'Idean' means of Mt. Ida. Pausanius was a travel writer fronm the C2nd
CE (half a millenium after classical Greece and even further away from
the origin of the Herakles myth). I don't quite see the relevance of a
'cult' in a Boetian village to anything in particular.
There was more of this but I gave up noting it and just finished reading
the article. I did notice that he was referencing a book by Jung and
Kerenyi.
My question from a previous post still stands: Can you or anyone point
me to an ancient reference which mentions this stationary Saturn at the
North Pole or to Saturn as the 'Sun'?
It is a genuine question if only because if there is one I would like to
know how I missed it.
Which brings me to my next point. You, Plasmatic, have asked whether I
understand the menaing of comparative mythology and also what I have
actually read. I will answer the second and you answer the first.
I have read:
The Torah, OT, NT and Quran, various books of the Apophryca, most of the
Nag Hammadi Library, virtually all of the Qumran/Dead Sea scrolls stuff,
various writings by early church fathers, etc.
Various Hindu texts and wrings, various Buddhist texts and wrings, the I
Ching (a personal favourite).
Various Egyptian texts.
The Popul Vuh and the book of Chilam Balam.
Everything by the pre-Socratics I can find, Pythagorean writings, Plato,
Neo-Platonic writings (Iamblichus, Proclus et al).
Various Hermetic texts including the those by Hermes Trismegistus.
Various Alchemic works, Flamel, Valentine, Pernety, Fulcanelli, Dubuis etc.
Some Qabalistic writings.
The Kalevala.
The Iliad and the Odyssey by Homer, Virgil's Aenid, the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Huna and Toltec writings.
Various collections of mythologies, plus Greek, Roman, Nordic,
Babylonian/Sumerian, etc, myths.
I have read history for over forty years.
Hancock, Cruttenden, Bauval, John Anthony West, etc.
I have also listened to a lot of audio lectures, mostly from the
Teaching Company.
I watched countless documentaries and DVDs.
And yourself?
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
I Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
*Posts:* 203
*Joined:* Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
*Location:* NW UK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Cautionary Note <#p3426>
New post
*Grey Cloud
on Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:14 am
Re Cochrane, I did start reading Dragon.pdf but gave up after this on
page 2:
"This opinion is readily confirmed by numerous passages in the Old
Testament
which allude to Yahweh’s primeval conquest of the dragon, the latter
appearing under one of
several different names: Yam, Rahab, Tehom, and Leviathan".
Here we are referred to Job 9:8 and a slew of psalms. Here's the Job
passage:
"Who alone (A)stretches out the heavens
And (B)tramples down the waves of the sea".
That's from:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... version=49
or,
"8 Who alone stretcheth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of
the sea".
From:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et2709.htm (this is the Hebrew Bible in
English - the closest I can get to the original as I don't speak Hebrew)
Both instances are the complete text. You can check out the psalms
yourself (74; 89; 104; 65; and 93). You wont find much.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
I Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
*Posts:* 203
*Joined:* Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
*Location:* NW UK
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Cautionary Note <#p3446>
New post
*davesmith_au
on Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:49 am
Giday again Grey Cloud. A simple observation or two may help keep the
ball rolling in the right direction, I think.
You are obviously very well-read on Mythology and have a scholarly
approach, which is to be admired. I view your enquiries as those of a
genuine inquisitive nature about the model being discussed here and
expect there to be many points of apparent disagreement with what you
have learned in your many years of study. In the light of this, one
thing I would offer about the Saturn Myth and Talbott's Comparative
Mythology is that in the grand scheme of things, we are looking here at
a completely new approach to mythology which has NEVER been taken
before. So there are bound to be areas where not only a cursory glance
but even a deeper look at this hypothesis, at first, will raise more
than an eyebrow from time to time, and elicit many more questions than
answers. In fact the nature of your questions thus far indicates a
thoughtful and honest approach to this new material.
I would ask however, that you (and anyone else reading this) keep in
mind this is something totally new, and as you know from your many
studies it is not a topic which can be covered with a quick "mythology
101" class. So all I ask is a little patience and I'm sure if you can
for the initial moment suspend your 'beliefs' and just look at what
Talbott et al are saying long enough to get the gist of it, things will
begin to 'gel' in time. I'm not saying for a minute you should 'believe'
what they're saying is right, just that you consider the possibility of
there being a broader story than what's already been covered for long
enough to assess this model in the appropriate light.
The idea for example that Saturn may have once been stationed both close
to Earth and over it's North pole is so foreign, and difficult under
current understandings of solar-system physics to comprehend, that it
sounds quite absurd to most. However a forensic study of the earliest
evidence available shows unequivocally that that was indeed the case.
One can't expect someone new to this to accept it on faith alone, which
is why this forum has been introduced, to begin to display the model for
all to see and criticize. The point Dave Talbott and others have made
about this hypothesis is that once understood, if incorrect it will be
plainly shown. I ask that we just allow various points to be aired as
Talbott has the time, and once we begin to get the whole picture then
apply some vigorous testing to see if indeed it holds water.
Please view this post as being offered in genuine respect of your
position without condescention expressed or implied.
Cheers, Dave Smith.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Cautionary Note <#p3449>
New post
*Plasmatic
on Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:49 am
Well said Dave S. I agree that you have shown that[Grey Cloud] you are
prepared to review the facts based on actual points of departure etc.
