VELIKOVSKY: My Dinner with Talbott Part 1
Tim Thompson
I am posting this to alt.mythology on the grounds that its content seems
to me of interest to that group. However, this may not be so with responses,
so I admonish respondents to strip alt.mythology from the distribution for
responses not directly related to mythology.
In a relatively short time Talbott has managed to overload my silly
sensors with more nonsense than I usually care to contemplate all at once.
Paul Gans has posted a response of his own to Talbott's "Dinner with Tim"
post, and in response to Talbott's challenge to me, I hereby declare that
post to be correct and proper.
There are a number of good reasons for thinking that the "Saturn Myth" is
in reality a silly exercise in dementia, but I want to try to focus on them
seperately. Talbott has brought up a million unrelated issues that serve only
to obscure the field, so I am going to ignore all of the ones I think don't
merit a response and Talbot can scream about it all he wants.
For this post I am going to concentrate on something about which my
expertise, while limited on any objective scale, is nonetheless sufficient
for this forum: language.
The following came under the subject header ...
"Re: VELIKOVSKY Symposium- Florida, July 12"
and comes in response to my assertion that Venus, as it appears today, is in
every way consistent with the language used to describe it in ancient sources.
I intend to demonstrate that this assertion is at least a reasonable one, and
a better one than the assertions of the Saturn Myth.
In article <dtalbott.837828067@kelly>, dtal...@teleport.com
(David N. Talbott) writes:
> Having invested in this little exercise Tim, why do you not invest in
> another little exercise which would save us the time of correcting your
> hasty statements. The mythical images, as will be apparent to anyone who
> simply reads the material, could not have been inspired by the appearance
> of Venus today. It's that simple. READ THE MATERIAL, TIM. Then tell us
> that Venus' appearance today could have prompted the images as they are
> recorded around the world. What in the name of heaven are you seeing in
> Venus that gives you the impression of a heaven-spanning, fiery serpent,
> long-haired serpent, serpent with long streamers, a serpent raging across
> the sky, threatening to destroy the world, a serpent whose body comes to
> form the celestial enclosure called the "land of the gods."
>
> Well, that's five or six recurring motifs. How many more would you like?
>
> It won't work Tim.
I did read the material, carefully, before making my post. Talbott seems not
to understand what language is, nor how it is used as a tool for communication,
and he seems woefully misinformed on his ancient languages, so allow me to
elaborate.
First, consider how these ancient languages wind up translated into English
for our convenience. How does one reconstruct a language that noone has read,
written, spoken, nor used at all for thousands of years? One does it by reference
to known languages. Sometimes, like the cosmic distance ladder, the chain of
references and assumptions from one language up to ours will pass through more
than one other ancient language which is itself dead, and known also only via
the same chain of referents. The result is that we are able to build a dictionary,
or a lexicon, from which we can construct "dictionary definitions" for the known
ancient language. As one might expect, some words are defined with more confidence
than others, just by the nature and number of referents; a word which exists, for
instance, in only on example, will certainly be carried forward with much less
confidence than one which exists in 100 or 1000 examples. But how much of the
language itself, apart from the dictionary, do we really understand?
Now imagine an archaeologist a few thousand years in our own future. Imagine that
this archaeologist is working on one of the few extant examples of an ancient
language called ""English". This archaeologist comes across a rare phrase which
reads "get fucked". So our archaeologist consults their favorite reconstructed
dictionary of the ancient English language, looks up the words in question,
considers the context as best they can, and then comes to the following conclusion.
What a marvelous complement that statement was, this good friend is inviting his
fellow English speaker to experience sex. From our vantage point we can immediately
see that our hero the archaeologist may have misinterpreted the nature of this
invitation. But with a lack of knowledge of idiomatic expressions, how could the
future archaeologist have come to any other conclusion?
Of course this is only one example of an obvious problem that is endemic to the
task of reconstructing ancient languages. Yes, you could assail this one example,
if the future archaeologist had enough samples of English to put the phrase in
context, then they might indeed be able to conclude that it was really an insult
amd not a complement. But you can see the nature of the "if".
Now for a much shorter example, How would Henry Wadsworth Longfellow describe
Venus? Well, I shamefully admit that I don't have Longfellow here in my office,
but I know that he wrote a poem called "The Occultation of Orion". Of course, you
can't occult Orion, and in footnotes at the back of the book Longfellow admits
this. However, he also claims the privilege of poetic license. What if our future
archaeologist ran across "The Occultation of Orion" in their limited collection
of ancient English? If some future Dave Talbott found it he would exclaim that
Saturn was so close to Earth that it blocked out a whole constellation. After
all, why would anyone ever write a poem called "The Occultation of Orion" if it
were actually impossible to occult Orion?
Now is a good time to ask another question: Why would anyone ever refer to
Venus as "heaven spanning" or "fiery serpent" or whatever, if it never actually
looked that way. By now I hope you can see my point, even if you don't agree with it.
Talbott has fallen into the trap of presuming that every description of Venus
in ancient language must be a photographic representation of Venus, else he could
never assert that Venus must have looked like a comet from the linguistic evidence.
In order to believe this one must assume that the ancient viewers of Venus were
emotional and spiritual robots, devoid of poetry, feeling, or anything else that
would identify them as human. certainly this is clearly a ridiculous point of view.
I stand by my assertion. Venus as it is today is in every way consistent with
its known description in ancient language. I have already explained why the use
of such words as "hairy" or fiery" are accurate depictors of the current Venus,
an assertion testable at once by one and all. My point in this post is that Talbott
places undue confidence in the existential content of his linguistic references.
There is no reason for confidence in the proposal that the linguistic description
of Venus is existential in nature, and very good reasons for believing that the
same language is poetic and lyrical in nature.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer.
Atmospheric Corrections Team - Scientific Programmer.
Tim Thompson
Those of you in alt.mythology will see no more of my posts, as I will strip
that group from the distribution in response to messages asking for this topic
to leave the group. I will limit distribution to alt.catastrophism and
talk.origins.
In article <dtalbott.838083615@kelly>, dtal...@teleport.com
(David N. Talbott) writes:
> That's it Tim? You started out by saying you were going to answer the
> question with respect to recurring motifs and instead you answer the
> question on the opposite end of the scale: how do original motifs get
> confused?
Actually, no I never said any such thing at all. Can you read, or are you
just pretending illiteracy for our mutual enjoyment?
> Let me remind you one more time what the challenge is. It is to find an
> explanation for *recurring motifs* that does not amount to a carbon copy
> of the Saturn theory. The type of confusion you refer to does not create
> recurring motifs, but fragments and distorts them over time. The anomaly
> of widespread cultures saying the *same* thing but with *different* words
> and symbols remains.
In fact, I do have a much better explanation than the Saturn Myth, but like
Fermat's proof, it won't fit in the margin of this post. You will have to wait
for part 2.
[ ... ]
> The lesson is that myth arose out of human imagination responding to
> extraordinary events. You prove this point by showing that hundreds
> of motifs actually converge on explicit, highly concrete forms that do not
> exist in our sky.
No, this is not the lesson, it is a constraint that you have invented for
the sole purpose of attepting to justify a pre-conception that has no objective
justification to begin with. In this response to me you have diligently ignored
the real lesson, and until YOU "read the material", you will not know why you
are wrong. Here is the real lesson, a paragraph from my original message that
you saw fit to ignore completely.
In article <4sv55q$s...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>, t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov
(Tim Thompson) writes:
> Talbott has fallen into the trap of presuming that every description of Venus
> in ancient language must be a photographic representation of Venus, else he could
> never assert that Venus must have looked like a comet from the linguistic evidence.
> In order to believe this one must assume that the ancient viewers of Venus were
> emotional and spiritual robots, devoid of poetry, feeling, or anything else that
> would identify them as human. certainly this is clearly a ridiculous point of view.
The existence of common themes, which I will explain in another post, is not
relevant to this particular linguistic argument. You cannot know what Venus actually
looked like in the eyes of ancient myth makers, no matter what themes yoiu find or
think you find. You can only assume a visible appearance arbitrarily. The real
lesson therefore is that you refuse to recognize the endemic weakness of your own
arbitrary assumptions. So what if all the themes are the same? I don't care how
many common themes you find, it's not relevant. You cannot use the assumption that
Venus looked like a comet to prove the assumption that Venus looked like a comet,
but you are doing just that.
Explain to us why Venus must have looked like a comet.
Jamie Schrumpf
In article <dtalbott.838083615@kelly>, dtal...@teleport.com says...
>
>I'll try to keep this response to Tim Thompson as short as possible
>
>I had written:
>
>>> Having invested in this little exercise Tim, why do you not invest in
>>> another little exercise which would save us the time of correcting your
>>> hasty statements. The mythical images, as will be apparent to anyone who
>>> simply reads the material, could not have been inspired by the appearance
>>> of Venus today. It's that simple. READ THE MATERIAL, TIM. Then tell us
>>> that Venus' appearance today could have prompted the images as they are
>>> recorded around the world. What in the name of heaven are you seeing in
>>> Venus that gives you the impression of a heaven-spanning, fiery serpent,
>>> long-haired serpent, serpent with long streamers, a serpent raging across
>>> the sky, threatening to destroy the world, a serpent whose body comes to
>>> form the celestial enclosure called the "land of the gods."
