Kammer
|
Re: Sacred Landscapes
Jul 30, 2003, 21:57
|
> does it mean 'religious' or does it mean 'highly valued'
It can means either and more. That's why I find it hard to understand the argument that the term 'sacred landscape' is spiritually or religiously value ladden.
K x
|
pure joy
|
Re: Unbelievable
Jul 30, 2003, 21:57
|
'with all due respect' (as we say at work -lol!) I think you fail to see what we are saying. The word 'wrong' sounds tough, but this is a fair word to use in this situation. If one person believes that ALL religious belief is 'wrong' (silly, unfounded, unnecessary, built on dodgy foundations, unsubstantiated, dangerous, superstitious etc), then ipso facto (or some such latin phrase) their belief in religious icons and religous / sacred spaces that they use for their religous beliefs is immediately and 100% wrong to you.
It doesn't make them a bad person, and it doesn't make their opinion less valid than yours (and it doesn't make it right to discriminate against them for their views) but it does make their views technically wrong to you.
|
morfe
|
Re: Sacred is...
Jul 30, 2003, 21:57
|
|
Thanks Kammer. I understood it to mean all those things, and maybe more. For example, 'Earth Mysteries', a recent new age pursuit, to some execrable, whose subscribers are in danger of de-sanctifying landscapes by their nonsense. All land is sacred to me, so sacred to me means all of it, and to identify 'sacred' land is to downgrade other land in the collective conscience?
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Sacred Landscapes
Jul 30, 2003, 21:59
|
As a non-believer par excellence I would have to disagree totally with the half-hearted and amateur non-believers above who claim there no such thing as sacred, but then I guess my definition differs.
In any case, our notions of sacredness aren't central to what I was wondering about, which concerned the motivations and attitudes of the original builders. Were they building a sacred (i.e. religious) landscape? It seems often to be taken as obvious fact in much that I've read. Or are we putting our own construction on a much more complex bundle of different motivations that happen to now be observable in one particular location? I guess there are too many anomalies (and I really enjoyed your stuff Brigantes) for it to be other than the complicated answer.
I would add two further complications to the bundle:
First, as I've rambled elsewhere, I feel and therefore reckon they felt, that sacredness or significance attaches to lots of points in the landscape, not just to monuments. When we look at the landscape today there's nothing to prove that to us, yet if it's true we must be missing much or even most of the point.
Secondly, invaders. Once you get those the slate is wiped clean and that which was previously sacred is open to desecration or loss of significance. A speculation: is Silbury 3 a high-tech cruel edifice deliberately built upon the deity of a conquered people, Silbury 1, burying it forever and humiliating them? Perhaps they were enslaved and forced to do it themselves. Scary, but an utterly human thing to do! That's just a bit of raving, with only a bit to support it, but there's no strong evidence it's wrong. If it was right then what price Avebury's sacred landscape?
|
wychburyman
|
Re: Unbelievable
Jul 30, 2003, 22:02
|
I think the difference is faith or belief.
The most "wrong" group to me are the catholic church. Only when it is forced upon society does it really become wrong.
I suppose you would ban Santa Claus as it meets most of the criteria you set out. Children are therefore "wrong"
|
baza
|
Re: Unbelievable
Jul 30, 2003, 22:03
|
>You cannot be wrong in claiming something sacred, unless you are lying.
That`s exactly the point that I made in my initial posting:
"It seems that if someone with religious beliefs describes something as sacred, then it is!"
>they believe it is sacred, and therefore it is...
And that`s exactly the point that gets up our non-religious, non-spiritual noses, because, although we freely accept that it is sacred to them, to us it can not be.
baz
|
Kammer
|
Re: Sacred is...
Jul 30, 2003, 22:04
|
I see what you're saying, but in prehistoric terms we don't know how 'the land' was perceived. We can make educated guesses, but without proof of some sort we're scuppered.
The sites themselves are different, because they represent evidence of human ritual, and most likely an idea of sanctity (or something darned similar). In areas where sites are densely grouped, the relationship with the landscape begins to emerge (e.g. Pumlumon).
I'm loving this discusion, but I need to head off and get some sleep (early start in the morning).
K x
|
morfe
|
Re: Sacred Landscapes
Jul 30, 2003, 22:04
|
I think we don't know!!!
All I know is that land set aside for some reason other than crops or building, brought me to a sensibility that nurtures and respects the land. So it did it for me. If a stone circle or mound was built to glorify murder, and years down the line I am 'wrong', then I who can argue that THAT space is not sacred to me? Or the reasons for it being so?
|
pure joy
|
Re: Unbelievable
Jul 30, 2003, 22:14
|
The comic answer to the Santa Claus thing is 'yes, ban the old git'
But the serious answer is, hang on a minute, no-one has mentioned banning anything. No one has mentioned, or even hinted at anytime of action or discrimination against people's beliefs. merely some of us have said that our belief in the 'wrongness' of their belief (or on the wider level - our belief in no belief) is as equally valid as their belief in something.
The trouble is, that by arguing very seriously, strongly and passionately against something, your point of view often gets taken less seriously (as if you are merely spoiling their ideas for fun) especially when your belief is a lack of belief, which is never going to be as sexy as believe in an idol / a book of writings / a set of beliefs etc.
|
morfe
|
Nasal cavities
Jul 30, 2003, 22:17
|
"And that`s exactly the point that gets up our non-religious, non-spiritual noses, because, although we freely accept that it is sacred to them, to us it can not be."
In trying to understand that comment, I try and look at my own reactions to Christian 'sacred' space. Being no Christian whatsoever I can imagine how a Christian may feel about a certain place that i go to *be*. It COULD be sacred to them, as many Christians believe all 'nature' to be the work of God. But it would be 'sacred' to them for different reaons. I argue that 'my' sacred space is far more selfish, less pious, but at least honest. Sacred also means non-religous sanctity, and in that Moon Cat's remark about football grounds is spot on. Old Trafford may not be sacred to Arsenal supporters, but football is. Football may not be sacred to a golfer, but SPORT may be. And on, and on...
|
