|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Ley Lines |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Jane 3024 posts |
Nov 10, 2010, 18:08
|
||
|
Moth wrote: I've seen skeptics (Jane, for one) find things using divining rods Indeed. http://www.janetomlinson.com/a-faithless-dowser/ But it proved nothing.
|
|||
|
Jane 3024 posts |
Nov 10, 2010, 18:10
|
||
|
The Sea Cat wrote: megadread wrote: Jane wrote: Sanctuary wrote: So what has happened since, is the ley-line idea still fashionable or simply seen as a hit and miss or chance thing? . Yep. It's unproven mumbo jumbo. There are so many things in the landscape that if you look for patterns for long enough you'll always find things that line up. Just cos they do doesn't mean anything. Wot she said. No. I don't agree at all, but then it's all down to the experience/experiencer. That way possibilities lie. :-) Au contraire. Experience proves nothing. Only repeatable scientific experiments prove things. :-) back atcha!
|
|||
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Edited Nov 10, 2010, 20:14
Nov 10, 2010, 18:19
|
||
|
Jane wrote: The Sea Cat wrote: megadread wrote: Jane wrote: Sanctuary wrote: So what has happened since, is the ley-line idea still fashionable or simply seen as a hit and miss or chance thing? . Yep. It's unproven mumbo jumbo. There are so many things in the landscape that if you look for patterns for long enough you'll always find things that line up. Just cos they do doesn't mean anything. Wot she said. No. I don't agree at all, but then it's all down to the experience/experiencer. That way possibilities lie. :-) Au contraire. Experience proves nothing. Only repeatable scientific experiments prove things. :-) back atcha! That's utter nonsense. Personal sentient experience is completely valid.
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Nov 10, 2010, 18:46
|
||
|
Jane wrote: Moth wrote: I've seen skeptics (Jane, for one) find things using divining rods Indeed. http://www.janetomlinson.com/a-faithless-dowser/ But it proved nothing. Nice blog Jane but how can you not believe in Santa Claus? I mean c'mon, that's taking things too far (g)
|
|||
|
Resonox 604 posts |
Nov 10, 2010, 19:37
|
||
|
StoneGloves wrote: Tracing ancient alignments is the best way I know of discovering lost prehistoric monuments. The tumulus on the top of Redhill common(aka Whitepost Hill) is wonderfully aligned with two hills at the base of the common's hill....there is a church on one and it's attendant school on the other(the area is known as St. Johns)...but the alignment is more obvious on the A23 at Earlswood common...I might have a go on Google Earth on that tonight........
|
|||
StoneGloves 1149 posts |
Nov 11, 2010, 07:15
|
||
I've spent a fair bit of time with my arms wide apart, looking down one, and then looking down the other. (GoogleEath doesn't have that view yet). My explanation is that collecting things together in lines was a way of ordering the world - reducing the chaos - and that huts were situated more sensibly, using the criteria of shelter and access to fresh water.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Nov 11, 2010, 08:59
|
||
|
The Sea Cat wrote: Jane wrote: The Sea Cat wrote: megadread wrote: Jane wrote: Sanctuary wrote: So what has happened since, is the ley-line idea still fashionable or simply seen as a hit and miss or chance thing? . Yep. It's unproven mumbo jumbo. There are so many things in the landscape that if you look for patterns for long enough you'll always find things that line up. Just cos they do doesn't mean anything. Wot she said. No. I don't agree at all, but then it's all down to the experience/experiencer. That way possibilities lie. :-) Au contraire. Experience proves nothing. Only repeatable scientific experiments prove things. :-) back atcha! That's utter nonsense. Personal sentient experience is completely valid. There may be that which is scientifically unmeasurable and unprovable. Such a thing doesn't require god, since it's perfectly feasible that the universe isn't laid out in its entirety in a form that we can observe and label. Therefore personal experience would become more significant that science in these areas - theoretically speaking. On the other hand, once you start to give weight to "personal sentient experience" when attempting to arrive at objective truths, you hit the problem that "personal sentient experience" is different for every human being, and our minds are capable of quite gargantuan feats of... well, self-delusion. Many Christians, for example, are convinced that they've been visited by the Virgin Mary, or that they've spoken to Jesus. I don't believe that they're lying or mentally ill, and I don't believe in God. So that would tend to suggest that objective, real experiences are filtered through the lens of personal belief in such a way that allows the mind to frame them in a personally meaningful fashion. Put simply, "personal sentient experience" is real but subjective, and it can't be relied upon when attempting to extrapolate objective truths. In my personal, sentient opinion, of course. ;)
|
|||
|
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Nov 11, 2010, 09:14
