Head To Head
Log In
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Modern not antiquarian
Log In to post a reply

280 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
1986 posts

Re: The finished circle
Aug 06, 2012, 12:59
tiompan wrote:
bladup wrote:
tiompan wrote:
bladup wrote:
tiompan wrote:
bladup wrote:
tiompan wrote:
bladup wrote:
tiompan wrote:
bladup wrote:
nigelswift wrote:
I just meant your experience at the site is adequate for you but is of no value to anyone else who is trying to work out what happened there.

Why not? i would be interested if it was someone else.

In this field subjective impressions usually tell us more about the person , their culture and period they live in than the object being experienced .

But boy i have a lot of objects, that is the proof-----real items, beautiful items, not something in my head [i get shown it, i don't even look!!], i'm to busy looking at the landscapes, people may be able to use metal detectors for metal, but theres nothing like that for what i end up with.

People find objects all the time , it doesn't mean they have been led to them , although some may believe so from a religio/mystico perspective .Those who find things without that perspective put it down to hard work ,being in the right place ,study , having an understanding of where to expect to find these things , luck and other unconscious motivations that could be subsumed under intuition , which is in effect knowing without knowing , the norm of everyday consciousness .

If that's the case why doesn't it happen to everyone with that level of knowledge, i'm not even looking which of course does open up the subconscious but that still doesn't answer why it doesn't happen to everyone who isn't looking, is pessimism a hobby or just a personal trait?

There is more to it than just knowledge . Is gullibility a hobby or just a personal trait . Look , if someone disagrees you it's better to argue the point rather than resort to cheap jibes all those closed mind /open mind , pessimism /optimism binary oppositions are a waste of time that contribute nothing , if that's all you have to offer don't expect replies .

Sorry but i'll do and say what i want, it's nothing to do with you, just leave it then and i'll leave you alone and you tell me if gullibility is a hobby or a personal trait [i feel you may know], it really does sound like all your knowledge is out of books anyway, i don't get a sense of anything really coming from you, everyones wrong on certain things but at least it all comes from myself [i can't read very well so i ain't no book whore], just look though your books and you WILL find that they are full of "facts" that aren't "facts" anymore.

Nobody suggests that you don't do what you want ,feel free . But if you are looking for a dicussion don't be rude , we a can all do that but it is not helpful on a discussion group , that's best kept for face to face real life situations . If you make comments that are stated as facts as in the case of these from many posts ago "Stone circles have nothing left in them [thats why archeologists don't like them]
and when they do find stuff it's from a different age [romans liked leaving coins] to when the circle was built, " then expect to be corrected . Just because you believe/imagine something to be true doesn't make it so .

But the mad thing is the comments you keep quoting "stone circles have not a lot in them [ that's why they don't interest a lot of archeologists] are from books not me, so even that backs me up- books and academics are normally full of shit------yes even more shit than the mystics.

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.
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index