Discussion:

    Invisible Catastrophes

*Speaker: *Anthony Larson

Such has been written in interdisciplinary forums about glaring flaws in
Velikovsky's approach to past planetary catastrophes. Discussions of his
"hidden agenda" and "biblical fundamentalism" have been painful in that
they impugn his motives, implying that his work is, therefore, somehow
diminished. Using that yardstick, we would have to question Newton's
contributions. Research should be judged on its own merits, not what
motivates its creation.

Most analysts have jumped on the bandwagon. One by one, it seems they
have systematically rejected every catastrophic event designated by
Velikovsky for his presumed lack of good evidence or because of
perceived misinterpretations on his part -- leaving the onlooker
wondering whether the analysts accept the principle of catastrophe or not!

No rational mind wants to defend the indefensible, support the
insupportable. An error is an error is an error. But this rush to reject
Velikovsky (for such it seems) among scholars who once embraced him
smacks of Lemming-like behavior. Self-examination, to minimize error, is
probably healthy as the fledgling discipline of neo-Catastrophism seeks
to establish itself and find credibility in the space age. But this rush
to pummel the work of its founder may be counterproductive, to say the
least. Accusations from all quarters within the Catastrophist movement
have left the impression among many that Dr. Velikovsky's entire thesis
is flawed!

Criticism must be better thought out. For example, Velikovksy's improper
use of mythical themes from prehistory to support his thesis of the
Exodus catastrophe is probably one of his most glaring errors, as
Talbott pointed out in his article entitled, "On Models and Scenarios,"
(/AEON/ I:4, p. 9). But, Talbott stumbles as badly when he follows with
this comment: "Anyone arguing for later catastrophes -- on the basis of
myth -- must be able to show the introduction of new mythical themes, or
at least dramatically new applications of prior themes, in connection
with the proposed catastrophe. In the catastrophist discussion to date,
not one has achieved even a first step in this direction."

With this assertion, Talbott shows himself as prone to error as
Velikovsky. /Later catastrophes would only serve to reaffirm prior
themes and symbols/, not establish new ones.

The human mind works from generalities to specifics, quickly seizing
upon broad similarities. Given such tendencies, eyewitnesses to later
cataclysms would automatically make mental connections between what they
were seeing and the original traditions. For example, the Exodus
comet-planet, standing vertically on the horizon as Velikovsky
postulated, would be strangely reminiscent of the polar column
associated with ancient Saturn -- certainly similar enough to fulfill
the symbolic expectations of tradition-oriented Israelites. So, too, any
presentation of a crescent to earthly observers at that time would bring
to mind the earlier Bull of Heaven tradition.

Note that the ancients did not alter their view of the heavens for
thousands of years -- even though the observable evidence, evident from
day to day, contradicted everything the traditions taught. Derivations
of Saturnian traditions persisted right down into modern times since
they were preserved as religious tradition. Certainly the victims of
late catastrophes (which bore marked similarities with religious
traditions) would as easily insist on fitting their new experience into
the old traditions. Such is the power of the Saturn myths and the bent
of the human mind! Such interpretive power would demand that any
extraordinary occurrence be explained in terms of preexisting cultural
myths and traditions!

Talbott was plainly wrong. There would be no introduction of new themes
or symbols; to search for such would be in vain. Any catastrophe
subsequent to that which brought the Golden Age of Saturn to a close
would simply reconfirm the myth and symbolism of the earlier epoch.
Thus, the similarities between early and late catastrophes may cause the
later catastrophes to be virtually invisible in a mythological approach
to history. This is the proper line of thinking for any scholar who
wishes to reexamine Velikovsky's work -- which view throws open the door
to the possibility that much of the criticism aimed at Velikovsky's
conclusions may be flawed. There very well may have been later
catastrophes involving Venus and Mars, much as Velikovsky postulated.

Despite its shortcomings, what is remarkable in Velikovsky's tour de
force was his ability to perceive catastrophic events where others saw
none. This will prove to be either his memorial or his downfall. And
even if he should finally be proven wrong regarding the late
catastrophes (which I doubt, despite his choice of flawed evidence), we
will all owe the good doctor a tremendous debt of gratitude for pointing
the way in the first place.

\cdrom\pubs\journals\aeon\vol0302\077disc.htm