From c.leroy@rocketmail.com Thu Jul 22 13:10:29 2010 Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:14:02 -0700 (PDT) To: Brian Moore , velikov@yahoogroups.com, Chris Reeve , ymesmith@internode.on.net, c.leroy.ellenberger@wharton.upenn.edu Reply-To: c.leroy.ellenberger@wharton.upenn.edu Cc: W.T. Bridgman , Timothy Thompson , donquixote@iqmail.net, hhbauer@vt.edu, jww.ssl@comcast.net, awburg@ku.edu, iantresman@googlemail.com, aldegrazia@gmail.com, annemariedeg@gmail.com, walt@holoscience.com, bobg@radix.net, david.morrison@nasa.gov From: Leroy Ellenberger Subject: Methodology vs. Evidence: Saturn Myth Delusion; was Re: Grey Cloud's Righteous Vengeance; or Cardona Decorticated; or The BIG LIE Exposed [ 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. ]            Methodology vs. Evidence: Saturn Myth Delusion Almost a year after Grey Cloud's review of Cardona's GOD STAR was posted to Thunderbolts Forum, Grey Cloud had several exchanges with David Talbott concerning methodology in August 2009 in the thread "Re: Forensic/Scientific mythology (from - Electrification Of Blo". Grey Cloud had shown that the hero archetype described by Talbott did not conform to the hero archetype in practice. Talbott replied that this was because in the ca. 2000 years between the origin of the archetype during the reign of the "polar configuration" and the subsequent rationalization of myths in the absence of the motivating forms in the sky, our ancestors lost memory of them. Talbott insisted that the METHODOLOGY would lead inexoribly to the archetype. Grey Cloud retorted that the archetype should be revealed by the EVIDENCE. Here is Grey Cloud's rebuttal to Talbott on this issue from Aug 16, 2009: Hi David, Regardless of the constant protestations from Dave Smith, Plasmatic and now yourself, neither I nor anyone else is under any obligation to use your methodology. Theories should be judged by their evidence, not by their methodology. The fact that the hero archetype was originally cosmic is a conclusion which should follow from the evidence not the methodology. Can you show any evidence to support this assertion and its implied corollary that it was only cosmic? This should not be too difficult for you if you have traced them 'back to their earliest experessions'. [Talbott]: We all know very well that by the time of the Greeks, most of the great heroes had been brought down to earth. No, we don't all know this. Nor do I start my argument more than two thousand years after the birth of the hero archetype unless you can prove otherwise by giving a date for the birth of the hero archetype and a date for the creation of the Greek myths. You mention the Egyptain Sept but Sept is the Egyptian name for Sirius so I fail to see what this has to do with the planet Mars. Ditto for Shu. Are you suggesting that one is only allowed to consider that mythology which agrees with your theory? Moreover, to get to first base you'll need to show that something I've stated as an archetype does not deserve to be called an archetype. Once again you are attempting to set the ground-rules for what I am and am not allowed to criticise you on. My criticisism was that you stated in Symbols of an Alien Sky: "A great warrior or hero born from the womb of that very same goddess to rescue the world from monsters that are also unexplained". I gave a list of characters, who by anyone else's criteria are regarded as warrior-heroes but who do not fit into your definition. Therefore, as I see it, your definition is wrong. I also criticised your statement, from Symbols, that: "And whenever the chroniclers of ANY land invoked the planet Mars, they INVARIABLY recalled a great warrior, the victor over chaos". This is accompanied by three images of Hercules. [My emphasis] I used the example of Ares, who is associated with the planet Mars, to show that your statement is again incorrect as Ares does not meet your criteria. The 'unique color and texture, language or symbolism attached to a particular god' are some of the keys to understanding the subtleties and nuance involved in the ancient way of thinking. Your 2-dimensional thinking, i.e. god=planet full stop, completely misses the 3-dimensional thinking of the ancients, of all cultures. A 'god' can represent several things, the particular or specific being given by the context. In regard to the list you provided in Symbols, I asked the following: 'Please point me to any instances of Ares, or indeed, any of the Heroes I named above fitting any of this list', as my list of heroes shows that this list is incorrect also. To sum up, you have not attempted to address any of the three issues I raised. Rather, you have attempted to divert the criticism by writing about your methodolgy and my problems with it; attempted to undermine my examples of heroes (though you have used most of them yourself at one time or another); and by implying that there is some kind of deficiency in my knowledge or understanding. Grey Cloud This posting by Grey Cloud is archived at . Another factoid that contradicts the Saturnists' delusion of the planetary origin of the gods is the fact that the NAMES of certain gods they claim were originally planets have meanings that have nothing to do with planets or even the sky, as I tried to show in two Sept 1995 postcards: "Food for Thought", drawing on Tamara M. Green, The City of the Moon God: Religious Traditions of Harran (Leiden, 1992) and "Gods, Planets & Nonsense" which criticizes Cardona's use of Snaith in "Morning Star" (Aeon 4(1). Here are the texts of those postcards:     ...although it [the Sun] plays an important role in     Mesopotamian cosmology, the sun is clearly subordin-     ated to the moon: in the Enuma Elish, the moon is     created before the sun, while in the Sumerian astral     traid, the Evening Star and Utu, the Sun god, are     both children of Nanna, the Moon. (p. 24)       Although we shall see the identification of sever-     al of the dieties worshipped at Harran with various     of the planets, it is clear that at least some of     these connections will turn out to have been posit-     ed late in the sacred history of Mesopotamia, and     that some of the most important Mesopotamian gods,     such as Enlil, were never associated wtih any plan-     et.  