This is respectable , and I can tell you , having come from the same
background of literature you have that it will actually be the thing
that AIDS your ability to see the more exellent interpretation in Dave T
model. I wasnt trying to ask you what youve read in general . I was
asking as to what youve read on this model of Daves. It seems best to
hold until you get a footing on the data, which Dave hasnt barley even
displayed as of yet visually. The precessional paraidgm is one I would
love to compare and contrast with you , in relation to the Polar theory.
It seems best to wait a bit untill Its presented fully here. I promise
youll have more questions than I have time to answer untill that time is
come.
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am ,
therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
Plasmatic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: The Crowns of Sages and Warrior-Kings <#p3450>
New post
*David Talbott
on Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:51 am
I'll take just a few moments to address a couple of issues raised by
Grey Cloud, then address the more fundamental issue of discussion
protocol in a separate post later today or tomorrow. By the luck of the
draw, personal travel combined with a precarious Forum support system at
the moment (very short term, I promise), have made it difficult to stay
current with discussion.
Grey Cloud wrote:1. Apollo is Roman not Greek. This is not pedantry
but as I have mentioned in another post it is important to get as
close to the original as possible. The helps to eliminate later
embellishments to the story/tale. The Roman versions of the gods
were similar but not identical to the Greek counterparts.
Apollo happens to be one of the few instances where in casual discourse
I'm comfortable using the familiar Latin name for the Greek god. That
the Romans added at least something to the iconography of the Greek
Apollon is certainly likely, even if we'll never know exactly how much,
considering all of the Greek material that was lost.
Grey Cloud wrote:2. It is not just ' popular modern day myths' which
identify Apollo(n) with the Sun, the Greeks and Romans did too.
But again, there's a problem. It's undeniable that an association
developed between Apollo and the Sun, but also undeniable that it makes
no sense--except in terms of the syncretism that typified the evolution
of mythology around the world. Archaic gods, whose every attribute spoke
for an unfamiliar world, were progressively assimilated to familiar
natural references, the most prominent of these being the Sun.
The best and most thorough classical studies, such as those by W. H.
Roscher and A.B. Cook, make clear that the root story and attributes of
Apollo are not those of the Sun. Like the warrior god of so many
nations, Apollo was the active servant or voice of a universal sovereign
(what I've called the "the primeval sun"), who went by another name (for
the Greeks, first Kronos, then Zeus) . To complicate things further, the
archaic "sun" is not our Sun either. So there's no escaping the need to
look deeper. To speed discussion along, therefore, I'm urging everyone
to always think in terms of a radical model's inescapable implications
("predictions). The fastest path will be to clearly identify what you
would expect to find if the reconstructed forms and events to be
discussed here did in fact occur. Nothing will add up until this clarity
leads the way. But you will not get the answers from popular citations.
The answers will come from the more penetrating studies, where the best
experts themselves wrestled with anomalies--story elements that
introduced deep contradictions. These are, of course, the very things
that will disappear from popular discourses on myth. But they are also
the very things one would expect if the sky has changed radically since
the myth-making epoch.
Grey Cloud wrote:3. 'The cult of Apollo is already acknowledged to
be a precise counterpart to the cult of the Latin Mars'. By whom and
how so? The Greek Apollon pre-dates the founding of Rome. I would
like a reference which equates Apollo with Mars or Apollon with Ares.
See: W.H. Roscher, Studien zur vergleichenden Mythologie der Griechen
und Römer I: Apollo und Mars (Leipzig, 1873) 82ff.; Ausführliches
Lexikon der gr. und röm. Mythologie (Leipzig, 1884-1937) I.440f.
Seventy years after publication of this work, Roscher (editor of the
massive and immensely respected Lexicon, the Ausführliches Lexikon der
griechischen und römischen Mythologie, would have to be listed amongst
the top five classical scholars the world ever produced. The cult of
Mars and the cult of Apollo were virtually indistinguishable, according
to Roscher.
Grey Cloud wrote:4. I may be wrong on this one but 'Aegeius' looks
latin rather than Greek (it is preceded by 'Apollo). If you check out:
http://www.theoi.com/Cult/ApollonTitles.html
you will find a pretty comprehensive list of Apollons titles and
epithets but you will not find one relating to an axle.
As noted by A.B. Cook, the term aegeius was an epithet of both Apollo
and Mount Olympus. This is exactly what we should expect from the
globally-reconstructed identity of the warrior-hero. This archetypal
figure is the axle of the cosmic wheel (under innumerable names and
interpretations); and he is the cosmic mountain, arising as the first
external form of the god, and serving as both the god's lower limbs and
visible axis of the sky.
Grey Cloud wrote:With regard to the image which appears under '...
to which we might add the Roman version (Mithras)' - this is not
Mithras. It is Apollo (or possibly Sol Invictus. For Mithras images see:
http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=mithras&gbv=2
The image your image is from is 3rd row down, 3rd from left. Or the
11th image. Note the serpent at the bottom of the scene and the twin
serpents on the caduceus.
(The academics call this a banquet but one cone of chips between 5
people isn't exactly my idea of a slap-up meal).
In the Mithraic cults of Rome, while differentiation between Apollo and
Mithras is obvious (it could not have been otherwise), the two
characters are inseparable, as dozens of scholars have noted. Mithras
wearing his famous cap is not separate from Mithras whose head is
surrounded by the radiate crown (less common, for reasons I shall
emphasize in the discussion of the conical crown--"The Crowns of Sages
and Warrior-Kings").
Grey Cloud wrote:The 'conjunction of Venus and Mars is quite
interesting. According to theoi.com:
http://www.theoi.com/Olympios/AresLoves.html
the earliest version we have is from Homer. If you scroll down the
page you will find the full story from the Odyssey. There is much
symbology.
You will no doubt notice that Ares/Mars and Apollon/Apollo are two
distinct actors in this scenario. There again so are Helios and Apollon.
Something to keep in mind here: the diverse use of localized language
and symbolism for the same celestial form is the heart of our argument.
In recognizing underlying identities across cultural boundaries, the
celebrants of the different mystery plays did not just lump every god
and goddess together. Even as they came to recognize mysterious
equations, the momentum of diverse cultural interpretations and
practices would not allow for rampant assimilation. But do the stories
of Ares/Mars and of Apollo speak for the same underlying identity? To
see if this is indeed the case, one must first determine if, in fact,
different mythical episodes and symbols refer to the same cosmic forms
and events. That's the purpose of the "fast track" I'd like to stay on
with minimal diversion for now, so that readers as a whole have
sufficient information to allow their own research and reasoning to
answer such questions.
David Talbott
David Talbott
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Cautionary Note <#p3453>
New post
*Grey Cloud
on Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:56 am
'ow do again Dave.
No problem with your last post, so to speak. I appreciate what you (and
DT and Plasmatic) are saying up to a point and I'm not particularly
concerned with the physics of it1. My main problem as I keep trying to
elucidate is that the various proponents of this Saturn theory have made
statements regarding the proliferation of evidence in mythology yet I
cannot get anyone to come up with an example of a myth which they
say/think supports said theory. Plasmatic keeps referring me to to
various books such as TOTG but I don't want something written in the
C21st century (or even the late C20th (in case Plasmmatic is
listening)). I just want something mythological so I can judge for
myself whether it could be construed as supporting the Saturn theory.
On the Aeon website it states that DT has been studying this since the
70s, surely he has found something? In his opening post in the Origins
of Myth thread, he states that there are
"hundreds of global patterns or points of agreement between the
different cultures--and at a level of detail and coherence that
would be inconceivable in the absence of celestial events
experienced around the world".
So I don't think that I am being unreasonable in asking for just one.
More would be nice but one will suffice. Plasmatic keeps throwing up
TOTG but even he has not come up with anything from the book. All I want
is for someone to to say 'the story of so-and-so from such-and-such
mythology'. I will do my own intrepretation or I have my own
sources/resources to help me.
1. In the sense that whatever happened in the sky will be plasma related
as opposed to say, massively massive black holes sucking stuff in and
spitting it out while gravitational lensing with one arm tied behind
their backs in a cloud of super-heated dust and gas or whatever black
holes are capable of these days.
Grey Cloud
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Cautionary Note <#p3454>
New post
*Plasmatic
on Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:33 am
Ok lets give a few examples of "archetypes " so you can see if they are
indeed global.:
"THUNDERBOLT AS ARCHETYPE
I've said it before, but the surface of world mythology is a
madhouse, and on the matter of the thunderbolt we have a
particularly telling example. It is as if the mythmakers took
special pleasure in defying all experience, including direct and
unassailable observation. The myths have no integrity. They
insult our intelligence. How could a rational, feet-on-the-ground
investigator see more than random fiction in these tales?
It is the recurring themes, the ARCHETYPES, that rescue us from
such skepticism, enabling us to distinguish the substratum of
human memory from the carnival of fragmentation and elaboration
over time. An archetype is an irreducible first form--it cannot
be reduced to a more elementary statement. And as far as can be
determined from historical investigation, it has no precedent.
Archetypes as a whole are the keys to our understanding of ancient
mythmaking imagination. In the remembered age of the gods, our
sky presented to terrestrial witnesses a stupendous display of
light, form, color, and sound, associated with concrete bodies in
the heavens, evolving through well-defined stages. Sometimes
exquisite, sometimes terrifying, these forms were, in the
imagination of the sky gazers, divine and awe-inspiring gods.
Thus the myths themselves insist that nothing comparable ever
occurred over subsequent millennia.
RULES OF INVESTIGATION"
Read more here:
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thothV04.txt
And heres another :
"POLAR CONFIGURATION AND COSMIC THUNDERBOLT
By David Talbott
To see the divine thunderbolt's true role in world mythology, the sense
of context provided by a physical model will prove crucial.
What we've called the "Saturn theory" or "Saturn model" provides a
unified reference, enabling us to interpret and account for the
extraordinary commemorative activity of ancient cultures. It offers a
coherent explanation of global patterns, and does so at a level of
extraordinary and highly specific detail. Moreover, we claim that a
fundamentally incorrect theory could never achieve this explanatory
power.
The model rests upon a verifiable substratum of human memories and
traditions. Beneath the surface of world mythology and symbolism,
certain points of agreement shine through. In fact, scholars as a whole
have never acknowledged the great volume of broadly distributed themes.
The reason for this is that the experts themselves lack the necessary
references; they cannot distinguish the underpinnings of the original
human experience from the flood of random and contradictory details
added by the various cultures as they localized, interpreted, and
elaborated aspects of the universal experience.
In fact, the most significant motifs, the ones that reflect the
archetypes most directly, are often the most likely to go unnoticed or
to be swiftly dismissed. That's because these motifs arose from
unfamiliar phenomena, events that do not occur in our time, whereas
later elaborations of the motifs sought to ADAPT them to familiar
phenomena. The archetypes, the root patterns, are neither random nor
contradictory. All archetypes belong to a coherent substructure, and
all are inseparably connected to each other. Hence, a logical and
consistent explanation must be possible, even if all prior attempts at a
unified theory immediately collapse when critically investigated.