>>>
>>> Well, that's five or six recurring motifs. How many more would you like?
>>>
>>> It won't work Tim.
>
>
[with some unfortunately off-topic discussion remarks that really did nothing
to come to the point]
>That's it Tim? You started out by saying you were going to answer the
>question with respect to recurring motifs and instead you answer the
>question on the opposite end of the scale: how do original motifs get
>confused?
>
>Let me remind you one more time what the challenge is. It is to find an
>explanation for *recurring motifs* that does not amount to a carbon copy
>of the Saturn theory. The type of confusion you refer to does not create
>recurring motifs, but fragments and distorts them over time. The anomaly
>of widespread cultures saying the *same* thing but with *different* words
>and symbols remains.
>
>A few questions to help you focus here. Have you ever seen a *bearded*
>serpent? Have you ever seen a bearded serpent flying through the air?
>Have you ever seen a bearded serpent flying through the air and
>disturbing the motions of the stars? Have you ever seen a *feathered*
>serpent? Have you ever seen a serpent with *long-streaming
>hair*? Have you ever seen a *fire-breathing* serpent or dragon? If you
>have never seen such a thing, do you ever wonder why, from opposite
>corners of the world, ancient races describe the *same* biologically
>absurd creature?
>
>Are you aware that in the cultures offering these images the one *known*
>astronomical phenomenon to which every one of these images refers--in the
>languages of the respective cultures-- is a comet? Do you seriously want
>to contend that from one land to another, the chroniclers attached the
>*same* cometary glyphs to Venus, but that the symmetry of meaning is just
>a wildly improbable accident? It's one thing to say that people would hit
>upon the same symbol for an existing natural object (a crescent in the sky
>as "horns", for example. It's another thing to say that people would hit
>upon a variety of symbols all suggesting the same celestial object if that
>object never existed!
>
>The lesson is that myth arose out of human imagination responding to
>extraordinary events. You prove this point by showing that hundreds
>of motifs actually converge on explicit, highly concrete forms that do not
>exist in our sky.
>
>Until your read the material Tim, you will not know whether or not this is
>true.
>
>Dave
Actually, the point is: from what we know about Venus as a planet, we also
know that it could never, ever, have appeared as: a comet; a bearded serpent;
a feathered serpent; a serpent with long-streaming hair; or a fire-breathing
serpent or dragon.
It's just impossible. Venus is as close to the sun as many comets get, and we
do not, repeat DO NOT see it as a comet. And there's no evidence we ever
would have. Its gravitational well is far too deep for its atmosphere to blow
off in the solar wind as does a comet's, to form a cometary tail.
So whatever the ancients saw as any of the above-described heavenly bodies, we
can know for sure that they were not describing -- under any circumstances --
the planet Venus.
But there certainly have been comets with orbits that placed them near to
where Venus would normally appear. I defy Talbott, Cochrane, et al, to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that such comets could not have produced such
phenomena as they have mistaken for Venus.
Until they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that comets could not have
produced such reports (and multiplicity of such reports is not sufficient
proof), we have no reason to think that only Venus could have.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Schrumpf http://www.access.digex.net/~moncomm
"It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as
it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as
you have got it." --- Edmund Way Teale, "Circle of the Seasons"
Jack Dominey
dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) wrote:
>A few questions to help you focus here. Have you ever seen a *bearded*
>serpent? Have you ever seen a bearded serpent flying through the air?
>Have you ever seen a bearded serpent flying through the air and
>disturbing the motions of the stars? Have you ever seen a *feathered*
>serpent? Have you ever seen a serpent with *long-streaming
>hair*? Have you ever seen a *fire-breathing* serpent or dragon? If you
>have never seen such a thing, do you ever wonder why, from opposite
>corners of the world, ancient races describe the *same* biologically
>absurd creature?
Using the rules you have proposed for letting the historical argument
lead the physical investigation, I have to ask why you are so quick to
rule out the hairy, feathered, fire-breathing serpent as a real thing.
Upon what basis do you claim it is "biologically absurd"? After all,
any number of people have explained to you in great detail that the
Saturn Configuration is physically absurd, but you reject them as mere
"debunkers". So where is your call for fearless exploration of the
Real Feathered Serpent Hypothesis?
Back to lurking...
Jack Dominey "Apparently I'm insane.
domi...@mindspring.com But I'm one of the happy kinds!"
Wade Hines
domi...@atl.mindspring.com (Jack Dominey) writes:
>dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) wrote:
>>A few questions to help you focus here. Have you ever seen a *bearded*
>>serpent? Have you ever seen a bearded serpent flying through the air?
>>Have you ever seen a bearded serpent flying through the air and
>>disturbing the motions of the stars? Have you ever seen a *feathered*
>>serpent? Have you ever seen a serpent with *long-streaming
>>hair*? Have you ever seen a *fire-breathing* serpent or dragon? If you
>>have never seen such a thing, do you ever wonder why, from opposite
Well, I'll tell you in a minute ...
>>corners of the world, ancient races describe the *same* biologically
>>absurd creature?
>Using the rules you have proposed for letting the historical argument
>lead the physical investigation, I have to ask why you are so quick to
>rule out the hairy, feathered, fire-breathing serpent as a real thing.
>Upon what basis do you claim it is "biologically absurd"? After all,
>any number of people have explained to you in great detail that the
>Saturn Configuration is physically absurd, but you reject them as mere
>"debunkers". So where is your call for fearless exploration of the
>Real Feathered Serpent Hypothesis?
I prefer the beer hypothesis. Have you ever gotten really drunk on
primative beer, or have you every gotten real primative on vintage
brew? How about alittle ergot? What about those pink elephant stories?
Mixtures of absurdities are very common to typical hallucinations
which are certainly an aspect of some modern mythology. Why not also
an aspect of ancient mythologies. I find the "point" of the original
questions lacking in understanding of simple explainations for the
origins of myths and sensationalistic in the explainations it seems
to favor.
--Wade
David N. Talbott
From <4tm3fl$11...@mule1.mindspring.com> domi...@atl.mindspring.com (Jack
Dominey):
>dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) wrote:
>>A few questions to help you focus here. Have you ever seen a *bearded*
>>serpent? Have you ever seen a bearded serpent flying through the air?
>>Have you ever seen a bearded serpent flying through the air and
>>disturbing the motions of the stars? Have you ever seen a *feathered*
>>serpent? Have you ever seen a serpent with *long-streaming
>>hair*? Have you ever seen a *fire-breathing* serpent or dragon? If you
>>have never seen such a thing, do you ever wonder why, from opposite
>>corners of the world, ancient races describe the *same* biologically
>>absurd creature?
>Using the rules you have proposed for letting the historical argument
>lead the physical investigation, I have to ask why you are so quick to
>rule out the hairy, feathered, fire-breathing serpent as a real thing.
>Upon what basis do you claim it is "biologically absurd"? After all,
>any number of people have explained to you in great detail that the
>Saturn Configuration is physically absurd, but you reject them as mere
>"debunkers". So where is your call for fearless exploration of the
>Real Feathered Serpent Hypothesis?
I can only assume you've not been following the thread, Jack. The whole
point of the cross-cultural comparison is to identify, in terms of the
languages in which the symbols occur, the external form behind widely
divergent words and pictographs. The only celestial phenomenon to
which the above-cited symbols singularly or in combination refer--in the
languages of the widespread cultures employing the symbols--is a
*comet*. Now surely you can see the logical implication of this. When
totally different symbols answer to the same natural form, it is only
logical to assume that it was the natural form that inspired the symbol.
You can then proceed to test the idea in a virtually limitless library of
ancient testimony. For anyone who will go through the exercise, the
question will be easily settled.
Dave
Tim Thompson
Since I have a reputation for boldness to uphold, permit me to be bold.
Note that I may re-format Talbott's text for cosmetic reasons, but have
changed nothing, and deleted nothing without proper indication.
In article <dtalbott.838860382@julie>, dtal...@teleport.com
(David N. Talbott) writes:
[ ... ]
> The whole point of the cross-cultural comparison is to identify, in terms
> of the languages in which the symbols occur, the external form behind widely
> divergent words and pictographs.
I boldly maintain that this is impossible; not only in practice, but in
theory as well. No analysis of myth can ever *unambiguously* recover the
external form behind the myths. This in turn means that I think the most
fundamental aspect of what is called the "Saturn Myth" is completely
illogical and unreasonable. We don't even need to belabor the physical
impossibility of the "polar configuration", since the process that derives
that impossible configuration is itself impossible.
In order to explain clearly what I mean, I wish to resort to an analogy
which should be good enough for this purpose. That is to consider myths as
an encryption scheme. Not all encryption schemes can be decrypted, and the
UNIX password encryption is such a scheme. Encrypted passwords cannot be
decrypted, so when you log in, the system encrypts your password, compares
it to its own stored encrypted version, and if they match, you get in.