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: The Sea Cat wrote: Jane wrote: The Sea Cat wrote: megadread wrote: Jane wrote: Sanctuary wrote: So what has happened since, is the ley-line idea still fashionable or simply seen as a hit and miss or chance thing? . Yep. It's unproven mumbo jumbo. There are so many things in the landscape that if you look for patterns for long enough you'll always find things that line up. Just cos they do doesn't mean anything. Wot she said. No. I don't agree at all, but then it's all down to the experience/experiencer. That way possibilities lie. :-) Au contraire. Experience proves nothing. Only repeatable scientific experiments prove things. :-) back atcha! That's utter nonsense. Personal sentient experience is completely valid. There may be that which is scientifically unmeasurable and unprovable. Such a thing doesn't require god, since it's perfectly feasible that the universe isn't laid out in its entirety in a form that we can observe and label. Therefore personal experience would become more significant that science in these areas - theoretically speaking. On the other hand, once you start to give weight to "personal sentient experience" when attempting to arrive at objective truths, you hit the problem that "personal sentient experience" is different for every human being, and our minds are capable of quite gargantuan feats of... well, self-delusion. Many Christians, for example, are convinced that they've been visited by the Virgin Mary, or that they've spoken to Jesus. I don't believe that they're lying or mentally ill, and I don't believe in God. So that would tend to suggest that objective, real experiences are filtered through the lens of personal belief in such a way that allows the mind to frame them in a personally meaningful fashion. Put simply, "personal sentient experience" is real but subjective, and it can't be relied upon when attempting to extrapolate objective truths. In my personal, sentient opinion, of course. ;) Well my own personal experinces have not been 'filtered', and many can be corroborated as they were witnessed by completely detached third parties. If something is unproven, it is just that, unproven, and therefore warranting further expploration before any classification can be made. The case thus remains open. To therefore dismiss it as 'mumbo jumbo' is a sweeping statement to say the least, and completely unscientific. :-)
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Nov 11, 2010, 09:54
|
||
|
The Sea Cat wrote: Mustard wrote: There may be that which is scientifically unmeasurable and unprovable. Such a thing doesn't require god, since it's perfectly feasible that the universe isn't laid out in its entirety in a form that we can observe and label. Therefore personal experience would become more significant that science in these areas - theoretically speaking. On the other hand, once you start to give weight to "personal sentient experience" when attempting to arrive at objective truths, you hit the problem that "personal sentient experience" is different for every human being, and our minds are capable of quite gargantuan feats of... well, self-delusion. Many Christians, for example, are convinced that they've been visited by the Virgin Mary, or that they've spoken to Jesus. I don't believe that they're lying or mentally ill, and I don't believe in God. So that would tend to suggest that objective, real experiences are filtered through the lens of personal belief in such a way that allows the mind to frame them in a personally meaningful fashion. Put simply, "personal sentient experience" is real but subjective, and it can't be relied upon when attempting to extrapolate objective truths. In my personal, sentient opinion, of course. ;) Well my own personal experinces have not been 'filtered', and many can be corroborated as they were witnessed by completely detached third parties. If something is unproven, it is just that, unproven, and therefore warranting further expploration before any classification can be made. The case thus remains open. To therefore dismiss it as 'mumbo jumbo' is a sweeping statement to say the least, and completely unscientific. :-) Two clearly argued points well made here .. I think we cannot help but carry our early influences through some of our life, if not all of it. Anyone brought up within the confines a set religion, even if they reject it, will probably be seeking an alternative 'spiritual way' - that was my experience. Until one day I reached a point in life when realised, it was as Mustard said, 'self-delusion'. Its important to keep an open mind though - total belief in everything having a rational, scientific explanation can also be a delusion. There are phenomena that happen in the universe that are as yet beyond our understanding (I first heard the word phenomenology on this forum). John Michell and Robert JM Rickard wrote a fascinating book on the subject giving many examples. Jane and Moth themselves recently visited the Nazca lines - another example of something that cannot be explained.
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Nov 11, 2010, 10:11
|
||
|
Its important to keep an open mind though - total belief in everything having a rational, scientific explanation can also be a delusion. There are phenomena that happen in the universe that are as yet beyond our understanding (I first heard the word phenomenology on this forum). John Michell and Robert JM Rickard wrote a fascinating book on the subject giving many examples. Jane and Moth themselves recently visited the Nazca lines - another example of something that cannot be explained.[/quote] Agreed. We think we know so much (a typical human trait) yet in reality we still have so much more to learn. Time has shown us that and I see no reason why that should change in the future.
|
| Pages: 16 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