MEMORIES OF DOOMSDAY
Of course, certain official tenets of science will obstruct the
historian's ability to recognize patterns. Over the past two centuries,
suppositions cultivated within the sciences placed rigid boundaries on
historical investigation. How many archaeologists, anthropologists, or
ethnologists, for example, have paused to notice the underlying
agreement of the first sky-worshippers on the Doomsday memory? Every
ancient culture insisted that a "world-destroying" catastrophe occurred
in former times. For the Greeks this was the KATAKLYSMOS, when the
world ended in flood and a cosmic winter, or EKPYROSIS, the destruction
of the world by fire. We call the Doomsday memory an archetype because
no culture failed to recall such an event, marked by great prodigies in
the sky and a violent shift in the celestial order. On this vital
point, Immanuel Velikovsky's presentation of global evidence still
stands.
But just consider how severely our scientific assumptions will limit the
historian's imagination, as he confronts this recurring memory. Without
a second thought, he already "knows" that the sky remained fundamentally
unchanged across all of human history. So he can only appeal to
unconstrained imagination for his explanations. And his "explanations"
will invariably discourage attention to detail and cross-cultural
patterns. In almost thirty years of investigation, for example, I never
found a mainstream scholar wondering why, on every habitable continent,
the Doomsday accounts recall a biologically absurd serpent or dragon
thrashing about in the sky. One would think that such an obvious enigma
would capture the attention of the experts! Eventually, it became clear
to me that unproven scientific assumptions, stated as fact, have
fostered an intellectual trance, closing off the possibility of
discovery.
MEMORIES OF PLANETARY DISORDER
As we descend to specifics, the observed rigidity becomes even more
severe. What about the evidence for changes in the motions of planets
only a few thousand years ago? With the birth of empirical astronomy in
the first millennium BC, every priest astronomer knew that the planets,
then seen as distant points of light, were once towering forms in the
sky. The astronomers knew that, in a remote age of gods and wonders,
the planets ruled the heavens, determining the fate of kings and
kingdoms, and indeed the destiny of the world. Planets brandished
weapons of thunder, fire, and stone. In their earliest-remembered
appearance, they inspired awe and reverence, but in the end their
behavior was both capricious and violent, leading directly to the
Doomsday catastrophe.
The testimony is indisputable in the case of the Babylonian astronomer
priest, Berossus, as cited by Seneca, and the same memory is echoed by
Lucan, citing Nigidius. Plato, in the Timaeus, noted the change in the
movements of celestial bodies in connection with world-destroying
disaster. And he ascribed the great conflagration of Phaeton's fall to
a shift in the motions of celestial bodies. More than one source reports
the transformation of Phaeton into a planet (the "Morning Star") in our
now-orderly solar system. Similarly, ancient Persian, Taoist, Chinese,
Mesoamerican and other sources, gathered by Velikovsky, declare
PLANETARY motions to be the source of the great cataclysms that
punctuated world history, causing the collapse of world ages or the
displacement of former "suns" prior to the re-birth of the world.
So it's no wonder that, even with the arrival of planetary stability and
predictable orbits, a deep anxiety hung over all of the early cultures.
We see this anxiety most vividly in the rise of astronomy and the
systematic study of planetary motions. For thousand of years after the
myth-making epoch, the astronomer-priests were still oppressed by the
primeval fear, incessantly scanning the heavens, meticulously recording
diaries of planetary motions, seeking out the signs of the one thing
they feared the most - the return of Doomsday.
But how will modern historians, under the spell of a clock-like solar
system, comprehend this Doomsday anxiety? Is it possible that ancient
testimony, by the power of its consistency, could actually CORRECT
science at a level so fundamental as to invite an intellectual
revolution? For myself, I believe that this correction is inevitable
and when it occurs, it will not reduce our interest in scientific fact,
but re-direct our attention, infusing scientific investigation with a
profound sense of discovery and new possibilities.
THE SATURN MODEL
The strongest advantage of the Saturn model is specificity. It connects
hundreds of verifiable patterns to tangible and highly unusual forms in
the sky, all vitally linked to equally tangible and unusual sequences of
events. It further demonstrates that the archetypal figures of myth -
most fundamentally the universal sovereign, mother goddess, and
warrior-hero - can be fully comprehended. It is only necessary that we
see these archetypes in their root identity, as planets and aspects of
planets close to the earth, in defined spatial and dynamic relationships
to each other, and in a celestial environment dominated by ELECTRICITY.
In prior installments of this newsletter we've introduced several dozen
themes, some of these appearing as integrated complexes, such as the
following themes relating to the earliest remembered time.
ARCHETYPES CONCERNING THE GOD OF BEGINNINGS
o a universal sovereign or central luminary of the sky, the father
of kings, and founder of a lost Golden Age;
o displacement of that former sovereign in overwhelming, world
altering catastrophe;
o a primeval sun, superior sun, best sun, or motionless sun in
former times, before the appearance of the present sun;
o a great luminary or chief of the sky at the celestial pole;
o ancient language and symbolism of the pole as the motionless spot,
the place of rest; or the cosmic center;
o the holiest day of the week (Sabbath) as a commemoration of the
primeval epoch, the day or time of the "resting god."
Generally, these closely-related traditions occur in contexts and
locations far more widespread than the limited influence of empirical
astronomy. Consequently, in the majority of instances, no direct
information will give us the planetary identifications of the mythical
personalities. But Babylonian astronomical diaries of the first
millennium BC give motions of planets extremely close to their present
orbits, thus allowing us to identify the references. And this, in turn,
enables us to document the extraordinary and unexplained associations of
the planets as mythical gods throughout the Near East and beyond. For
the planet Saturn, we find these unusual associations, as we've noted in
prior THOTH articles-
o Saturn as universal sovereign and father of kings, ruling at the
beginning of time;
o Saturn as founder of the lost Golden Age;
o Saturn as an ancient ruler displaced by overwhelming catastrophe; o
Saturn as the archaic "sun god";
o Saturn as motionless or resting god;
o Saturn ruling from the celestial pole;
o Saturn's day of the week as the holy day, the Sabbath, or day of
rest.
We find, therefore, that while the first list includes separate
fragments and nuances of a general tradition preserved around the world,
the second list integrates all of the components by reference to a
single planet. It thus substantiates a sense of underlying integrity.
But it does more. It puts an exclamation point to the huge gap
separating ancient memories from observed phenomena today. All
"Saturnian" attributes directly contradict the actual behavior of the
planet. This extraordinary situation surely does not permit the skeptic
to merely claim that myth is foolishness and make believe. The
situation requires the skeptic to explain how countless cultures,
dispersed around the earth, could have relentlessly denied everything
actually experienced, yet produced a universal accord on such unusual
details.
Moreover, to note the Saturn connection is only to place the first
surface scratch on the unified substratum. Once we take up the themes
of the mother goddess and warrior hero, the universal motifs grow
explosively, for these are, beyond question, the most fully documented
figures of myth. And in both cases a gigantic library of global themes
will converge on two planets - Venus and Mars.
Since we could quickly become lost in the great volume of material
relating to the goddess and hero archetypes, I'll let the following list
suffice for now.
GODDESS THEMES
o goddess as central eye of the primeval sun or universal sovereign;
o goddess as luminous heart of the sovereign god;
o goddess as animating soul of the sovereign god;
o goddess as radiant "star" depicted in the center of archaic "sun"
pictographs;
p goddess as inner glory, power, strength of the universal
sovereign;
o goddess as hub and radiating spokes of a great wheel turning in
the heavens;
o goddess as omphalos or navel;
o goddess as departing eye, heart, or soul, raging in the sky at the
time of world-threatening catastrophe;
o goddess taking the form of a chaos-serpent or dragon at the time
of world threatening catastrophe;
o goddess as Great Comet presiding over the end of a world age.
These goddess themes, all of which we've discussed previously, are
extremely widespread, and are most clearly expressed by the earliest
cultures of Egypt and Mesopotamia. But it is the links to the planet
Venus that give the definitive clues. With the birth of empirical
astronomy, every listed theme was connected to the planet Venus.
Indeed, Venus is the ONLY planet identified as a goddess by astronomer
priests of the first millennium BC.
WARRIOR-HERO THEMES
o hero born from the womb of the mother goddess
o hero appearing as pupil of the eye, or born from the eye
o hero conceived in the heart or soul of the sovereign god
o hero leaping from the "star" depicted in the center of archaic
"sun" pictographs
o hero wearing the inner glory, power, or strength of the universal
sovereign as a radiate crown
o hero as axle of a great wheel turning in the heavens
o hero as "navel-born" god
o hero pacifying the raging eye goddess
o hero vanquishing the cosmic serpent or dragon
o hero wielding symbols of the Great Comet to restore the world
after a great catastrophe
Here, too, the respective themes are far more widely distributed than
any astronomical identification, though the clear and undisputed
planetary associations that ARE available will lead to one conclusion
only. The warrior-hero was the planet Mars.
A SNAPSHOT OF GATHERED PLANETS
It should go without saying that none of the common mythical themes, nor
any of the associations with planets noted above, will find explanation
in familiar natural events. But can this disparity justify an entirely
new vantage point? To answer this question, we do not propose to take
the reader on all of the sinuous paths of the original investigation.
Rather, we shall simply offer a model which, we claim, WILL make sense
of the global traditions, integrating and accounting for the field of
evidence more completely than any prior theory. The underlying
principles of the model are these:
o The planetary system we observe today is new. Only a few thousand
years ago planets followed vastly different courses, in an
unstable solar system.
o Our Earth formerly moved with several planets in close
congregation, through a rich, electrically active plasma
environment. The planets included (among others) Earth, Mars, and
Venus, in a close dynamic relationship to the gas giant Saturn.
o In periods of relative "stability," the dominant planets in the
system moved in COLLINEAR equilibrium. That is, the primary bodies
remained in line as they moved through space.
o At an early phase of the configuration, the planet Saturn - prior
to acquisition of its present ring system - appeared as a
stationary, towering form at the celestial pole. This means that
the axis of the earth was pointed directly to the aligned planets.
o Both Mars and Venus played highly prominent roles in the
configuration, these two bodies appearing one in front of the
other in the center of Saturn, positions confirming the collinear
equilibrium of the system.
o It is tentatively assumed that the planet Jupiter was also part of
the ancient assembly, though Jupiter was apparently hidden behind
Saturn until a period of profound instability.
o Evolution of the configuration was marked by continuous electrical
discharging, profoundly affecting the visual appearance of the
celestial forms - and presumably the dynamics of collinear
equilibrium as well.
o It was the highly unusual configurations taken by the discharge
phenomena that inspired the ancient symbolism of the divine
thunderbolt. Hence, the entire range of thunderbolt images in
antiquity will add a vital layer for testing our hypothesis as a
whole.
