|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » John Michell lecture |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 05, 2016, 19:24
|
||
|
Andy Norfolk wrote: John Michell did not make mistakes with measurements. That wasn't how he worked when it comes to the alignments of menhirs in West Penwith. He went and looked at what was on the ground and used large sale OS maps and aerial photos to plot his alignments. It's all set out in The Old Stones of Land's End. He did make mistakes ,it took me 10 minutes to highlight the problems with Men an Tol. Did you miss it ? Others pointed out the statistical and other problems decades ago .
|
|||
|
carol27 747 posts |
May 05, 2016, 19:27
|
||
|
moss wrote: carol27 wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Andy Norfolk wrote: And by the way I don't mind what people believe about alignments, but I don't think John Michell deserves to be maligned. Actually Andy nobody deserves to be maligned if they don't agree. We have had many enthusiastic members here in the past and present who have been ridiculed and cynically humiliated because their hobby, whether it be ley lines, dowsing, crop circles, ghosts, UFO's etc don't fit in with our resident 'experts' views. It's not enough for them to 'put the hobbyist straight' then let it lie, but to grind them into submission by post after post cynically hammering their point home. If someone has a hobby that they are enjoying, then yes, this is a discussion group so we all have our say, but once you've had that say shut the f*ck up and give that person a break. Nobody here is an expert in any of this stuff but certain members probably spend their nights googeling away to arm themselves up for the next days onslaught on some poor mug to make them sound like they actually know something, when all the time they are using someone else's work. To balance that up we also have a few left (the rest departed long ago) that are sensible and bring interesting ideas and discussion to the table. I have no time for the others and of course they won't have any time for me but that's no hardship. The big difference is that I have a life and get immense satisfaction out of my hobbies whether they are understood by everyone or not and will support others with theirs. Right that's me done. See you around. I'm no new ager. I want to know more about these places & what they mean,or meant. All I know is how they make me feel which is, I presume, for most people on this site, a sense of wonder, fascination & awe. This new enthrallment of mine is making my later life a magical time for me. Explain that. Best wishes x A nice note Carole to end on, and Roy forget the sideshow and do what you do best ;) xxx Which is, out there discovering it . Your passion is palpable. It's inspirational. Watch out for a swelling head:)
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
May 05, 2016, 19:31
|
||
|
Well ok, it looks like we'll just have to wait, and it sounds like you've been out making observations and thinking about them, and that sounds rather interesting. But you've still not been very specific about what you personally think are his visionary moments? which I thought you might share. But perhaps you're implying it's his methods that are inspirational rather than his specific thoughts. I dunno. (Also, I actually thought the "shadow" remark also was pointed at Nigel. So if he thought it he wasn' t the only one.)
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 05, 2016, 19:31
|
||
|
cerrig wrote: I never actually mentioned any of the other stuff that George has brought up, because I wasn't aware of it. I'm glad now, because I may have made the same mistake as George, and judge Johns true legacy by his earlier musings. That would have been a daft thing to do. You may not have mentioned them but look at the content of the first post in this thread .That is what it is about . Some of us have read the later as well as the earlier stuff . Ahh so you have only read the works on the "canon of number " etc , the canon you mistakenly thought was his . Haven't read the book related to this thread either . There's whole world of laughs awaiting you . But before that try re-reading what Bob Forrest, a real mathematician has to say about Michells approach to math and the part ofthe canon .
|
|||
|
carol27 747 posts |
May 05, 2016, 19:31
|
||
|
moss wrote: carol27 wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Andy Norfolk wrote: And by the way I don't mind what people believe about alignments, but I don't think John Michell deserves to be maligned. Actually Andy nobody deserves to be maligned if they don't agree. We have had many enthusiastic members here in the past and present who have been ridiculed and cynically humiliated because their hobby, whether it be ley lines, dowsing, crop circles, ghosts, UFO's etc don't fit in with our resident 'experts' views. It's not enough for them to 'put the hobbyist straight' then let it lie, but to grind them into submission by post after post cynically hammering their point home. If someone has a hobby that they are enjoying, then yes, this is a discussion group so we all have our say, but once you've had that say shut the f*ck up and give that person a break. Nobody here is an expert in any of this stuff but certain members probably spend their nights googeling away to arm themselves up for the next days onslaught on some poor mug to make them sound like they actually know something, when all the time they are using someone else's work. To balance that up we also have a few left (the rest departed long ago) that are sensible and bring interesting ideas and discussion to the table. I have no time for the others and of course they won't have any time for me but that's no hardship. The big difference is that I have a life and get immense satisfaction out of my hobbies whether they are understood by everyone or not and will support others with theirs. Right that's me done. See you around. I'm no new ager. I want to know more about these places & what they mean,or meant. All I know is how they make me feel which is, I presume, for most people on this site, a sense of wonder, fascination & awe. This new enthrallment of mine is making my later life a magical time for me. Explain that. Best wishes x A nice note Carole to end on, and Roy forget the sideshow and do what you do best ;) xxx Which is, out there discovering it . Your passion is palpable. It's inspirational. Watch out for a swelling head:) Well, alongside the obvious others that is! Jesus, this is a minefield. Hello Moss:)
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Edited May 05, 2016, 19:41
May 05, 2016, 19:37
|
||
|
Who dislikes the concept ? People had been aware of alignments long before TOSOLE ,and outwith Penwith . The problem is in the interpretation . It's not a cometition and not relevant but I should imagine I have seen a lot more alignments than Michell ever did .
|
|||
|
Andy Norfolk 58 posts |
May 05, 2016, 19:38
|
||
It's been my hobby for about the last 47 years. I knew John Michell, though not particularly well. I know West Penwith rather well. I'd like to think we can all enjoy ancient sites and wonder what they are for and why they are where they are without falling out over it. I have noticed however a certain amount of trollery in forums (especially a certain other site) on this stuff, which is why I mostly like to just go and get out into the landscape with the sites...
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
May 05, 2016, 19:39
|
||
In a small area crammed with ancient sites, wouldn't you expect a lot to line up by chance though? How are you deciding if those lines are meaningful and not coincidental?
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 05, 2016, 19:43
|
||
We had known that long before .
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 05, 2016, 19:46
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Andy Norfolk wrote: Some of you appear to dislike the whole concept of alignments of ancient sites, which is a touch ironic now that professional archaeologist talk about this a lot nowadays. Andy, I really don't know where you got that from. Names? I bet there's no-one here that doesn't accept “alignments of ancient standing stones visible in the landscape” as valid. I myself have been in on the ground floor of Sandy Gerrard's work at Bancbryn which led to The Stone Rows of Great Britain https://stonerows.wordpress.com/, a fantastic production IMO. When it comes to alignments that are NOT visible in the landscape, which depend on a belief in “energies” between them and are great distances apart, then that's different. Sandy has put together something that is a major contribution that doesn't rely on anything that can't be seen by others and for that reason no-one is calling him “visionary”, just highly competent. He's the one that should be being praised here. (I find it ironic that the word “visionary” seems to be being used to describe people who believe in the invisible! I think “believers” would be far more appropriate. ) Quite right .Was with Sandy today , guess what , looking at possible rows . Visionary is approriate for those that have visions . Didn't see any today just stones .
|
| Pages: 36 – [ Previous | 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 13 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