In addition, it is equally clear that such     identifications of divine power with the planets     fluctuated over time; overall, it would certainly be     incorrect to categorize Mesopotamian religion as     primarily celestial in focus. (p. 41)     . . .     If Saturn was so important, wehre is it? Interest-     ingly, when the Assyrian pantheon was first being     deciphered, Saturn was the last entity to be iden-     tified--by elimination, if you believe Rawlinson.             Gods, Planets & Nonsense (excerpts)    Snaith cannot be correct that "all the Mesopotamian deities...   were associated with the heavenly bodies"--and N.B.: "associated   with" does not mean "identical to". What about Ninhursaga whose   name means "mistress of the foothills," or Nintur, "mistress   birth-hut," or Ezen the grain goddess, or Adad god of rains &   thunderstorms? What planets were they associated with? Shucks,   even Ninurta means "Lord Plow" while Enlil means "Lord Wind."   Enki, which means "Lord of the Soil," was never associated with   planet Saturn by the Sumerians, only with the star Canopus.    On the Egyptian scene, Osiris was associated with the constellation Orion. Isis was not connected to Venus until Roman times.   AS I have pointed out many times before, the Saturnists, like Kingsley Amis' "Lucky Jim", revel in pseudo-research, shedding new light on a non-subject! And if my jeremiads over the years can be ignored, then more power to Grey Cloud for carrying forward the torch (or is it candle?) to provide the illumination needed by those who sincerely seek the truth AND who are capable of recognizing it when they encounter it! Cheers,   Leroy Ellenberger, Vivere est vincere P.S.: Would some pilgrim reading this email be so kind as to forward it to Albert Bruce Mainwaring, benefactor since 2000 to Thunderbolts Forum, in the hope that he might be motivated to redirect his financial support to authentic, scientifically sound, evidence-based research programs such as the influence of the Taurid Complex on civilization all through the Holocene (an influence totally IGNORED by Saturnists!) and the impact 12,900 B.P. at the Younger-Dryas boundary that hastened the demise of the mammoths and other megafauna. CLE --- On Mon, 7/19/10, Leroy Ellenberger wrote: >        Grey Cloud's Righteous > Vengeance; or Cardona Decorticated; >                 >         or The BIG LIE Exposed > >             To undermine an argument, one need simply > identify the false >             premisses. >                 Lynn Rose > >             Any person attempting to criticize a > theory must first >             get into that theory, see it from the > inside and on its >             own terms.... >                 Steve Talbott, Pensée IVR VII > >             I have read God Star and thought it was > one of the worst >             books I have ever read (and I've read > thousands[sic] of >             books). I have a thirty-odd page critique > of it if anyone >             is interested.* >                 Grey Cloud, Thunderbolts Forum, Sep > 26, 2008 > >             Neither Cardona, Talbott or Cochrane > apear to have any >             comprehension of the term: symbolical, > philosophical or >             allegorical in their approach to > mythology, or any other >             ancient writing for that matter. >                 Grey Cloud, Thunderbolts Forum, Sep > 29, 2008 > >             Both Talbott and Cardona frequently use > the term 'Comparative >             Model' but they don't actually compare > anything. Cherry-pick- >             ing Model would be more apt. >                 Grey Cloud, Thunderbolts Forum, Sep > 29, 2008 > >             The "BIG LIE" is that the planets were > the first gods. This >             is simply NOT true. Although it is true > that the planets were >             recognized early and memorialized in > myth..., this does not >             make them the first gods. >                 Leroy Ellenberger, An Antidote to > Dave Talbott's "Saturn >                 Thesis", talk.origins, Oct 14, > 1994** > >   * >  ** > > I recently finished reading the new book When the Gods Were > Born: Greek Cosmogonies and the Near East (Harvard Univ. > Press, 2010) by Carolina Lopez-Ruiz which subjects Hesiod's > Theogony to a detailed analysis and comparison with the > traditions of neighboring cultures. It is hard to imagine > how any objective reader might project planets onto the > personae of the gods in Hesiod's Theogony as > Saturno-Velikovskian "comparative mythologists" have made it > a cottage industry to do just that. Therefore, I consulted > Dave Talbott's The Saturn Myth (1980) to see what use he > made of Hesiod. Not much. A few bald mentions, but nothing > that might approach serious, scholarly analysis and > discussion. Next, I performed a google.com search on > relevant keywords and was delighted to discover the 2008 > posts to Thunderbolts Forum by Grey Cloud in the thread Re: > The Science of Spirit? noted above with its URL for his > DEVASTATING critique of Dwardu Cardona's recent book God > Star >  (2006), which corroborates everything I have written about > the intellectuo-scholarly non-content of the > Talbott-Cardona-Cochrane "mytho-historical" abomination > called the "Saturn Theory" and related titles.  I heartily > encourage anyone who has ever been seduced or tricked into > thinking that the Saturnian delusion of > Talbott-Cardona-Cochrane deserved serious attention to > scroll down Grey Cloud's critical tour de force. It should > be as much of an "intellectual near-death experience" as > reading the page proofs of Henry Bauer's Beyond Velikovsky > was for my in August 1984. It is to Thunderbolt Forum's > credit that this devastating critique by Grey Cloud has been > allowed to stand. > > Leroy Ellenberger, Per Veritatem Vis > > >