I'm attaching to this newsletter a slide from an upcoming presentation
at the INTERSECT 2001 world conference. (For most email readers, the
image should appear at the end of the newsletter.) This will be my
first reference slide for the articles to follow. The slide depicts an
early phase in the hypothesized configuration as seen from Earth,
together with a few prehistoric rock art images from Ireland and
California. The pictographs, inscribed on stone, illustrate the
relationship we intend to document, between planetary forms seen in the
sky, the patterns of world mythology, and verifiable formations of
plasma activity in the laboratory. It was the dynamic evolution of this
planetary assembly, we shall contend, that inspired the mythical
histories of the gods.
Dave Talbott "
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thothv06.txt
The reason I ve pointed you to the books written by Dave and Comp. is
because the mythical themes you are looking for are there quoted and
laid out [from the ancient ,pre c20th sources. Those references we
talked about.] plain.
So now you can look for these themes in myth and see what comes up.
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am ,
therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
Plasmatic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Cautionary Note <#p3462>
New post
*David Talbott
on Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:03 pm
Grey Cloud wrote:....
Plasmatic keeps referring me to to various books such as TOTG but I
don't want something written in the C21st century (or even the late
C20th (in case Plasmmatic is listening)). I just want something
mythological so I can judge for myself whether it could be construed
as supporting the Saturn theory.
On the Aeon website it states that DT has been studying this since
the 70s, surely he has found something? In his opening post in the
Origins of Myth thread, he states that there are
"hundreds of global patterns or points of agreement between the
different cultures--and at a level of detail and coherence that
would be inconceivable in the absence of celestial events
experienced around the world".
So I don't think that I am being unreasonable in asking for just
one. More would be nice but one will suffice. Plasmatic keeps
throwing up TOTG but even he has not come up with anything from the
book. All I want is for someone to to say 'the story of so-and-so
from such-and-such mythology'. I will do my own intrepretation or I
have my own sources/resources to help me.
It does seem that we have a communications challenge here. Those who are
familiar with the hypothesis will recognize that, even in the first few
posts of this Mythology section, I've cited archetypes almost as fast as
I can type (not the world's fastest, but not too bad). :)
From the first page of the "Origins of Myth" thread:
David Talbott wrote:The reconstruction begins with the archetypes,
patterns of mythical expression occurring globally. To follow the
archetypes to a reliable conclusion, you can start anywhere. Why?
Because these patterns constitute the substructure of human memory,
and they are all inseparably connected. There’s no such thing as an
isolated archetype.
I can assure you that there are more than a thousand such points of
cross-cultural agreement. A few general instances would include: the
ancient claim that the appearance of the sky changed dramatically in
the past; memories of a lost age of “gods and wonders”; memories of
a “perfect time” (Golden Age), the opening chapter in the age of the
gods; the collapse of that epoch in a Doomsday catastrophe; a
primeval sun presiding over that time--“when heaven was close to the
earth.” And the building of a great citadel of the gods, the subject
of the archaic “creation” myth.
As the investigation develops, the archetypes will grow increasingly
specific and therefore more stringent in their demands upon the
model. Random speculations about the origins of a particular local
story have no place. The overriding issue is the integrity between
the model and archetypal structures as a whole. Selective use of one
or two archetypes is not permitted. No archetype can be excluded.
Given the purpose I've stated here--working from visualization of
events, to systematic citation of acknowledged archetypes, to a discrete
focus on the most specific tests that arise from this systematic
review--I'm reluctant to begin setting up a requirement on me that I add
footnotes to these first threads. I'm simply settng up a protocol for
meeting every test, not just a few tests that happen to be in my own
comfort zone.
If every extraordinary identification implied in these preliminary posts
requires footnoting for justification, we're already off track. Our
subject is the entire sweep of world mythology. In the brief listing
above, I have to trust that people are either familiar with the Golden
Age or paradise theme in world mythology, or they will dig up what they
need to know in order to satisfy themselves that the theme is indeed an
acknowledged archetype, not something I invented. If I place that burden
on myself just to get discussion started, discussion will never get
started because one theme cannot be discussed in terms of the model
without discussing dozens of others, all inseparably connected to that
theme in ways that can only be explained by a radical new paradigm of myth.
Therefore, a reasonable burden must be placed on newcomers to orient
themselves--if for no other reason than to help me save time. :) They
will then see that the predictable connections are indeed there.
The title of the recently launched thread, "The Crowns of Sages and
Kings" is itself a worthy archetype to explore, involving three key
variations: radiate crown, radiate crown seen from a displaced vantage
point, and conical crown. The symbols are global, and though I will
progressively inject selective examples (as in the case of the radiate
crowns of Apollo and his Zoroastrian alter ego Mithra), my real goal
here is to provoke serious readers to shed all prior assumptions, to
step as fully as possible into the model, then to take the model
directly into the area of their own interest or expertise to see if it
proves as dependable as I have claimed.
This will enable me to avoid getting sidetracked before we've even
gotten started. In fact, it will work amazingly well if people will
first give a sufficient benefit of the doubt to the model, for no other
reason than to discuss the model rather than a popular interpretation of
a particular local myth. Interpretations of myth are limitless, and the
discussion will never be resolved in the terms in which it has been
popularly framed. But highly skilled researchers have stepped into the
model since I first formulated the ground floor of a "Polar
Configuration" in 1972. If we can stay on track I can invite more than
one of these researchers to add material as helpful. But I'm a little
weary of slowing these folks down by asking them to go back to
beginning. I'll do this myself, but only selectively, since everyone
will gain the most by working with the protocol that I've loosely
suggested and will continue to clarify.