The important point is that the encryption scheme is strictly one-way.
It is my argument that myths are generated by a one-way encryption
scheme. Myths, like accidents, don't "just happen". People make myths,
and they have to be motivated by something, sufficiently to go to the
trouble to make a myth. We all understand that human motivations are
as mysterious as anything can be, and represent a bewildering array
of stimuli both internal and external in origin. In order to accurately
recover the real external form behind the myths, one must be able to
accurately isolate the external from the internal stimuli that go into
the motivation to make myth. I do not think this can be done, even in
theory. Furthermore, I do not think it will ever be doable.
In this "model" of mine, the external and internal stimuli can be
considered input data. The human process of making myth from these
input data can be considered as a one-way encryption scheme. The resulting
myth is an encrypted form of the input data. The analogy does suffer from
some obvious weaknesses, but I think they actually enhance my point, rather
than detract from it. For instance, the UNIX password encrypter will always
return the same encrypted string, given identical input. The "myth-o-sizer"
encrypter is not so predictable, and would return a different myth given
the same input; the Babylonians, upon some external stimuli, would not be
expected to create the same myth as the Mayans, even given identical
external stimuli. Indeed, the same should be true even if we compare the
Babylonians to other Babylonians, say 500 or 1000 years later.
In article <dtalbott.838861632@julie>, dtal...@teleport.com
(David N. Talbott) writes:
[ ... ]
> That's why I shall continue to insist that a fundamentally false theory
> predicting the full content of recurring themes is not just unlikely,
> it's impossible.
It should be fairly obvious that this must be false, and Talbott's
continued adherence to it can only damage his credibilty. One can, should
one choose to make the effort, create an essentially infinite number of
totally ridiculous explanations, all of them every bit as useful as Talbott's
Saturn Myth theory. For instance, it is fairly obvious that myth comes from
pre-historic times. I propose that 50,000 years ago a barbarian named Conan
conquered tha entire human race, and imposed all of the known common themes
of myth on everybody on pain of death. I challenge Talbott to *prove* that
this did not or could not have happened. Mind, "that's just silly" is not
such a proof and should not be countenanced. My theory of Conan the Conqueror
does not violate any known law of nature, and is not inconsistent with any
known facts of history or myth. Therefore it must be seriously considered,
and proven wrong, or else it must be given every bit as much validity and
respect as the Saturn Myth itself deserves.
--
Every once in a while I am supposed to remind you that I do not
speak in any offical capacity for NASA, JPL, Caltech or the
pizza place down the road. All opinions expressed are mine, but
you are welcome to adopt as many as you like for yourself.
ev.co...@ames.net
Tim Thompson wrote:
>
> Since I have a reputation for boldness to uphold, permit me to be bold.
> Note that I may re-format Talbott's text for cosmetic reasons, but have
> changed nothing, and deleted nothing without proper indication.
>
> In article <dtalbott.838860382@julie>, dtal...@teleport.com
> (David N. Talbott) writes:
>
> [ ... ]
> > The whole point of the cross-cultural comparison is to identify, in terms
> > of the languages in which the symbols occur, the external form behind widely
> > divergent words and pictographs.
>
> I boldly maintain that this is impossible; not only in practice, but in
> theory as well. No analysis of myth can ever *unambiguously* recover the
> external form behind the myths. This in turn means that I think the most
> fundamental aspect of what is called the "Saturn Myth" is completely
> illogical and unreasonable. We don't even need to belabor the physical
> impossibility of the "polar configuration", since the process that derives
> that impossible configuration is itself impossible.
It continues to amaze me that novices in the study of myth
like Tim Thompson and Leroy Ellenberger continue to tell
those of us who have devoted decades to the study of myth
just what is possible and what is not. Tim appears to be
missing the fundamental point of the researches of Talbott
and myself: It is not that we attempt to reconstuct the
recent history of the solar system *solely* upon the
interpretation of myth. Far from it. Rather, we compare
what myth has to say with the testimony of early
astronomies, ancient art, sacred ritual, and every other
means of communication devised by humans. To take a
concrete example: When the ancients say they witnessed
Venus assuming a comet-like form, the peoples of both
the New and Old Worlds comparing it to a giant dragon
spanning the skies, etc., Dave and I just don't blindly accept
this statement in the absence of supporting evidence.
On the contrary, images of the Venus-comet form a dominant
motive in ancient art. And inasmuch as these images
are remarkably consistent from culture to culture and
down through the ages (they were the most sacred symbols
known to man, and thus carefully preserved), it stands to
reason that some objective form--i.e., Venus undergoing
a comet-like appearance--must have inspired them. Thus
I would maintain that an analysis of myth, supplemented
by a comparative study of ancient art, etc., can indeed
reconstruct the external form behind the myths. The
situation with regards to the early history of Venus is
analogous to that of the megafauna represented on the
walls of caves throughout the world. Imagine an oral
tradition of prehistoric hunters describing a great
hairy elephant, far more massive than its modern counterpart.
Arm chair theorists like Tim Thompson would no doubt
reject such reports out of hand. Yet the reports gain
in credence when it is observed that the ancient hunters
themselves painted the animals in question (Mammoths),
frequently in remarkably realistic fashion. The oral
traditions gain added credence when it is discovered that
Mammoth bones litter the floors of ancient caves
frequented by early hunters. All that is missing today
is the Mammoth itself, but only a fool or dogmatist
would deny the possibility that Mammoths once roamed
the Earth.
The history of the Venus-comet as reconstructed by Talbott
and myself, although not as solidly established as the
case for human interaction with Mammoths, is rapidly gaining
in credibility. We have gathered a wealth of evidence from
every inhabited continent that ancient man described Venus
with terminology identical to that otherwise reserved for
comets. We have presented ancient art from every inhabited
continent depicting Venus with a comet-like form or in
an impossible celestial alignment (the Venus-star set
within a crescent; the Venus-star set upon the face of
the ancient "Sun"; etc.) All that is missing are a few
"bones" left behind by the Cytherean planet during its
recent tumultuous history. Mars was kind enough to leave
behind unequivocal physical evidence of its former close
proximity to Earth, and I suspect that the same will
ultimately prove true of Venus. Until such evidence is
found, however, I continue to hold out hope that some
astronomer will soon discover unequivocal evidence that
Venus only recently moved upon a different orbit and in
close proximity to Saturn, Mars, and Earth.
Ev Cochrane
Editor/Publisher of Aeon
A Journal of Myth and Science
http://www.ames.net/aeon/
Email: ev.co...@ames.net
David N. Talbott
A variation on the reasoning of Jack Dominey is submitted by
>Mixtures of absurdities are very common to typical hallucinations
>which are certainly an aspect of some modern mythology. Why not also
>an aspect of ancient mythologies. I find the "point" of the original
>questions lacking in understanding of simple explainations for the
>origins of myths and sensationalistic in the explainations it seems
>to favor.
The problem with your suggested explanation is that it breaks down within
(at most) a few accidental hits. Your explanation would have to say that
the convergence of comet-hieroglyphs is an accident. A few convergences,
perhaps. A wholly unified substratum of myth, not a chance. That's why I
shall continue to insist that a fundamentally false theory predicting the
full content of recurring themes is not just unlikely, it's impossible.
And as I've already said more than once, you could not even make up an
explanation of *one* theme that will work when the theme is examined in
its earliest and recurring contexts.
Dave
Tim Thompson
Wow - fast turnaround this time, all in the same night! This
internet thing is just too weird for me.
In article <320174...@ames.net>, ev.co...@ames.net writes:
> Tim Thompson wrote:
>> Since I have a reputation for boldness to uphold, permit me to be bold.
>> Note that I may re-format Talbott's text for cosmetic reasons, but have
>> changed nothing, and deleted nothing without proper indication.
>>
>> In article <dtalbott.838860382@julie>, dtal...@teleport.com
>> (David N. Talbott) writes:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>> > The whole point of the cross-cultural comparison is to identify, in terms
>> > of the languages in which the symbols occur, the external form behind widely
>> > divergent words and pictographs.
[Thompson ... ]
>> I boldly maintain that this is impossible; not only in practice, but in
>> theory as well. No analysis of myth can ever *unambiguously* recover the
>> external form behind the myths. This in turn means that I think the most
>> fundamental aspect of what is called the "Saturn Myth" is completely
>> illogical and unreasonable. We don't even need to belabor the physical
>> impossibility of the "polar configuration", since the process that derives
>> that impossible configuration is itself impossible.
Note that Cochrane completely ignores my dazzlingly brilliant analogy
with encryption schemes.
[Cochrane ... ]
> It continues to amaze me that novices in the study of myth
> like Tim Thompson and Leroy Ellenberger continue to tell
> those of us who have devoted decades to the study of myth
> just what is possible and what is not.
It continues to amaze me that novices in the study of physics
like Ev Cochrane and Dave Talbott continue to tell
those of us who have devoted decades to the study of physics
just what is possible and what is not. It also continues to
amaze me that anyone who has "devoted decades" to the study
of myth should still need to have the obvious pointed out to
them ad-infinitum.
