|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Tombo's weblogs... |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Sep 24, 2003, 23:24
|
||
|
I had a conversation once with a woman who was a firm believer in numerology. I listened for some time as she told me how to compute my "number" from the letters of my name, by adding the indiviual digits together. There's more to it than just that, but listening to her it occurred to me that the entire system was built around the fact that we use base 10 for our numbering system. So I said to her, "Would numerology still be valid if we only had 8 fingers and thumbs?". At first she didn't understand what I was getting at, but I showed her a few worked examples. My name in base 8 generated an entirely different number than it did in base 10 and so did hers. To me it seemed such an obvious contradiction of the whole basis of numerology, but she became very defensive (as I thought she might) and told me that numerology didn't have to follow the rules of mathematics and then refused to discuss the matter further. This is where I have a problem with those kind of belief systems. They appear to be based on arbitrary or spurious factors that don't stand up to scrutiny. It's not that I require absolute proof. I don't even mind if something can't be proven, but when it fails even the most basic tests of rationality, then it falls into the category of blind faith. I don't regard having an analytical approach to things is in any way limiting my experiences. All the emotional experiences that others have presented in this thread are ones that I can identify with. I have a thirst for knowledge that embraces the rational, the emotional and the spiritual. Someone might read a poem and think how beautiful it is, but have no idea about poetic form or structure. Does that mean that a student of literature who does understand these things appreciates the beauty of the poem any less? I think the reverse is more likely to be true. Understanding the world better does not diminish the awe at the wonder of it all. The more we seek to know, the more we find to know. Blind faith, however, believes what it will despite what the world shows to the contrary. Faith is the outward manifestation of the closed mind.
|
|||
|
Megalithic 140 posts |
Sep 25, 2003, 00:21
|
||
|
Forgive the swearing but I bloody did invent the term!! Ask the old timers on the Stones Mailing List. For the record, here's my response, minus the unnecessarily rude front bit that I'm sure FourWinds will delight in quoting for me. He doesn't understand what a megarak is, so allow me: The term was based not in trainspotting but in Offshore Radio of the 1960s to 1980s, the latter times of which I was quite heavily involved. I don't know any trainspotters so I can't speak for them. To learn more, go to the quite excellent http://www.anoraknation.com , specifically What is an anorak? http://www.anoraknation.com/knowledge/free_radio/000002.html It's popular misconception that the 'anorak' is not a spiritual creature. Anoraks follow the concept of 'Loving Awareness' propogated by Radio Caroline http://www.anoraknation.com/knowledge/radio_caroline/000006.html Similarly, the concept of a megarak is based deeply in emotions and connectedness, if not 'spirituality' per se. Speaking for myself as coiner of the term, and thus the founding megarak: Megaraks are fascinated by the connection between ancient and modern technology. Megalithic sites and artefacts such as the gold cup on TV this evening (excellent program I thought BTW - they have redeemed themselves in my book) are evidence of the first technology. We are the same people that created that technology. I'm sure their technology was intertwined with 'magic'. The best of ours is too. Their sites vied with each other for their clever design and grew more sophisticated over time. There's a parallel there. Megaraks are inclusive. We are deeply interested in modern forms of stone-circlery and paganism even if we don't necessarily go off dressing up in cloaks and waving our arms around, as we are usually quiet people. We are tolerant of alternative views and other users of the countryside (with the exception of the 4x4 offroad driving fraternity!). We are intolerant of idolatry, cliques and intolerant people. We deeply object to the ingrained term 'Monuments' (notice I never EVER use that word) and would like it struck from the terminology. We are also very sceptical about 'Heritage', my second least favourite word. What does this tell you about our belief in the subject's connectedness with the present? I've heard and read Michael Dames and I find him the least convincing of the serious 'Earth Mysteries' writers. Like a lot of things, megaraks were a spinoff from the 'Ley Hunter' magazine (which was mostly not about Ley Lines, or Hunting them - don't let's start on that one again). Megaraks most want people to respect and inform themselves about ancient sites. This is our primary purpose. Yes we like to observe and record, this is true, but out of our desire to pass on information to others, and not to change the site, but let the site change us. Given all the above, it should be clear that the Stones Mailing List is the true home of the Megarak. This is where the word was born. I'm especially tickled to see it passing seriously into the language. Next stop the Oxford English Dictionary! The only bit Tombo gets right is that a megarak is someone with an ironic sense of humour. The people Tombo derides are actually called Pokemonolithiacs (gotta catch 'em all) and we love them as well. Come on people, help us 'catch' them all! Andy http://www.megalithic.co.uk
|
|||
Moth 5236 posts |
Sep 25, 2003, 00:23
|
||
|
Hope you don't mind me barging in again.... To back up 4W's story about his daughter , I nearly said earlier that my lad (2 next week) drew a series of scribbles ages ago now, bearing no discernable reseamblance to anything, but when his mum asked he pointed at it and said Dada, looking at me. His meaning was unmistakeable. I guess it's possible in both Cal's case & 4W's daughter's that someone had at some previous point said 'draw daddy' or 'a cat', but my feeling in Cal's case is NOT. Love Moth PS Funnily enough, it's been remarked on more than one occasion that I do look quite like a bunch of scribbles....