Hope this helps before folks start to throw rocks. :)
David Talbott
David Talbott
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Cautionary Note <#p3495>
New post
*Grey Cloud
on Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:15 pm
David.
I concede that I may have been a bit hasty in identifying Apollo with
the Sun. I did a bit of reading last night after I had posted so for now
I'm suspending judgemnt pending further digging.
As I've said repatedly all I want is for someone to give me 'character A
in story B from culture C'. Terms like archetypes mean nothing to me nor
for that matter the likes of Plato or Homer for instance. Istill feel
you are placing too much import on these archetypes Take this radiating
crowns thing.
One of the reasons for radiating crowns is merely to identify the
character as divine - divine creatures glow. In Hindu iconography for
instance, the gods are frequently painted blue. Christian saints have
halos for ther same reason - they are Enlightened. In the case of gods
it can aslo symbolise their radiating energy, their life giving energy.
Iknow you don't like this Ancient Wisdom stuff but that is beside the
point; the point being that the ancients who created these myths
understood it. All these ancient cultures are monotheistic. All is
taking place in this Ultimate Cause's (as the Greeks would have it)
consciousness. Essentially everything in creation is a thought of this
consciousness. That includes us and the gods. There is ultimately no
difference between us and 'gods'. The difference is merely one of
circumstance or location. We here on this planet wearing our bodies are,
in computer gaming terms, our own avatars. We are doing this for a
reason (mutually agreed if you will - no fall, sin etc). Absent the body
(gross material, matter) and we would glow because we are light (or
something similar). Leaving aside religions, Greek philosophy is quite
clear on this - see Plato's Timaeus, Pythagoras, Empedocles, Parmenides
they are all monotheistic. I've rambled a bit there as it's late here.
Another of your archetypes the hero. These e.g. Perseus, Theseus,
Hercules (there is other stuff going on with him), Gilgamesh (possibly -
while since I read it), Osiris (he covers more than one base) are
telling you what needs to be done in order to return to what we truly
are (to jump the queue if you will, rather than wait for 'death') - bin
the materialism, reconnect with your soul by living the Good Life as
Plato calss it. A life of virtue. If you have kids or grand kids sit
down and watch Disney's Pinocchio with them. It's exactly the same
story. Or read the last Harry Potter book. JK Rowling has read and
understood her Alchemy (which is more than can be said for academics -
they are still claiming that it is about turning base metals into gold.
It is, we are the lead, the gold is what we should be).
All hero myths have several common themes such as the problematic birth
or infancy, the quiet/unremarkable childhood, followed by some event in
the teens which changes their life. Think Frodo in LOTR, Jesus, Harry
Potter. They generally have a companion who serves as their conscience -
Sam Gangee, ?, Ron Weasley. In Greek myths it is usually Athena who
helps the hero.
While we are here it is a good place to mention the importance of names.
Certainly in Greek myth the etymology of the names is a clue to what the
god/goddes is about. Athena for instance is related to nous. Plato's
Cratylus is almost entirely about this. (It's my next read after I
finish his Parmenides). There is a possible 'electrical' connection here
as he associates certain of them with the concept of flow and movement
(current?).
Mentioning Titans has just reminded me. Re your Mars theory, did you
know that the two Titans associated with the planet Mars namely Dione
and Cruis (Kreois) have nothing to do with war? Dione according to my
notes is the 'mother of love' and Cruis 'the Ram - south (because that's
where Aries rises in the Greek New Year. (hmm, Ares/Aries?))but I
haven't noted a source for that (try theoi.com they're good for names).
Curiouser and curiouser. The planet Venus is Tethys and Oceanus. These
later two are mention in Cratylus - one moment.... here we go:
"Plato, Cratylus 400d & 401e :
"[Plato constructs philosophical etymologies for the names of the
gods :]
Sokrates : Let us inquire what thought men had in giving them [the
gods] their names . . . The first men who gave names [to the gods]
were no ordinary persons, but high thinkers and great talkers . . .
After Hestia it is right to consider Rhea and Kronos. The name of
Kronos, however, has already been discussed . . . I seem to have a
vision of Herakleitos [philosopher C6th to 5th B.C.] saying some
ancient words of wisdom as old as the reign of Kronos and Rhea,
which Homer said too.
Hermogenes : What do you mean by that?
Sokrates : Herakleitos says, you know, that all things move and
nothing remains still, and he likens the universe to the current of
a river, saying that you cannot step twice into the same stream . .
. Well, don't you think he who gave to the ancestors of the other
gods the names 'Rhea' and 'Kronos' had the same thought as
Herakleitos? Do you think he gave both of them the names of streams
merely by chance? Just so Homer, too, says--`Okeanos the origin of
the gods, and their mother Tethys.'"
[N.B. Plato associates the name of Rhea with the verb "to flow" and
Kronos with "time" and connects the pair with the gods of the
world-river, Okeanos and Tethys.]
"Hermogenes : I think there is something in what you say, Sokrates;
but I do not know what the name of Tethys means.
Sokrates : Why, the name itself almost tells that it is the name of
a spring somewhat disguised; for that which is strained
(diattômenon) and filtered (êthoumenon) represents a spring, and the
name Tethys is compounded of those two words."