> Tim appears to be
> missing the fundamental point of the researches of Talbott
> and myself: It is not that we attempt to reconstuct the
> recent history of the solar system *solely* upon the
> interpretation of myth. Far from it. Rather, we compare
> what myth has to say with the testimony of early
> astronomies, ancient art, sacred ritual, and every other
> means of communication devised by humans.
No I didn't miss the point. You missed the point. Everything
you have studied, all of it, myth, ritual, art, and etc. is
irrelevant to the study of the detailed structure of the solar
system. The Saturn Myth, and your alleged scholarship, are all
initimately non-sequitor. The only relevant topic you have mentioned
is "ancient astronomy", the interpretation of which you clearly
botched.
> Imagine an oral
> tradition of prehistoric hunters describing a great
> hairy elephant, far more massive than its modern counterpart.
> Arm chair theorists like Tim Thompson would no doubt
> reject such reports out of hand. Yet the reports gain
> in credence when it is observed that the ancient hunters
> themselves painted the animals in question (Mammoths),
> frequently in remarkably realistic fashion. The oral
> traditions gain added credence when it is discovered that
> Mammoth bones litter the floors of ancient caves
> frequented by early hunters. All that is missing today
> is the Mammoth itself, but only a fool or dogmatist
> would deny the possibility that Mammoths once roamed
> the Earth.
The Saturn Myth proposes a physically impossible planetary
arrangement. On the other hand, stories about big hairy
elephants violate no fundamental precepts or laws of nature.
Stories about big hairy elephants violate no constraint on
nature at all. Your analogy falls flat. Poor argumentation,
I suggest you practice at home before trying this in public
again.
Armchair theorists like Cochrane and Talbott blithely ignore
everything about science and just invent fantasy solar systems.
What the hell is supposed to be "intellectual" about that?
> The history of the Venus-comet as reconstructed by Talbott
> and myself, although not as solidly established as the
> case for human interaction with Mammoths, is rapidly gaining
> in credibility.
Did you smoke something before you wrote this? Where is all
this credibility? Don't you pull in the same size crowds to
your great international conferences as you did about 10 or 20
years ago? Has your subscription list blossomed over 500? Nice
try, but nobody else is impressed either.
> We have gathered a wealth of evidence from
> every inhabited continent that ancient man described Venus
> with terminology identical to that otherwise reserved for
> comets.
The obvious pointed out once again: Venus as it currently
appears is sufficient to explain all ancient linguistic
references, no exceptions.
> We have presented ancient art from every inhabited
> continent depicting Venus with a comet-like form or in
> an impossible celestial alignment (the Venus-star set
> within a crescent; the Venus-star set upon the face of
> the ancient "Sun"; etc.)
And all of it completely irrelevant, a fact obvious to
literally everyone but you.
> All that is missing are a few
> "bones" left behind by the Cytherean planet during its
> recent tumultuous history. Mars was kind enough to leave
> behind unequivocal physical evidence of its former close
> proximity to Earth, and I suspect that the same will
> ultimately prove true of Venus. Until such evidence is
> found, however, I continue to hold out hope that some
> astronomer will soon discover unequivocal evidence that
> Venus only recently moved upon a different orbit and in
> close proximity to Saturn, Mars, and Earth.
Don't hold your breath.
--
Jamie Schrumpf
In article <320174...@ames.net>, ev.co...@ames.net says...
>
>It continues to amaze me that novices in the study of myth
>like Tim Thompson and Leroy Ellenberger continue to tell
>those of us who have devoted decades to the study of myth
>just what is possible and what is not. Tim appears to be
>missing the fundamental point of the researches of Talbott
>and myself: It is not that we attempt to reconstuct the
>recent history of the solar system *solely* upon the
>interpretation of myth. Far from it. Rather, we compare
>what myth has to say with the testimony of early
>astronomies, ancient art, sacred ritual, and every other
>means of communication devised by humans. To take a
>concrete example: When the ancients say they witnessed
>Venus assuming a comet-like form, the peoples of both
>the New and Old Worlds comparing it to a giant dragon
>spanning the skies, etc., Dave and I just don't blindly accept
>this statement in the absence of supporting evidence.
Sure seems that way so far.
>On the contrary, images of the Venus-comet form a dominant
>motive in ancient art. And inasmuch as these images
>are remarkably consistent from culture to culture and
>down through the ages (they were the most sacred symbols
>known to man, and thus carefully preserved), it stands to
>reason that some objective form--i.e., Venus undergoing
>a comet-like appearance--must have inspired them. Thus
>I would maintain that an analysis of myth, supplemented
>by a comparative study of ancient art, etc., can indeed
>reconstruct the external form behind the myths.
So you're saying that your physical evidence for the myth of "Venus-as
comet" consists of drawings of "Venus-as-comet" done by the same people who
created the myth of "Venus-as comet"?
This is circular reasoning of the first order. It's already been explained to
you that the gravity of Venus would prevent its atmosphere from being pushed
away by the solar wind to form a cometary tail; if it could be, it would be
exhibiting that behavior now, as Venus is currently much closer to the sun
than it was in its Earth-flyby days.
>The situation with regards to the early history of Venus is
>analogous to that of the megafauna represented on the
>walls of caves throughout the world. Imagine an oral
>tradition of prehistoric hunters describing a great
>hairy elephant, far more massive than its modern counterpart.
>Arm chair theorists like Tim Thompson would no doubt
>reject such reports out of hand. Yet the reports gain
>in credence when it is observed that the ancient hunters
>themselves painted the animals in question (Mammoths),
>frequently in remarkably realistic fashion. The oral
>traditions gain added credence when it is discovered that
>Mammoth bones litter the floors of ancient caves
>frequented by early hunters. All that is missing today
>is the Mammoth itself, but only a fool or dogmatist
>would deny the possibility that Mammoths once roamed
>the Earth.
But of course, there is no similar physical evidence for your Venus flybys.
>
>The history of the Venus-comet as reconstructed by Talbott
>and myself,
[understatement mode on]
>although not as solidly established as the
>case for human interaction with Mammoths,
[understatement mode off]
>is rapidly gaining in credibility.
In your world, perhaps; not the one the rest of us live in. The list of
speakers at your V'ist convention is the same group as has been promoting this
pseudoscience for the past several conventions. What new evidence has been
presented by any recent joinee?
>We have gathered a wealth of evidence from
>every inhabited continent that ancient man described Venus
>with terminology identical to that otherwise reserved for
>comets. We have presented ancient art from every inhabited
>continent depicting Venus with a comet-like form or in
>an impossible celestial alignment (the Venus-star set
>within a crescent; the Venus-star set upon the face of
>the ancient "Sun"; etc.) All that is missing are a few
>"bones" left behind by the Cytherean planet during its
>recent tumultuous history. Mars was kind enough to leave
>behind unequivocal physical evidence of its former close
>proximity to Earth, and I suspect that the same will
>ultimately prove true of Venus. Until such evidence is
>found, however, I continue to hold out hope that some
>astronomer will soon discover unequivocal evidence that
>Venus only recently moved upon a different orbit and in
>close proximity to Saturn, Mars, and Earth.
Of course, you have also never eliminated the possibility that what these
ancients were reporting were actually comets near to Venus's orbit. That is
the simplest explanation that would cover their observations.
Wade Hines
dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) writes:
>A variation on the reasoning of Jack Dominey is submitted by
><hines.8...@cgl.ucsf.edu> hi...@cgl.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines),who writes:
>>Mixtures of absurdities are very common to typical hallucinations
>>which are certainly an aspect of some modern mythology. Why not also
>>an aspect of ancient mythologies. I find the "point" of the original
>>questions lacking in understanding of simple explainations for the
>>origins of myths and sensationalistic in the explainations it seems
>>to favor.
>The problem with your suggested explanation is that it breaks down within
>(at most) a few accidental hits. Your explanation would have to say that
Now you make the next obvious mistake of not recognizing how stories
travel. The traveling minstrel is a larger myth than your Satur based
ones, except I don't find any reason to doubt it because of the laws
of physics. People travel. If they told good stories, they weren't
killed or made slaves. Ever read the Arabian Nights?
>the convergence of comet-hieroglyphs is an accident. A few convergences,
>perhaps. A wholly unified substratum of myth, not a chance. That's why I
>shall continue to insist that a fundamentally false theory predicting the
>full content of recurring themes is not just unlikely, it's impossible.
Perhaps the problem is with your overwhelmingly ad-hoc, vague and otherwise
poor exposition of this fundamental underlying substratum. It twists, it
turns, "makes" predictions that don't seem to be required, and requires
ignoring contradictory physical evidence.
Give me a thousand datapoint, let me pick the hundred I want, and I
will tell you a story ...
--Wade
Jack Dominey
dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) wrote:
>From <4tm3fl$11...@mule1.mindspring.com> domi...@atl.mindspring.com (Jack
>Dominey):
>> Talbott:
>>>A few questions to help you focus here. Have you ever seen a *bearded*
>>>serpent? Have you ever seen a bearded serpent flying through the air?
