|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Tombo's weblogs... |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Jane 3024 posts |
Sep 23, 2003, 09:56
|
||
Feckin' French, innit, Monsieur Hirondelle!
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 23, 2003, 10:08
|
||
I've just wasted ten minutes trawling around to see whether Monsieur Hirondelle was some unspeakable French serial killer, only to find a picture of a birdy! Not a Swift, admittedly, but swallows do radiate swiftlyness I reckon.
|
|||
|
Jane 3024 posts |
Sep 23, 2003, 10:11
|
||
|
I know! I couldn't remember the French word for 'swift', so I hope you'll forgive me for calling you 'Mr Swallow'. (That has made me think of some exceptionally rude things, which I dare not mention on this forum, so I'll shut up and go away) J x
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 23, 2003, 10:17
|
||
I know, I know, you were going to suggest I get some business cards printed and leave them in phone boxes. Well I won't.
|
|||
Earthstepper 353 posts |
Sep 23, 2003, 10:19
|
||
|
Left brain - right brain. Use them both and you get close. I have never felt power/energy coming from stones, but something in me responds to them in their setting. I don't know what it is, but its much greater than the sum of the parts - the parts being the stones, the landscape and me. 20 years ago I met an old farm worker in a Wiltshire pub - when he asked me where I was going, I said Stonehenge. "Just a lot of old stones" he replied. Believe it or not, I met him again last month and he told me that he was nearly 90! He asked me again where I was going. This time I said Avebury. "Just a load of old stones in a field" he replied contemptuously. Yet here was a man who had worked on the land that we think is so special. He had seen and felt nothing and would have been one with the stonebreakers of Avebury. Its ALL in the perception. He had to make a living from the land - we can afford to stand and stare. Ploughman, scientist, engineer, artist or megarak - all things to all people.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 23, 2003, 10:25
|
||
Well, a "medium" would counter that by saying you have to let yourself be open. A Christian would say the same about his Faith. I wonder if that old man would be moved by Art, like Jane, or would he just see a load of old splodges on a canvas?
|
|||
treaclechops 378 posts |
Sep 23, 2003, 10:36
|
||
|
Interesting reading all this. I do agree that the stones are brought to a site to bring one's attention to it; but then there is another developement. First of all, actually, why bring attention to the site? Because it looks pretty? Because it's a great view? Or because it has some indefinable energy, unseeable, yet very prevelent? And what is that energy then? I do believe that *all* spiritual sites are focus points, to centre the mind on the inherent energy of the cosmos that runs through us all; but I think it's very hard for most of us to be truly in touch with that energy. It's probable that in the current age we have lost the ability to feel this energy because of all the other distractions in our lives. But it is there in us all, all the time. So, could the builders of these stone circles have found places in the landscape that amplify this state of spirit that runs through the cosmos? If so, why does the landscape does this? (But that's another question). If this amplification is what's happening, then the spirit can feel more expansive a whole in such an environment. If one is comfortable with one's own relation to the cosmos, and this energy, one doesn't need a focus point like a stone circle or church or temple - one experiences it fully. But plenty do need a focus point - and this focus point helps to realise the spirit within. So although the stones may appear to radiate power, what could actually be happening is a symbiotic exchange of energy between the person and the landscape, but which is perceived as the stones radaiating power because as humans we have so little belief in ourselves spiritually, on the whole. I'm sure there was something else, but I have a head cold, and am also in dire need of some caffeine. I can *feel* what I'm trying to say, I can't quite get it out coherently. Sorry. Oh yes! Paintings radiating power, or having a j'ne sai quois . . . someone else has seen the energy, the essence of the subject in the world, and transferred it to a medium that somehow captures and illustrates it and brings it closer. This energy tugs at the soul, and reminds it of it's relationship to a spiritual cosmos. That's what I try to achieve with my photography, anyway. Does anyone know what I'm trying to say? :o) Love, treaclechops xx
|
|||
|
Earthstepper 353 posts |
Sep 23, 2003, 10:43
|
||
To him, the stones were just obstacles in the way of good ploughland. I wouldn't want to presume to know his views on art, but would guess that you are correct. The scientific reality of a painting is daubs of pigment on paper or camvas etc. Perhaps the design follows certain principles of perspective. It is the understanding that flows from artist to viewer via the medium that makes it work. This has to be learnt and is cultural (I don't mean Cultural in the snobby way) So in a way I see megaliths as works of art rather than religious buildings or ancient engineering. Personally I have little curiosity about their original ritual use and none about how they were built or how the stones were moved and erected. That doesn't mean that I knock those that do. I only have a quarrel with the new agers when they damage the stones with candles, graffiti or rubbish. I only have a quarrel with the archaeologists when they destroy what they study in order to see how it works.
|
|||
|
Earthstepper 353 posts |
Sep 23, 2003, 10:48
|
||
Yes. Seems that we are all saying much the same. Whatever our different viewpoints, it is our love for the stones that brings us together. Following the rough ride that was given to Austin McSherry, I was beginning to think that TMA was not for me. This debate is much rounder. Guess I'll hang around for a bit longer now.
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Sep 23, 2003, 10:56
|
||
|
That's a bit basic, but in a way, yes. Well I think so. Many of these sites were in use before we had gods and goddesses. (anyone who argues with is arguing with not only me, but Burl and Graves too so nyer!) Gods and goddesses grew from people personifying experiences and places (and both combined). First there was probably 'spirit of place'. As tribal people intermingled they must have realised that they all had the same idea about places as everyone else. These eventually became the gods. So, in a way, many of these sites were possibly first used becuase they were attractive, not only in looks, but in function because 'that amazing hill helps us tell the time of year from this point' or whatever. Others will have seemed 'magikal' because a stream rose from the top of a hill (Newgrange is built upon such a spot) or whatever. Most sites are built from local stone. A few feature eratics, but technically they were obtained locally so it's the same thing. Rare exceptions (the big ones) have stones from very far afield and different meanings must be attributed to these stones.
|
| Pages: 18 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