|
|||
TomBo 1629 posts |
Sep 25, 2003, 00:31
|
||
|
(and how many angels can dance on a pin-head?) Sorry FW! I wasn't trying to be picky. And no, I wouldn't have asked you about the camel, though perhaps it's as good a suggestion as any for how to define the divine! I still feel confused, though. Let's assume that there was no personification in the earliest times. I think its a big assumption but let's make it nevertheless. I can certainly imagine how an offering could be made to a place without personifying that place. The next stage in the development of these matters is, if I understand you rightly, the development of animistic personifications of the place - nature spirits, faeries and elves. Eventually one of those nature spirits becomes dominant and ends up being considered the god of that place. A deity fulfils a certain role in the lives of those who believe in it, I'm sure you'll agree. What I'm saying (I think, bear with me - like I say I'm confused!) is that the faeries/elves performed the same role for those who believed in them, and before that the place itself did. Why I keep plagueing you with these annoying questions is that I'd like to know exactly what it is that makes a deity different from, say, an elf. At what point does the elf become a deity - what is it that makes it cross that line? Is it simply the fact that people have taken it to be the "top elf"? Because this begs the question of why they should hone in on that particular spirit of place and not one of the others - what qualities inherent in the mytheme itself made it stand out in that way? I disagree with you when you say that the earliest peoples had no gods because every culture that has left evidence enough for us to know with certainty has had gods. All pre-literate peoples in the world today have gods, including those who are hunter-gatherers (ie. pre-agriculture). I wonder why the ancients should be the exception to this...
|
|||
|
TomBo 1629 posts |
Sep 25, 2003, 02:35
|
||
|
Don't worry, I've already read the rude bit... I have eyes everywhere (though I don't subscribe to your mailing list). I wondered if you'd actually say it to my face or not. What I wrote was from the heart and it's how I feel, so I stand by it. It seems to me that the skeptics are allowed to say what the hell they want and that no-one ever really fights back with the same force. Take Michael Dames. People go on as if he should never have bothered writing those books. I could list a thousand insensitive, hurtful remarks that have been directed his way on this forum: "woven from a fabric of utter bollocks", "belongs in the comedy section" to name but two (sorry FW, I have to say it though). Yet that's just one point of view (although one that remains largely unchallenged in this place). From my point of view those books contain so much vision and sheer <i>engagement</i> with the landscape and monuments (Andy - why don't you like this term? - I have even less understanding of what you've got against the word "heritage") that they are of immense worth. I feel for anyone who reveals their most out-there visions to the world only to be met with scorn and derision. I feel for anyone who spends time and effort researching and writing a book (whatever you think of Dames you can't deny that he's done his fieldwork) only for people to call him a madman. So I don't understand what a Megarak is? You remind me of Humpty-Dumpty in <i>Alice in Wonderland</i>: "words mean what I say they mean". All I know is that it's the word <i>megalith</i> combined with the word <i>anorak</i>. Isn't that true? <i>Anorak</i> might mean something else entirely to you but to most of the rest of the world it is both an insult and a reference to trainspotting. I'm not going to get into morality of deriding trainspotters - the fact is that this is widely understood to be a boring and obsessive pastime, rightly or wrongly. Given this, the word megarak means, to those who know nothing of megaraks or megaliths, "anorak" or "nerd" or somesuch. A big part of what I was saying is "don't call me a megarak". I don't want to be thought of as one and its my right to say this if I so choose, surely? I deny your label. As for my caricature of what a Megarak is, I'm quite happy to admit that it was just that - a caricature (ie. a deliberately exaggerated and distorted portrait). My intent was to make people question, to think twice about what they're visiting monuments for in the first place. The fact that it's generated all this discussion, both here and on your stones mailing list, only serves to show that my writing has been successful in its goal - not bad for a load of "rambling twaddle" (told you I'd read it). When people get so put-out I have to ask myself - have I touched a nerve? Is the truth uncomfortable? If what I said was simply a load of crap without any truth in it then you'd all have just ignored it, after all. continued...
|
|||
morfe 2992 posts |
Sep 25, 2003, 02:36
|
||
|
Onwards! I'm self-conscious of being a verbose twit at times, it's my doing! Thanks Hob. Cor, I feel a bit subjectively-objectively-subjective now :-) Hobjectivity rocks!
|
|||
|
morfe 2992 posts |
Sep 25, 2003, 02:44
|
||
|
"Faith is the outward manifestation of the closed mind." I would sort of agree with that, with one small change, that people hold faith 'within' them also. Ultimate pedantry would lead me to suppose that my having faith in myself would be an inward manifestation of madness ;-)
|
|||
|
morfe 2992 posts |
Sep 25, 2003, 03:09
|
||
|
"I believe we will find all the causes eventually." Faith is the outward manifestation of a closed mind! Logical positivism and reductionism in an expanding and two-way conscious reality is a mystery to me! No that's me being sensationalist, what I mean is, reducing everything to data doesn't help us understand everything. It's been said (and I believe it) that if science is to progress beyond the endless grinding mill of non-participatory cynicism then it will naturally turn a wide circle in and come again to holistic study, and exciting possibilities. We may even discover other words for dreamtime, or reincarnation, this example is purely speculative and non-facetious, but what I'm again clumsily trying to say is that (forget all the Megarak/New Age crap that's all stereotypical pap) is that the desire to discover will always fight against the desire to atomise and be damned. And just as creation leads us like a carrot, so discovery will be a creative process always. The mystery is forever, that's why it has us in it's grip. I can't see the mystery without also being the mystery. Cognitive psychology, physics and biology will one day reside together in holistic science, resemble a hyper-techno version of witchcraft. And there'll still be cries of 'burn the witch'! I'll bet my creation-crazy ass that Goethe was right. This is an excerpt of an essay regarding progressive deanthropomorphization in science, it's a short seven pages long and leads us on into the great modern mystery: That science is really trying to 'become' nature. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:pXpR7iRgdegJ:www.waldorflibrary.org/Journal_Articles/Rb4205.pdf+goethe+reductionism&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
|
|||
|
morfe 2992 posts |
Sep 25, 2003, 03:11
|
||
|
Ah shit. Sorry about the long link screwing with the scrolling thang, I invested some time in that passage so feel worthy including it without the above link: "I believe we will find all the causes eventually." Faith is the outward manifestation of a closed mind! Logical positivism and reductionism in an expanding and two-way conscious reality is a mystery to me! No that's me being sensationalist, what I mean is, reducing everything to data doesn't help us understand everything. It's been said (and I believe it) that if science is to progress beyond the endless grinding mill of non-participatory cynicism then it will naturally turn a wide circle in and come again to holistic study, and exciting possibilities. We may even discover other words for dreamtime, or reincarnation, this example is purely speculative and non-facetious, but what I'm again clumsily trying to say is that (forget all the Megarak/New Age crap that's all stereotypical pap) is that the desire to discover will always fight against the desire to atomise and be damned. And just as creation leads us like a carrot, so discovery will be a creative process always. The mystery is forever, that's why it has us in it's grip. I can't see the mystery without also being the mystery. Cognitive psychology, physics and biology will one day reside together in holistic science, resemble a hyper-techno version of witchcraft. And there'll still be cries of 'burn the witch'! I'll bet my creation-crazy ass that Goethe was right. This is an excerpt of an essay regarding progressive deanthropomorphization in science, it's a short seven pages long and leads us on into the great modern mystery: That science is really trying to 'become' nature.
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Sep 25, 2003, 06:26
|
||
|
"At what point does the elf become a deity - " This for me is the biggy. To me it is the moment that man became Man. It is the moment that something became more important than *I*, which is why I have come to think about this so much. "what is it that makes it cross that line? Is it simply the fact that people have taken it to be the "top elf"? Because this begs the question of why they should hone in on that particular spirit of place and not one of the others - what qualities inherent in the mytheme itself made it stand out in that way?" I think the difference is the latter stage needs a POET, a STORYTELLER. There was a stage when we could descern something frightened/impressed/whatevered us, but it needed a storyteller to make it 'real'. I don't know when this moment happened, but I think it needed that final touch. I see a difference between being in awe of and grateful for the sun and thinking that the sun is Ragazoomingmumps riding in his sky chariot. I'm sure it goes way, way back. I am really glad you asked the questions, by the way. It's made me think a great deal about what was to me just an idea. I fully appreciate your point about equivalent roles, but to me there's a tiny difference. Perhaps part of that difference is expecting more than the original purpose. Something like - you expect more than a good harvest from the sun, like being carried to the afterlife or something (on a camel of course). This requires a storyteller to set it up.
|
| Pages: 18 – [ Previous | 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 17 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