>>>Have you ever seen a bearded serpent flying through the air and
>>>disturbing the motions of the stars? Have you ever seen a *feathered*
>>>serpent? Have you ever seen a serpent with *long-streaming
>>>hair*? Have you ever seen a *fire-breathing* serpent or dragon? If you
>>>have never seen such a thing, do you ever wonder why, from opposite
>>>corners of the world, ancient races describe the *same* biologically
>>>absurd creature?
>Dominey:
>>Using the rules you have proposed for letting the historical argument
>>lead the physical investigation, I have to ask why you are so quick to
>>rule out the hairy, feathered, fire-breathing serpent as a real thing.
>>Upon what basis do you claim it is "biologically absurd"? After all,
>>any number of people have explained to you in great detail that the
>>Saturn Configuration is physically absurd, but you reject them as mere
>>"debunkers". So where is your call for fearless exploration of the
>>Real Feathered Serpent Hypothesis?
Talbot:
>I can only assume you've not been following the thread, Jack.
You assume incorrectly. [Here I cannot prevent a few sarcastic remarks
from drifting across my mind. I will spare the newsgroups from them.]
As a matter of fact I've been reading t.o. for several years now, and
alt.cat for several months. I am passingly familiar with the posts
that you have presented in the past; I've even got your article in
_Aeon_ III,6. In fact, I think I'll quote from that article in a
minute here.
> The whole
>point of the cross-cultural comparison is to identify, in terms of the
>languages in which the symbols occur, the external form behind widely
>divergent words and pictographs.
Ok.
The only celestial phenomenon to
>which the above-cited symbols singularly or in combination refer--in the
>languages of the widespread cultures employing the symbols--is a
>*comet*.
If you say so. I am asking why this must be a celestial phenomenon.
*I* am assuming that you really meant to type "serpent" six times in
the paragraph above, and that the mythologies which you refer to are
saying, more-or-less explicitly, "serpent". If that's not what they
say, then what do they say, and how do you justify *changing* the
references into serpents and then into comets? If they *do* say
"serpent" or "dragon", then why don't you consider the literal version
to be plausible?
To quote you from _Aeon_ III,6, "We don't need to be told that fiery
serpents and dragons...*did not exist in the sense understood by the
myth-makers.*" [emphasis in original] But you never say why we don't
need to be told this.
So, Dave, why? Why do you reject the obvious and literal
interpretation? Surely it's not because of the physical evidence -
you yourself have said that the historical argument must lead the
physical investigation. Where is the call for investigation of real
flying serpents?
I'll be perfectly honest here. I don't expect anyone to go looking
for remains of fire-breathing feathered serpents that existed in human
history. I agree that it's absurd. It just seems to me inconsistent
to reject one hypothesis on grounds of physical impossibility and then
embrace another in spite of the same problem.
Now surely you can see the logical implication of this. When
>totally different symbols answer to the same natural form, it is only
>logical to assume that it was the natural form that inspired the symbol.
Here is where I, and others, I suspect, begin to have problems with
your theories. Totally different symbols? So which "natural form" do
they "answer to"? Serpent or comet?
Reaching back to your _Aeon_ article, you seem to agree that Joseph
Campbell and others have done important work in identifying
mythological themes. But I have never seen you address why you find
Campbell's explanations inadequate. Why do we *need* humonguous
celestial phenonmena to explain the roots of mythology?
Michael D. Painter
Jamie Schrumpf <ja...@dcd00745.slip.digex.net> wrote in article <4trtd2$7...@news4.digex.net>...
> In article <320174...@ames.net>, ev.co...@ames.net says...
To take a
> >concrete example: When the ancients say they witnessed
> >Venus assuming a comet-like form, the peoples of both
> >the New and Old Worlds comparing it to a giant dragon
> >spanning the skies, etc., Dave and I just don't blindly accept
> >this statement in the absence of supporting evidence.
> >On the contrary, images of the Venus-comet form a dominant
> >motive in ancient art. And inasmuch as these images
> >are remarkably consistent from culture to culture and
> >down through the ages (they were the most sacred symbols
> >known to man, and thus carefully preserved), it stands to
> >reason that some objective form--i.e., Venus undergoing
> >a comet-like appearance--must have inspired them. Thus
> >I would maintain that an analysis of myth, supplemented
> >by a comparative study of ancient art, etc., can indeed
> >reconstruct the external form behind the myths.
Did this "fly by" occur more than once?
How did you establish dates for the occurrence(s)
When did it take place?
How did you determine that all references were to the same object?
What physical theory allows this "fly-by"?
Assuming normal physics, where did the energy come from that allowed the change of velocity?
How was it applied?
You mentioned physical evidence from mars?
David N. Talbott
I've clipped a lot of this one, to make it easier on us
In <4ttgcf$n...@mule2.mindspring.com> domi...@atl.mindspring.com (Jack Dominey) writes:
>I'll be perfectly honest here. I don't expect anyone to go looking
>for remains of fire-breathing feathered serpents that existed in human
>history. I agree that it's absurd. It just seems to me inconsistent
>to reject one hypothesis on grounds of physical impossibility and then
>embrace another in spite of the same problem.
The answer is simple: When several different symbols answer to the same
external form, the symbol-in-itself could not have been the source of the
imagery. Spiraling sidelock, spiraling rope, spiraling breath, spiraling
heart-soul, and spiraling serpent present a nexus of overlapping symbols,
none of which will explain themselves. In magical rites, why does the
*breath* spiral? You can find the answer by going back to the earliest
expressions of the imagery. The "breath" of the creator-king is perceived
as a luminous, spiraling stream (that's why, around the world, the
superstition took hold that the "soul" was lodged in a spiraling lock of
hair. Our word "spirit" traces to roots meaning "spiral" but there is no
explanation for this today. The same spiraling stream is implied by the
cosmic serpent, which is why the chaos monster may emerge from a lock of
hair, or alternatively, from the spiraling breath, which is no
contradiction once the linkage is discerned.
The heart-soul of the archaic sun god (Saturn) was the planet
Venus. It is this celestial body that takes the spiraling form, as
provable from the astronomical symbolism of all major cultures..
ABSTRACT FORM PRECEDES THE SYMBOL.
Dave
Jack Dominey
dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) wrote:
>I've clipped a lot of this one, to make it easier on us
That's an interesting interpretation. Really, if you're going to clip
a batch of questions, you should at least acknowledge you're doing so.
Otherwise some people would accuse you of trying to dodge them.
>In <4ttgcf$n...@mule2.mindspring.com> domi...@atl.mindspring.com (Jack Dominey) writes:
>>It just seems to me inconsistent
>>to reject one hypothesis on grounds of physical impossibility and then
>>embrace another in spite of the same problem.
>The answer is simple: When several different symbols answer to the same
>external form, the symbol-in-itself could not have been the source of the
>imagery.
Yeah, that's a pretty simple answer. I'm not sure I buy it, though.
Take your basic impressive pieces of landscape for instance.
Mountains, rivers, oceans. These things evoke a profound response in
all humans. It seems to me completely unsurprising that they should
occupy important roles in various myths. You seem to insist that
there are details in these myths that *require* an extraordinary
explanation; and that appeals to the fundamentals of human psychology
(a la Campbell) and the kinds of experiences that we know about
(floods, volcanoes, fires, storms, to name some of the more
spectacular) are inadequate.
Here are a couple of the questions I asked you before:
Why do we *need* humonguous celestial phenomena to explain the roots
of mythology?
If the myths *do* say "serpent" or "dragon", then why don't you
consider the literal version to be plausible?
I'm willing to consider the second one *partially* addressed. I do
wish you had mentioned the serpents specifically - after all, you
brought them up:
*You* asked:
>>>A few questions to help you focus here. Have you ever seen a *bearded*
>>>serpent? Have you ever seen a bearded serpent flying through the air?
>>>Have you ever seen a bearded serpent flying through the air and
>>>disturbing the motions of the stars? Have you ever seen a *feathered*
>>>serpent? Have you ever seen a serpent with *long-streaming
>>>hair*? Have you ever seen a *fire-breathing* serpent or dragon? If you
>>>have never seen such a thing, do you ever wonder why, from opposite
>>>corners of the world, ancient races describe the *same* biologically
>>>absurd creature?
> Spiraling sidelock, spiraling rope, spiraling breath, spiraling
>heart-soul, and spiraling serpent present a nexus of overlapping symbols,
>none of which will explain themselves. In magical rites, why does the
>*breath* spiral?
First item I've never heard of. Would you provide some reference to
these rites?
>You can find the answer by going back to the earliest
>expressions of the imagery. The "breath" of the creator-king is perceived
>as a luminous, spiraling stream
Second item I've never heard of. It sounds plausible, but would you
provide some reference to this "expression"? Is it in some published
source? Do most authorities on the myths involved agree that this
image exists, or is it a debatable interpretation?
(that's why, around the world, the
>superstition took hold that the "soul" was lodged in a spiraling lock of
>hair.
Third item I've never heard of. Around the world, huh? I always
heard that the soul or spirit was in the breath, which is why that
second item above sounds plausible. So which
myths/superstitions/stories depend on hair? Where could I find such a
reference?
>Our word "spirit" traces to roots meaning "spiral" but there is no
>explanation for this today.
Goes back to Latin roots. Others can give a more definite commentary
(and I would like to hear it) but my dictionary says under spirit:
"spiri- (akin to 'spira-', s. of 'spirare' to breathe" and under
spiral: "spir(a) coil". Sorry if the lack of italics and diacriticals
makes this confusing.
Anyway, since the Latin roots would only get you back a few centuries
BCE, I don't think this makes much of a point about the early roots of
myth, which I think you agree have to be in the neighborhood of 10,000
years ago.
>The same spiraling stream is implied by the
>cosmic serpent, which is why the chaos monster may emerge from a lock of
>hair, or alternatively, from the spiraling breath, which is no
>contradiction once the linkage is discerned.
Now we're getting to the serpent again, but it's just 'implied' this
time. I thought these serpents were thick on the metaphorical ground.
>The heart-soul of the archaic sun god (Saturn) was the planet
>Venus. It is this celestial body that takes the spiraling form, as
>provable from the astronomical symbolism of all major cultures..
>ABSTRACT FORM PRECEDES THE SYMBOL.
I still don't understand why the abstract forms have to be based on
celestial phenomena.
ev.co...@ames.net
Jack Dominey wrote:
[number of good questions deleted, to be returned to later]
[Jack now quoting Dave Talbott]
>
> > Spiraling sidelock, spiraling rope, spiraling breath, spiraling
> >heart-soul, and spiraling serpent present a nexus of overlapping symbols,
> >none of which will explain themselves. In magical rites, why does the
> >*breath* spiral?
>
> First item I've never heard of. Would you provide some reference to
> these rites?
>
> >You can find the answer by going back to the earliest
> >expressions of the imagery. The "breath" of the creator-king is perceived
> >as a luminous, spiraling stream
>
> Second item I've never heard of. It sounds plausible, but would you
> provide some reference to this "expression"? Is it in some published
> source? Do most authorities on the myths involved agree that this
> image exists, or is it a debatable interpretation?
>
> (that's why, around the world, the
> >superstition took hold that the "soul" was lodged in a spiraling lock of
> >hair.
>
> Third item I've never heard of. Around the world, huh? I always
> heard that the soul or spirit was in the breath, which is why that
> second item above sounds plausible. So which
> myths/superstitions/stories depend on hair? Where could I find such a
> reference?
Jack, I'm just heading off to a tennis tournament and will
be gone until next week, otherwise I'd give you some sources
on all of these questions. Off the top of my head, however,
I can only answer the third. A very good discussion of
the soul as lodged in a sacred lock of hair (remember the
Nisus myth from ancient Greece?) can be found in James
Frazer's Folklore in the Old Testament, pp. 274 (the
section on Samson and Delilah). As for a picture of
the breath represented as luminouse spiral, check out
B.C. Brundage's Quetzalcoatl, Phoenix of the Western
World, p. 176 (I'm going on memory here, it's one of the
around that page). If you are interested in this subject,
which it appears you are, Dave and I have written a
great deal on Venus as the soul of the ancient sun-god.
You might peruse various of our articles located on
either the Aeon website, or those of Kronia
or Ted Holden. You will find a wealth of references
provided.
David N. Talbott
From <4u8mhj$i...@mule0.mindspring.com> domi...@atl.mindspring.com (Jack
Dominey):
I had written--
>>The answer is simple: When several different symbols answer to the same
>>external form, the symbol-in-itself could not have been the source of the
>>imagery.
>Yeah, that's a pretty simple answer. I'm not sure I buy it, though.
>Take your basic impressive pieces of landscape for instance.
>Mountains, rivers, oceans. These things evoke a profound response in
>all humans. It seems to me completely unsurprising that they should
>occupy important roles in various myths. You seem to insist that
>there are details in these myths that *require* an extraordinary
>explanation; and that appeals to the fundamentals of human psychology
>(a la Campbell) and the kinds of experiences that we know about
>(floods, volcanoes, fires, storms, to name some of the more
>spectacular) are inadequate.
>
What I have emphasized is the imperative of avoiding attempts to answer
questions like this in isolation from the actual contexts and recurring
thematic links of the respective motifs. In the abstract one might assume
that the "natural" human response to a towering mountain could account for
the mythical mountain of the gods. But a rigorous cross-cultural
comparison will eliminate any rational possibility of this explanation.
Let's take an example. In merely browsing through Greek sources, how
would you ever know that the references to Mt. Olympus as the home of the
gods actually answered to a general tradition, a universal experience? At
first glance, the localized tradition--the hill in Macedonia--is more of
an obstacle to discovery than a doorway, because no cultures outside of
Greece celebrated the home of the gods as a hill in Macedonia. Every
instance of localization creates a contradiction between regional
traditions and the universal experience. And until you recognize the
presence of universal motifs, you have nothing to guide you through the
maze of symbols. Globally, there are a hundred thousand localized
symbols, while an initial list of recurring themes might total a few
hundred.
But from a deliberate investigation, aimed at exposing the substructure of
myth, it would be impossible to miss the ancient theme of the world
mountain, rising along the world axis, the mountain from which the ancient
sun god, prior to his death or departure, was said to have ruled the world
during the Golden Age. Once the investigator has discerned this general
theme, acknowledged by numerous scholars, do you think he can continue
seeing the Greek images of Olympus in the same terms? Olympus was called
the "axis". It was called the Omphalos, or cosmic center. It was
remembered as the original home of a former king of the world, Kronos,
identified as the primeval sun god Saturn, and said to have founded a
Golden Age. Now since nothing in the character of the local mountain even
begins to suggest these ideas, much less explain the accord with the
broader tradition, it is clear that the broader tradition is prior to the
local expression. And this will explain why there were actually several
hills called Mt. Olympus by the Greeks! Suddenly it becomes all too
obvious that the localized sacred mountain is a symbol not the thing
symbolized. What is symbolized is the archetype, the comsic mountain.
Now the difficulty here is that I am providing a clue to an approach
without bringing it to a conclusion. What is the cosmic mountain? You
can answer that question by allowing into the reconstruction only the
points of agreement between various traditions around the world (you are
thus preventing localization from fragmenting the original memory--a
principle that Mark Isaak has yet to come to grips with).
Was the cosmic mountain, for example, a hill constituted of Earth's crust
(as some have proposed)? No, it turns out to be a luminous *stream*
stretching along the polar axis and visualized imaginatively as a cosmic
mountain or pillar. But mythically it was not *just* a mountain or
pillar. It was the underworld river. It was the North Wind or South Wind
(whichever words in the local language would be, literally, "the Wind of
the Below"). It was the towering limbs of the warrior-hero, appearing
to hold aloft the great sphere of the creator-king himself. And
it was also a shining sceptre, spear or sword rising along the world axis,
a generative or phallic column, the masculine, erect, serpent or dragon
(aspect of the warrior-hero), and a pathway of luminous "souls" moving
between heaven and earth.
Now if a model, based on the reconstruction of ancient memory,
hypothesizes the actual presence of a such a stream--stretching between
planets (in this case, between the Earth and the planet Mars, in polar
alignment)--the model offers a testable set of highly unique
predictions. It says:
The Mountain of the Gods = Underworld River
= North Wind/South Wind
= Heaven-Supporting Hero
= Axial Sword/Spear
= Generative Column
= Masculine Serpent-Dragon
= Path of Luminous Souls
Now it's crucial to keep in mind that while the hypothesis of an
interplanetary stream will predict these symbolic equations, natural
experience familiar to us today will not predict any of these equations
and will in fact repudiate such equations as absurd. A mountain or pillar
does not look or behave like a river stretching between heaven and earth;
it does not look like a dragon; and the idea of a mountain constituted of
"wind" would be preposterous.
Hence the question is forced in the most emphatic way: does ancient
memory itself attest to the improbable equations? Absolutely and
unequivocally so, and the further back you go, the more pristine is the
equation. Go back all the way to the first expressions of ancient
cosmology in Egypt, and look up the figure of the hero Shu (later
Shu-Anhur). You will find Shu as the world pillar holding aloft the
motionless sun Atum, the "Waterway," the "North Wind" (in Egypt this means
the Wind of the Below), the Primeval Hill, a sword stretching between
heaven and earth, the body of Shu being *constituted* by the luminous
"souls" of the ascending path. One god expressing all of the incongruous
identifications predicted by the model.
Then go to Enlil of Mesopotamia, or seek out the roots of the Greek
Boreas. You will find the same juxtaposition of absurd images--absurd,
that is, until you grant the explicit cosmic reference. NOT ONE CRITIC
COULD DENY THAT IF THE HYPOTHESIZED AXIAL STREAM EXISTED, ALL OF THE
REPEATED IDENTITIES WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY EXPLAINED. NO SUBJECTIVE
INTEPRETATION OR ARGUMENTATION IS NECESSARY.
Jack, I believe that if you will consider the implications of the above
*predicted* equations you will have the answers to your questions
>Here are a couple of the questions I asked you before:
>Why do we *need* humonguous celestial phenomena to explain the roots
>of mythology?
Because nothing else will provide the imagery. Nothing else works.
>If the myths *do* say "serpent" or "dragon", then why don't you
>consider the literal version to be plausible?
Because in the myths, the serpent is not just a serpent, and the dragon is
not just a dragon. It is all of the other things I mentioned, and all of
these other things *are* explained or predicted by one celestial form.
>I'm willing to consider the second one *partially* addressed. I
do >wish you had mentioned the serpents specifically - after all, you
>brought them up:
>*You* asked:
>>>>A few questions to help you focus here. Have you ever seen a *bearded*
>>>>serpent? Have you ever seen a bearded serpent flying through the air?
>>>>Have you ever seen a bearded serpent flying through the air and
>>>>disturbing the motions of the stars? Have you ever seen a *feathered*
>>>>serpent? Have you ever seen a serpent with *long-streaming
>>>>hair*? Have you ever seen a *fire-breathing* serpent or dragon? If you
>>>>have never seen such a thing, do you ever wonder why, from opposite
>>>>corners of the world, ancient races describe the *same* biologically
>>>>absurd creature?
>> Spiraling sidelock, spiraling rope, spiraling breath, spiraling
>>heart-soul, and spiraling serpent present a nexus of overlapping symbols,
>>none of which will explain themselves. In magical rites, why does the
>>*breath* spiral?
>First item I've never heard of. Would you provide some reference to
>these rites?
These connections have been the subject of more than one article in AEON.
Perhaps Ev Cochrane could send you a list of contents. (Also, if there is
genuine interest, I will take the time to put together some independent
references.)
>>You can find the answer by going back to the earliest
>>expressions of the imagery. The "breath" of the creator-king is perceived
>>as a luminous, spiraling stream
>Second item I've never heard of. It sounds plausible, but would you
>provide some reference to this "expression"? Is it in some published
>source? Do most authorities on the myths involved agree that this
>image exists, or is it a debatable interpretation?
Generally the authorities have not noticed the recurring patterns because
they have no external references to work with. We see what is viewed as a
"breath" or "speech" spiral emanating from the mouths of gods in
Mexico,for example, but have no reference in nature to make sense of it.
So we don't recognize the relationship to the heart-soul taking the form
of a spiraling serpent, which is a diffrent symbolic object. I do believe
that Ev Cochrane and I have published enough on the spiraling Venus image
to establish the case that an archtypal form has expressed itself in
inseparably related symbolic images.
>(that's why, around the world, the
>>superstition took hold that the "soul" was lodged in a spiraling lock of
>>hair.
>Third item I've never heard of. Around the world, huh? I always
>heard that the soul or spirit was in the breath, which is why that
>second item above sounds plausible. So which
>myths/superstitions/stories depend on hair? Where could I find such a
>reference?
Numerous instances around the world are given by James Frazer in the
Golden Bough, and Theodore Gaster in Myth and Legend in the Old Testament.
>>Our word "spirit" traces to roots meaning "spiral" but there is no
>>explanation for this today.
>Goes back to Latin roots. Others can give a more definite commentary
>(and I would like to hear it) but my dictionary says under spirit:
>"spiri- (akin to 'spira-', s. of 'spirare' to breathe" and under
>spiral: "spir(a) coil". Sorry if the lack of italics and diacriticals
>makes this confusing.
Thus the *pneuma* or lifebreath is exhaled in the form of a spiraling
serpent.
>Anyway, since the Latin roots would only get you back a few centuries
>BCE, I don't think this makes much of a point about the early roots of
>myth, which I think you agree have to be in the neighborhood of 10,000
>years ago.
You are correct that later symbolism is not as compelling as the earliest
strata, because the later strata have already undergone considerable
fragmentation, many originally unified meanings of words being shed
because they no longer made sense. In the Egyptian system the
eye-heart-soul of the sun god Ra is a *goddess*. When the eye-heart-soul
departs from Ra, it becomes the fiery, spiraling uraeus serpent. But
another form of the goddess is Hensektet, a spiraling lock of hair.
>>The same spiraling stream is implied by the
>>cosmic serpent, which is why the chaos monster may emerge from a lock of
>>hair, or alternatively, from the spiraling breath, which is no
>>contradiction once the linkage is discerned.
>Now we're getting to the serpent again, but it's just 'implied' this
>time. I thought these serpents were thick on the metaphorical ground.
Again, the point is that the recurring associations of heart-soul, breath,
spiral, serpent, and lock of hair are not supported by any natural
experience today, whereas if the hypothesized events occurred no further
exlanation is necessary.
>>The heart-soul of the archaic sun god (Saturn) was the planet
>>Venus. It is this celestial body that takes the spiraling form, as
>>provable from the astronomical symbolism of all major cultures..
>>ABSTRACT FORM PRECEDES THE SYMBOL.
>I still don't understand why the abstract forms have to be based on
>celestial phenomena.
I can understand and appreciate that question. There is no reason to
assert a celestial phenomenon in advance. First, expose the abstract
forms and event sequences. But in the end, there really will be no
escaping the fact that only the forms *given by the ancient skyworshippers
themselves* actually permit a reconstruction of the interconnected images.
In the first astronomies these forms are planets, and putting the planets
where they are claimed to have been really does *work*. (In years I have
never seen anything remotely approaching an alternative explanation that
will hold up for 15 minutes.)
Lastly, let me emphasize that wherever I find genuine interest from others
I do make an effort to respond to all questions. So my rather abrupt
concluding statement is really an invitation.
Dave
Tim Thompson
In article <dtalbott.839466903@julie>, dtal...@teleport.com
(David N. Talbott) writes:
[ ... ]
> NOT ONE CRITIC
> COULD DENY THAT IF THE HYPOTHESIZED AXIAL STREAM EXISTED, ALL OF THE
> REPEATED IDENTITIES WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY EXPLAINED. NO SUBJECTIVE
> INTEPRETATION OR ARGUMENTATION IS NECESSARY.
[ ... ]
But the whole big point is that the hypothesized stream could not
have existed, we know that it is impossible. Therefore the hypothesis
fails. Talbott's constant insisting that no other hypothesis works only
means that neither he nor anyone else has come up with the right answer yet.
Paul J. Gans
Tim Thompson (t...@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov) wrote:
: In article <dtalbott.839466903@julie>, dtal...@teleport.com
: (David N. Talbott) writes:
:
: [ ... ]
: > COULD DENY THAT IF THE HYPOTHESIZED AXIAL STREAM EXISTED, ALL OF THE
: > REPEATED IDENTITIES WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY EXPLAINED. NO SUBJECTIVE
: > INTEPRETATION OR ARGUMENTATION IS NECESSARY.
:
: But the whole big point is that the hypothesized stream could not
: have existed, we know that it is impossible. Therefore the hypothesis
: fails. Talbott's constant insisting that no other hypothesis works only
: means that neither he nor anyone else has come up with the right answer yet.
You mean his ideosyncratic ideas. Lots of people have examined these
same myths and NOBODY else has come to the conclusions that Talbott
has. THEY have no trouble dealing with these myths.
None of us is about to throw out physics on the basis of strange
interpretation of myth that postulates traceless supernatural
events as explanations.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
David N. Talbott
I will assume that those reading this know something of the Saturn theory.
With respect to the universal motif of the cosmic mountain, I had
written--
Was the cosmic mountain, for example, a hill constituted of Earth's crust
(as some have proposed)? No, it turns out to be a luminous *stream*
stretching along the polar axis and visualized imaginatively as a cosmic
mountain or pillar. But mythically it was not *just* a mountain or
pillar. It was the underworld river. It was the North Wind or South Wind
(whichever words in the local language would be, literally, "the Wind of
the Below"). It was the towering limbs of the warrior-hero, appearing
to hold aloft the great sphere of the creator-king himself. And
it was also a shining sceptre, spear or sword rising along the world axis,
a generative or phallic column, the masculine, erect, serpent or dragon
(aspect of the warrior-hero), and a pathway of luminous "souls" moving
between heaven and earth.
Now if a model, based on the reconstruction of ancient memory,
hypothesizes the actual presence of a such a stream--stretching between
planets (in this case, between the Earth and the planet Mars, in polar
alignment)--the model offers a testable set of highly unique
predictions. It says:
The Mountain of the Gods = Underworld River
= North Wind/South Wind
= Heaven-Supporting Hero
= Axial Sword/Spear
-- 09:39 --talk.origins-- 28 MORE --help:?--37%--
INTERPRETATION OR ARGUMENTATION IS NECESSARY.
Now this is where Tim Thompson stepped in--
>:
>: But the whole big point is that the hypothesized stream could not
>: have existed, we know that it is impossible. Therefore the hypothesis
>: fails. Talbott's constant insisting that no other hypothesis works only
>: means that neither he nor anyone else has come up with the right answer yet.
What confidence this man has. What certainty. And what an amazing
readiness to speak for others. When there is substantial evidence that an
event occurred, it is only appropriate for scientists to ask, How? Or to
suspend judgement until all evidence is considered and the force of the
argument becomes irresistible. He is the Inauisitor with all of the
answers, even before the evidence is considered, before the expertise
of others has been consulted, before a consensus of scholarly and
scientific opinion is even possible.
