Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

My understanding is that science, broadly, is a continual progression toward what are, unsatisfactorily, called 'truths' by a process of experiment and confirmation/rejection.

I had an ear infection a few weeks ago and because at some point in the past I have been told that it’s the best thing to do in the situation, I went to visit my doctor. He himself has been told by somebody else that other individuals in the past have performed certain experiments, attempting to discover a ‘cure’ for the ailment from which I was suffering. The doctor gave me some medicine, which his education and my previous experience and trust in established ‘truths’ told me I should take. I took the medicine and my ear infection cleared up.
Therefore, I would recommend a trip to the doctors to other people suffering with an ear infection, simply because a ‘truth’ is that it solved my problem.

Perhaps at some point in the future it will become a 'truth' (by some form of adequate experiment) that people, or perhaps even only a certain sort of person, can be led to objects, knowledge in the way you describe, bladup.
I, for one, would absolutely love that to be the case, because it’s very very exciting.
I think it is fair to say that in the meantime you may have to wait for the world to catch you up on this one. Which, keeping in mind my experience with the GP, and the way we progress as a society, is surely totally understandable?

I've had 'odd' experiences myself, things I can't readily explain from my experience as a human being on this planet, educated to understand the planets natural 'laws' and it's functioning. But I can’t claim to have an understanding of what they are, what caused them to happen or what they mean. However tempting and exciting it is, I resist attaching my own ideas to these happenings because other experiences throughout my life have shown me that I can be very very wrong indeed! And, really, what basis do I have?
It’s disappointing almost, but I have to remain rational or I have no base upon which to place genuine knowledge when it comes along. (such as if your experiences, bladup, turn out to be ‘truths’ in the future).
I cannot allow myself to indulge in these, certainly attractive, ideas with no basis.
I would be doing myself a total disservice.

Some could suggest I have little, perhaps ‘intrinsic sense’ or ‘feeling’ for what is happening when I experience odd things in my own life, but do I think and feel all manner of very unusual things. I get very strong ‘feelings’ when I visit some ancient sites for example, including sadness, fear. But I don’t know what it means or how those feelings are created, or what for. I can also have these feelings when listening to music or doing a bit of housework.. :)

In some of my more ‘spiritual’ moments, when I’ve attempted to open myself up (er, so to speak) or ask another ‘entity’ to impart knowledge to me (what a nutjob, eh?) I have to be honest with myself and say it doesn’t seem to do anything other than make my mind go on a shopping spree of sorts. But I still WANT to believe in these possibilities, and that is why I must be so careful with what I let myself regard as real.

But I don't believe that everybody who claims to have seen, for example, a 'ghost' (whatever that is) is lying or mistaken. I think some people experience things, visual or otherwise, that are outside of our ‘usual’ experiences, or things we all recognise, and that is not necessarily to do with malfunction of the machinery we use to establish these everyday ‘truths’ in the first place.

Tiopman, I think you are partially correct about culture when considering UFO sightings and the like, but that alone does not explain away the ‘unrecognised’ experience.
The way people describe happenings or the importance they place upon them may be linked to their culture, time of living, but it doesn't mean that something outside of our current understanding or ‘truths’ (experiment/confirmation) isnt actually happening.

Apologies for banging on.

For someone who is so anti books it's odd you mentioning having 100's of books , Burl ,Barnatt etc and are the only one ever to mention them .
If the famous erroneous comment came from a book then it is clearly wrong ,you should have mentioned where the comment came from .
If we relied on the beliefs of mystics or those who believe simply communing with a site will provide an explanation for when and possibly why it was built instead of relying upon excavation we would still be talking about "Druidical altars " , "Danes graves " " fairy mounds " witches stones" etc .

I really like the pictures [before we had the internet] and they have been used for finding places and the like, and it's probably 1000's, stop picking , i feel like you're pocking me , we are not alike apart from stubborness, but i like the fact we are interested in similar things yet come from different angle [ neither really more important than the other], and those names you speak of probably have more than their little toe in truth.

Pointing out errors is not picking on anyone . If I make a mistake point it out , it helps .
What names ?

Druidical altars, danes graves, fairy mounds and witches stone sure beat [placename] a, b and c, like some of the modern names, at worst people from the past had good imaginations, at best the older place names may have some vestige of truth in them, something else that would be very hard to prove one way or the other.

Placenames and names for features are a wonderful poetic resource and insight .Though in the case of druidical altars and Danes Graves they don't have the bucolic charm of Becky's Doup or Bod an Deamhain (Rebecca's arse and Devil's penis ) and are really more to do with antiquarian (often churchmen ) assumptions than actual local names .

"it should be their job to prove us wrong"

Should it? Shouldn't it be their job to test THEIR theories, not yours?

Equally, as I understand it, you say you know stuff about sites intuitively and you offer as proof the fact you have a higher artefact finds rate than everyone else. Isn't it your job to demonstrate that's true, not simply assert it?

I have all the stuff and where it's from, that's clearly proof enough, it's all here , but why would i lie? i'm an honest person, but even photo's wouldn't satisfy everyone would they? and regarding theories most of the time their theories are rubbish as those types of people have no imagination and have learned everything from other people in the flesh and out of books, they fill themselves up with other peoples crap and have no room for anything themselves, a lot of it is just layer upon layer of lies, backing up the last lie, a monolopy of rubbish knowledge, real truth in an ever changing world is a bit trickier than people think, but thats what people want - some truth to grab onto- the next thing you have monsters like science [with it's bombs] and religion [with it's bombs], when we live within nature we are ok. By looking outward all the time we have forgot to look within!!