=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Sacred Landscapes
Log In to post a reply
208 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Moon Cat
9577 posts

Re: sacred in the eye?
Jul 30, 2003, 23:46
You Baza stick to the rigid dictionary definition of sacred which I guess is fair enough, but is indictative of the rigidity in which you are selfbound to percieve any matters spiritual.
I have argued that that definition is too narrow, and unrealistically inflexible when one considers the potency of the idea of having a sacred 'thing' or space. A space, regardless of it's history, can me made sacred by belief.
I would also argue that even the most scientifically rigid of brains have their own notions of sacred space; a space that has a deep emotional resonance to their beliefs (belief being in 'fact' or something other) . For example I would wager that to some astronomers, deep routed in their science , the obersvatory at Greenwich would be a kind of sacred space, even if they would balk at the term, purely because of the impact of the place in the history of their beliefs. And the same might go for 'sacred' science spots everywhere in many disciplines.
Sacred is bigger than God and religion to me.
In reply to:
Re: Nothing is sacred (baza)		 Replies:
Re: sacred in the eye? (morfe)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index