Moses wrote:
Hi Mo,Thus it was only after Saturn went away that another Divine Wisdom could arise.
Would you have a favorite myth.is.story recounting this sequence of events?
Cheers,
s
~
Hi Mo,Thus it was only after Saturn went away that another Divine Wisdom could arise.
I may have missed part of the conversation above, if I've taken anything out of context in my response, then apologies.Grey Cloud wrote: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 by "Wisdom of the past" you mean the pre-catastrophe wisdom, then yes. This wisdom addresses man's place in the Universe and that hadn't/isn't changed.moses wrote:You are here suggesting that the Wisdom of the past is pretty similar toGreyCloud 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
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)
No problem, but you do seem to have missed other posts where I've stated that I agree that there have been catastrophes - I'm not a 'catastrophe denier'. Personally, I think we are due another one soon.MGmirkin wrote:I may have missed part of the conversation above, if I've taken anything out of context in my response, then apologies.Grey Cloud wrote: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?
Are you saying something to the effect that "if classical greek / roman authors don't talk about catastrophic events, they didn't happen, and the stories are only that; IE the modern 'fairy-tale-esque' stories but sans catastrophic implications?" 'Cause I think that part of Talbott, et al's idea is also that the origins of the "mythology" of today and/or "classical" texts may have been if not "forgotten" then reinterpreted under much more peaceful skies that no longer resembled the chaotic skies the truly ancient peoples witnessed. Such that the original ancient myths were no longer seen as relevant or "applicable" since the time and events they described were no longer present in the skies. Thus, the myths were tidied up, cleaned up, sterilized of some of their original implications and given a more "earthly," "human-centric" caste, rather than the original "celestial" import. IE, the myths of the "gods" were brought closer to home. Some of the things which later generation found "fanciful" or "irrelevant" or "contradictory" may have been dropped, combined, or refashioned in new ways that gave them a lower level of cognitive dissonance, but perhaps lost some level of the original details. If that make sense. Perhaps D.Talbott could respond to that, a bit?
IE, just because those who may well have been "later" didn't speak in "catastrophic" terms (having not witnessed them first-hand), does not mean that the original stories weren't preserved mostly or partly intact (albeit potentially degraded by something akin to "Classical Bowdlerism"). Hence why it may be best to go back to the most archaic texts & symbolism, and to utilize the "archetypes" Talbott proposes in order to find the points of agreement between widely dispersed cultures' mythology. IE, many cultures across the globe have the archetype of the "Hero & the Serpent;" In many cultures, the hero is identified as "Mars," the morning star or the goddess with Venus, the primeval star with Saturn. Some are more emphatic about specific associations than others. These may be perspective issues, or may be cultural issues. Many cultures likewise have the "axis mundi," "world tree," "rainbow bridge," "pillar of heaven" motif that bridges the gap or (in some way) "physically" connects Earth to Heaven.
I think this "gradual corruption" or "localization" of the mythic traditions is the reason why Talbott, et al insist on beaing careful about using universal archetypes rather than localized traditions. IE, local traditions may add a lot of embellishments, remove particular bits and pieces of the story over time, etc. Though the core story, relationships, archetypes themselves may remain all or mostly intact / identifiable.
For instance, say, in one story the warrior's weapon of choice is a hammer, in another, it's a bow and arrow, in a third it's a sword that's used to kill the chaotic serpent. Does that necessarily mean that the interaction looked like a hammer or a bow or a sword? Not necessarily. If all of them also identified the weapon with "lightning" or the "thunderbolt," that might be the point of agreement (in addition to the other two or three; the warrior & the serpent doing battle roundabout the time of "doomsday," as with Thor & Jormungand at Ragnarok)
Anyway, if anyone else has other input or corrections, feel free...
Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
I couldn't agree more with this and I agree that over time myths were altered. I think this was one of my 'cautions' in my opening post and DT has already commented upon it vis-a-vis Greek versus Roman sources.Hence why it may be best to go back to the most archaic texts & symbolism, ...
Yo Mo,Thus it was only after Saturn went away that another Divine Wisdom could arise.
Well, I think that the "points of agreement" amongst dispersed traditions are what D.Talbott, et al might refer to as the "universal story" or "archetypes," as opposed to necessarily interpreting ALL of a specific local tradition on its own in vacuo (on its own), as it were. So, in that respect, I suppose one could say that the collective of [the points of agreement between] local traditions make up or illuminate the archetypes.Grey Cloud wrote:I understand what you are saying about DT et al and the use of the universal rather than the localised but surely it's the localised which, collectively, make up the universal? Another of my original cautions addressed the opposite of this: that, in using universals/archetypes, there is a danger of 'seeing the devil behind every tree', so to speak and every myth story being about catastrophe.
I'm hoping that was a compliment.Grey Cloud wrote:"Classical Bowdlerism". Take any prize off the top shelf for that one. Brilliant phrase, fantastic concept - you could start a new literary genre. I'm not being sarcastic either - it really cracked me up.
Classical authors make numerous references to world wide catastrophes in the past. Not to go retro (catastrophically speaking) but consult "Worlds In Collision," look up the names of classical writers in the index and you'll surely find numerous references...Ovid, Plato, Seneca, Plutarch, and others.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.
Plato, in "Timaeus and Critias"....The earth bursts into flame, the highest parts first, splits into deep cracks, and its moisture is all dried up. The meadows are consumed, green leaves and all...Great cities perish with their walls, and the vast conflagration reduces whole nations to ashes.
and why have we no record, according to Plato, of the catastrophes?Your own story of Phaethon, child of the Sun, harnessed his father's chariot, but was unable to guide it along his father's course and so burnt up things on earth and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt is a mythical version of the truth...
Actually, the above is not the reason, imhop, in fact there is plenty of records of cosmic catastrophes in classic literature, ancient texts, etc etc., much of it is quite literal, but we have a tendency to disbelieve even when it is spelled out in a matter of fact manner. It is that we don't recognize the story when it is told to us, prefering to see metaphor and poetic license when (extinction threatening) catastrophe from the sky is clearly indicated....writing and the other necessities of civilization have only just been developed when the periodic scourge of deluge descends, and spares none but the unlettered and uncultured so that you have to begin again like children...
Well, it's not entirely unexpected that people sitting under peaceful skies should scoff at the notion of the falling sky. IE, it is not part of our current experience... We have no personal connection to it, thus we cognitive dissonance it out of existence.nick c wrote:Actually, the above is not the reason, imho, in fact there is plenty of records of cosmic catastrophes in classic literature, ancient texts, etc etc.; much of it is quite literal. But we have a tendency to disbelieve even when it is spelled out in a matter of fact manner. It is that we don't recognize the story when it is told to us, preferring to see metaphor and poetic license when (extinction threatening) catastrophe from the sky is clearly indicated.
Nick
In this paragraph the point I was trying to make was about the relative number of examples of catastrophe and spirituality. Or, put another way, for every catastrophe story I could produce a spirituality story. Frequently these would be the same story. For example Plutarch in Isis and Osiris gives four interpretations of the mythm plus one of his own. None of the five agree with either my or David's interpretations.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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest