Cautionary Note

Plasma formations in the ancient sky. The role of planets as charged bodies in these formations. Ground-rules for drawing reliable conclusions. A new approach to the mythic archetypes: is a unified theory of world mythology possible?

Re: Cautionary Note

Unread postby David Talbott » 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
Site Admin
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: The Crowns of Sages and Warrior-Kings

Unread postby Plasmatic » 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
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Plasmatic
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: Cautionary Note

Unread postby Grey Cloud » 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.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Cautionary Note

Unread postby Grey Cloud » 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.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Cautionary Note

Unread postby davesmith_au » 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.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz

Re: Cautionary Note

Unread postby Plasmatic » 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
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Plasmatic
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: The Crowns of Sages and Warrior-Kings

Unread postby David Talbott » 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
Site Admin
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: Cautionary Note

Unread postby Grey Cloud » 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.
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.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Cautionary Note

Unread postby Plasmatic » 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
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Plasmatic
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: Cautionary Note

Unread postby David Talbott » 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
Site Admin
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: Cautionary Note

Unread postby Grey Cloud » 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.
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.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Cautionary Note

Unread postby davesmith_au » 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.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz

Re: Cautionary Note

Unread postby Grey Cloud » 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.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Cautionary Note

Unread postby Plasmatic » 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


.
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Plasmatic
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: Cautionary Note

Unread postby moses » 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
 
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

PreviousNext

Return to (Defunct) Electric Universe - Origins of Myth

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests