nigelswift
|
Re: the midnight lamp (part 1)
Sep 25, 2003, 07:45
|
Before you go on Tombo, can I interject?
Andy, when I started this thread I referred to Tombo's attack, not on megaraks but on "rationalist megaracks". That's the point, that's what he meant, and I understood him to mean and everyone here understood his meaning and it has enabled this discussion to go on. Language evolves, and words tend to their most convenient meaning. You may have invented it, but it means something different now, here certainly, why else has no-one else queried it. I like it's new meaning, it's very convenient. I think you should accept it now. If it gets to the dictionary as your meaning it'll be way out of date.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: the midnight lamp (part 1)
Sep 25, 2003, 08:15
|
Indeed. 'Anorak' will not enter as 'pirate radio freak' will it? Or has it?
It will be basically a term of derision. Words get invented and then they evolve their own meaning, just as Anorak did. I used to get all funny about this, but don't anymore.
|
Hob
|
Re: Electric Monk
Sep 25, 2003, 09:33
|
|
If you're a verbose twit, you're in good company. ;-)
|
TomBo
|
Re: the midnight lamp (part 1)
Sep 25, 2003, 16:07
|
|
and at that point my connection went down, only to come back on now. I think I'll leave it at that.
|
TomBo
|
Re: when is an elf more than an elf?
Sep 25, 2003, 16:09
|
|
Thanks FourWinds, fascinating stuff. I can feel a redraft of <i>Power & Symbols of Power</i> coming on. I need to mull it over for a bit but I think you're right.
|
Rhiannon
|
Re: the view from outside
Sep 25, 2003, 16:25
|
Can I put my twopennorth in for what it's worth?
I feel in agreement with Tombo's statement that
"the word megarak means, to those who know nothing of megaraks or megaliths, "anorak" or "nerd" or somesuch"
This is really my beef. Whatever the activities and motivations of the self-styled megaraks, the implication to the outside world - through association with the word anorak - is that visiting megaliths is tantamount to twitching or trainspotting. Regardless of whether we know this to be true or not, I personally believe that such a label can do nothing positive for the outside perception of our common interest.
Remember the furore over the Big Brother thing at the white horse at Uffington? We all wrote letters and emails to EH etc. We wanted to be taken seriously. I'm sure anyone can see (re Time Team etc) that it's hard enough to be taken seriously as Mere Amateurs by Proper Archaeologists.
I just wonder whether promoting the word is altogether wise. A group of informed intelligent people passionate about prehistoric sites can surely do so much good for their preservation and protection. I would hate to think that through promotion of admittedly a light-hearted label this underlying concern and seriousness would be dismissed by People With Influence. I don't want my letter reporting my legitimate worries about a site to be dismissed as the ramblings of an anorak. Maybe EH NT and suchlike will take notice or not regardless.
Whatever. I just maintain my right not to be called and not to call myself a 'megarak', and I'm sorry if I offend.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: the view from outside
Sep 25, 2003, 17:42
|
Quite agree. To most people we are nerds as proved by our obsession with something as boring as old stones. On hearing I was going down to Avebury, someone asked me "so how many animals are you going to sacrifice?" I said, as many as it takes to achieve world peace, and left it at that.
You're right, we need a good name if we're going to have any clout in promoting preservation. Antiquarian doesn't work very well, it's too nineteenth century rectorish. Archaeological researcher is all I can think of.
|
Shestu
|
AWESOME !!
Sep 25, 2003, 17:43
|
Tombo,
I have no idea where this thread went from here, nor do I care. You, and this article, are an amazing piece of work! I look forward to seeing your thoughts published 8o)
Namaste
Sherry
|
morfe
|
Re: the view from outside
Sep 25, 2003, 17:59
|
Rock and roll!
Go Rhiannon!
"Once a label is on something
It becomes an 'it'
Like it's no longer alive
It's like a loss of vision
Or some dark impression
Or a black spot on your eye "
|
Steve Gray
|
In defence of science
Sep 25, 2003, 22:50
|
I'm not sure I fully understood all of that, but I think I agreed with some of it. What I do have a problem with is the way science seems to have been branded as reductionist and nihilistic. I think this is a very narrow cliche and one with which I cannot agree. There's so much more to science that reductionism. To me science is as much holistic as it is atomistic. It is a quest for knowledge and should rightly embrace the whole of nature, including the emotional and spiritual aspects. I regard a desire to know what is currently unknown to be an eminently healthy pusuit.
I have quoted the saying "There's no reality, only perception", but I don't interpret this in a nihilistic way. I view the saying as refering to the divergence of perception between individuals at an emotional level. In this sense reality is not an absolute, it depends on your point of view.
One person may look at a Ferrari and perceive it as a highly desirable vehicle, whereas another may perceive it to be phallic emblem, a boy's toy. In nihilism the Ferrari is merely a figment of everyone's perception. I cannot hold with this view because the collective experience is essentially the same, only the interpretation differs. The Ferrari exists at a physical level for everyone, but each individual weaves it into their own world view in a different way.
If someone told me that the Ferrari was a boat then we could test his perception by launching it into water and seeing if it fufilled the function of a boat, which it would not; and what a waste of a good Ferrari that would be. We could therefore conclude that his perception was flawed. This is what I mean when I challenge somone to justify their assertions. On the other hand if someone said that the Ferrari was "poetry on wheels", I would conclude that he was speaking metaphorically and might choose to agree or not, but I would not expect him to substantiate his view.
I think where I differ from some of the other opinions expressed in these threads is that I do not regard having an alternative perception as being a free ticket to spout a load of unsubstantiated crap as though it were fact.
|