I'm leaving it there as it's gone midnight and my eyes have died. I will
have a think and do a bit more research into this as Plato is offering
several clues in there somewhere, it seems to fit in somewhat with your
theory and with mine.
--------------
Plasmatic, can you please put on another record? The stuff on the Kronia
website is not divine revelation or even the last word on anything
though I'm sure Dwardu and David are impressed by your devotion.
Grey Cloud
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Cautionary Note <#p3514>
New post
*davesmith_au
on Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:09 pm
Grey Cloud wrote:Plasmatic, can you please put on another record?
The stuff on the Kronia website is not divine revelation or even the
last word on anything though I'm sure Dwardu and David are impressed
by your devotion.
Careful please Grey Cloud. A condescending attitude does no-one any
favors, so try not to get too personal. I'm sure you've noticed the
rules of the forum. And whilst on the rules, "divine revelation" is
hardly the point of any of this discussion. This whole forum is for
scientific exploration, not "divine revelation" or enlightenment,
whatever they may be.
"Ancient wisdom" is only as wise as those who posit it, especially when
we're talking about myths. What is wise is to try to see why the myths
arose in the first place - what could possibly have transpired in the
human experience to give rise to the many myths from various cultures
which have such stunning similarities even though the instigators
thereof were seperated by huge expanses of land and sea, and language.
Dwardu and David would not be impressed at all by having any number of
devotees, if by the term you imply some sort of religious faith or
following. The model we are discussing involves, as I have said on more
than one occasion, the scientific and forensic evaluation of myth and so
I think "supporters" is what they would seek. And if not support, then a
scientific refutation of what it is they propose would also be welcomed,
if that were possible. But we cannot hope to discuss myth scientifically
whilst the driving motivation is one of finding some sort of divine or
ancient wisdom.
Dwardu Cardona, David Talbott, Ev Chochrane et al would shudder at the
thought that someone might view any one of them as any type of guru,
prophet, divine messenger, or chosen one. This is a scientific excursion
into the hitherto unexplored so please keep the mystical beliefs or
inferences to a minimum.
Cheers, Dave Smith.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Cautionary Note <#p3549>
New post
*Grey Cloud
on Wed Apr 16, 2008 9:37 am
First off, I didn't mean to imply that DT, Dwardu et al would like
disciples. And I will try to ignore Plasmatic.
Back to the plot.
I don't see how you can study myths scientifically. If by scientifically
you mean using the 'scientific method'. They (myths) are not
reproducible for one thing. I obviously accept common sense and logic.
The way I see things is:
1. Way back in history (time frame unknown but certainly in excess of
2,500 years ago) a people/civilisation (doesn't matter who or where for
the moment) were going happily about their lives (and I believe
following the precepts of the Ancient Wisdom to a greater or lesser extent).
2. Whammo. Catastrophe strikes. Said civilisation shattered, dispersed,
etc, etc. The survivors eventually (after x amount of time) begin to
rebuild communities (including forming new ones). Among those that would
have been killed in the catastrophe and the, no doubt, subsequent
anarchy would have been the keepers of the Wisdom or knowledge (if you
prefer a more neutral term). Some communities would have no surviving
priest/teacher other may have had only a junior or neophyte
priest/teacher. Libraries would have been among the casualties too.
This community would then attempt (over time perhaps) to create some
sort of world-view, or paradigm. This is where variation appears in
'religion' and where the concept of angry, vengeful god or gods enters
the picture.
3. Eventually over hundreds or thousands (?) of years things settle down
and the rest, as they say, is history.
Now the way I see it, is that you guys are placing the origin of myths
at somewhere after point 2. Whereas I would put the origin of myth at
point 1 or before.
[As I've mentioned elsewhere, myths are essentially allegory. They are
content indepedent if you will. They do not necessarily have to be about
matters spiritual or catastrophic. In other words, they are just a
method of conveying information; a form of prose.]
Assuming the assumption about the point of origin in the above paragraph
is correct:
If you guys are correct then, yes, one should see abundant references to
catastrophic events, etc in these stories and a minimal number of
stories relating to, e.g., a common spirituality or philosophy.
If this is the case, taking the Greco-Roman period for example, we
should find references to catastrophic events by classical authors when
they discuss myths. And one should bear in mind here that these authors
had access to an untold number of texts that are now lost to us.
If I am correct then, one should see abundant references to a common
spirituality or philosophy, etc in these stories and a minimal number of
stories relating to catastrophic events.
And the comments about classical authors will apply to me in the same
manner.
Would that be a more or less fair assessment of the situation?
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
I Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Cautionary Note <#p3553>
New post
*Plasmatic
on Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:26 am
First off, I didn't mean to imply that DT, Dwardu et al would like
disciples. And I will try to ignore Plasmatic.
I'm sure Dwardu and David are impressed by your devotion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Cautionary Note <#p3585>
New post
*moses
on Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:12 pm
GreyCloud wrote: Among those that would have been killed in the
catastrophe and the, no doubt, subsequent anarchy would have been
the keepers of the Wisdom or knowledge
You are here suggesting that the Wisdom of the past is pretty similar to
the Wisdom as you understand it. But if there was a Saturn System then
this would not be so. This is because the antics of Saturn would have been
extremely influencial on humanity, so much so that Saturn would be god,
the only god. And to say otherwise would be unthinkable. Thus it was only
after Saturn went away that another Divine Wisdom could arise.
Mo
(fmv 4-16-08: fixed ambiguous quote attribution)
moses