Then on comes his cheerleader, the Class Clown--
>You mean his ideosyncratic ideas. Lots of people have examined these
>same myths and NOBODY else has come to the conclusions that Talbott
>has. THEY have no trouble dealing with these myths.
Wrong in every sentence. Only a handful of researchers has recognized
these connections. These researchers have been willing to ask if the
ancient sky may have looked different from our sky, and it was this
willingness that enabled them to see the provable connections that have
been missed by others. Their results are quite interesting. All of
these researchers reached the same conclusion. They are now
all called "Saturnists".
Dave
Paul J. Gans
David N. Talbott (dtal...@teleport.com) wrote:
[major deletions]
: Then on comes his cheerleader, the Class Clown--
:
: >You mean his ideosyncratic ideas. Lots of people have examined these
: >same myths and NOBODY else has come to the conclusions that Talbott
: >has. THEY have no trouble dealing with these myths.
:
: Wrong in every sentence. Only a handful of researchers has recognized
: these connections. These researchers have been willing to ask if the
: ancient sky may have looked different from our sky, and it was this
: willingness that enabled them to see the provable connections that have
: been missed by others. Their results are quite interesting. All of
: these researchers reached the same conclusion. They are now
: all called "Saturnists".
There is no logic in a logic free zone. After first claiming
that I am wrong in every sentence, Talbott goes on to confirm
exactly what I said: "nobody ELSE [emphasis added] has come
to the conclusions that Talbott has."
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
David N. Talbott
From <4uh1hg$3...@news.nyu.edu> ga...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans):
>David N. Talbott (dtal...@teleport.com) wrote:
>[major deletions]
>: Then on comes his cheerleader, the Class Clown--
>:
>: >You mean his ideosyncratic ideas. Lots of people have examined these
>: >same myths and NOBODY else has come to the conclusions that Talbott
>: >has. THEY have no trouble dealing with these myths.
>:
>: Wrong in every sentence. Only a handful of researchers has recognized
>: these connections. These researchers have been willing to ask if the
>: ancient sky may have looked different from our sky, and it was this
>: willingness that enabled them to see the provable connections that have
>: been missed by others. Their results are quite interesting. All of
>: these researchers reached the same conclusion. They are now
>: all called "Saturnists".
>There is no logic in a logic free zone. After first claiming
>that I am wrong in every sentence, Talbott goes on to confirm
>exactly what I said: "nobody ELSE [emphasis added] has come
>to the conclusions that Talbott has."
You are still overlooking the point. *All* of the researchers who have
noticed the equations I cited are now called "Saturnists"--a very good
name for our new cult. You would have a point only if the equations were
not there to be verified by anyone who cares to look. But the fact is
that since publication of the Saturn Myth in 1980, no one has questioned
the validity of the equations (since they are based on explicit and
acknowledged meanings of ancient words.) The specialists,
lacking an objective reference, had simply not noticed the odd images
gathering around the "pillar-god" were repeated in other cultures. Nor
had they ever imagined that the entire collection of images implied *the
same celesti
ff
Paul J. Gans
: >:
: >: >You mean his ideosyncratic ideas. Lots of people have examined these
: >: >same myths and NOBODY else has come to the conclusions that Talbott
: >: >has. THEY have no trouble dealing with these myths.
: >:
: >: Wrong in every sentence. Only a handful of researchers has recognized
: >: these connections. These researchers have been willing to ask if the
: >: ancient sky may have looked different from our sky, and it was this
: >: willingness that enabled them to see the provable connections that have
: >: been missed by others. Their results are quite interesting. All of
: >: these researchers reached the same conclusion. They are now
: >: all called "Saturnists".
:
: >There is no logic in a logic free zone. After first claiming
: >that I am wrong in every sentence, Talbott goes on to confirm
: >to the conclusions that Talbott has."
: You are still overlooking the point. *All* of the researchers who have
: noticed the equations I cited are now called "Saturnists"--a very good
: name for our new cult. You would have a point only if the equations were
: not there to be verified by anyone who cares to look. But the fact is
: that since publication of the Saturn Myth in 1980, no one has questioned
: the validity of the equations (since they are based on explicit and
: acknowledged meanings of ancient words.) The specialists,
: lacking an objective reference, had simply not noticed the odd images
: gathering around the "pillar-god" were repeated in other cultures. Nor
: had they ever imagined that the entire collection of images implied *the
: same celesti
: ff
I gather that this post was truncated.
I admit that the very few who believe Talbott are called Saturnists.
I submit that, if Talbott's work is so self-evidently true, it would
be immediately accepted for publication in any scholarly journal
devoted to such things. And then (given the self-evident truth
of his ideas) his ideas would BE the mainstream.
I wonder why he has never submitted his ideas for publication?
Perhaps he has?
Perhaps they are only self-evident to him?
Inquiring minds want to know...
Tim Thompson
In article <dtalbott.839640722@kelly>, dtal...@teleport.com
(David N. Talbott) writes:
> I will assume that those reading this know something of the Saturn theory.
> With respect to the universal motif of the cosmic mountain, I had
> written--
[Buncha stuff about cosmic mountains/luminous streams deleted ... ]
> NOT ONE CRITIC
> COULD DENY THAT IF THE HYPOTHESIZED AXIAL STREAM EXISTED, ALL OF THE
> REPEATED IDENTITIES WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY EXPLAINED. NO SUBJECTIVE
> INTERPRETATION OR ARGUMENTATION IS NECESSARY.
> Now this is where Tim Thompson stepped in --
>>:
>>: But the whole big point is that the hypothesized stream could not
>>: have existed, we know that it is impossible. Therefore the hypothesis
>>: fails. Talbott's constant insisting that no other hypothesis works only
>>: means that neither he nor anyone else has come up with the right answer
>>: yet.
Yo, I said that.
> What confidence this man has.
Sure, why not?
> What certainty.
Maybe less "certainty" than "confidence", but I know what I know, and I
know what I don't know, and I have sufficient wisdom (or so I like to think)
to distinguish one from the other, at least most of the time. Do you?
> And what an amazing readiness to speak for others.
Not a chance. On rare occasions I am given explicit permission to speak
for others, and I make sure that permission is acknowledged. Except under
such circumstances I make no pretense to speak for anyone other than myself.
> When there is substantial evidence that an event occurred, it is only
> appropriate for scientists to ask, How? Or to suspend judgement until
> all evidence is considered and the force of the argument becomes irresistible.
> He is the Inauisitor with all of the answers, even before the evidence is
> considered, before the expertise of others has been consulted, before a
> consensus of scholarly and scientific opinion is even possible.
Bluster, hot air, empty rhetoric, completely ignoring any and all
intellectual criticism. I am not impressed. Consensus has been reached, or
so it appears to me. The consensus is that you are wrong. No substantial
evidnce in favor of your position exists. All evidence has been considered,
and a fair hearing offered and given. Your idea has failed in every respect.
As for the expertise of others, I will rely on my own expertise until
something better comes along. So far, that has not happened. Where are
all of your "experts" and why do they carry on their "exploration" in
such tight secrecy? Why are they afraid to put their results in the plain
view of others? Not here on talk.origins, but anywhere at all? This is a
farce, pure and simple.
Scott H. Mullins
In article <dtalbott.839640722@kelly>,
David N. Talbott <dtal...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>I will assume that those reading this know something of the Saturn theory.
>With respect to the universal motif of the cosmic mountain, I had
>written--
>
>Was the cosmic mountain, for example, a hill constituted of Earth's crust
>(as some have proposed)? No
Whoa. Have you told Ted about this? He is going to be _pissed_.
[del]
>And
>it was also a shining sceptre, spear or sword rising along the world axis,
>a generative or phallic column, the masculine, erect, serpent or dragon
>(aspect of the warrior-hero), and a pathway of luminous "souls" moving
>between heaven and earth.
I thought Venus was the Serpent or Dragon? Does this mean that Venus
is also the "world mountain"?
That planet really gets around!
[del]
>NOT ONE CRITIC
>COULD DENY THAT IF THE HYPOTHESIZED AXIAL STREAM EXISTED, ALL OF THE
>REPEATED IDENTITIES WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY EXPLAINED. NO SUBJECTIVE
>INTERPRETATION OR ARGUMENTATION IS NECESSARY.
I am certainly convinced now. Shout a little more and I might
be convinced to vote for Perot, too.
[high irony content verbiage deleted]
Scott
Mark Isaak
In article <dtalbott.839640722@kelly> dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) writes:
>Now if a model, based on the reconstruction of ancient memory,
>hypothesizes the actual presence of a such a stream--stretching between
>planets (in this case, between the Earth and the planet Mars, in polar
>alignment)--the model offers a testable set of highly unique
>predictions. It says:
>
> The Mountain of the Gods = Underworld River
> = North Wind/South Wind
> = Heaven-Supporting Hero
> = Axial Sword/Spear
> = Masculine Serpent-Dragon
> = Path of Luminous Souls
In Greek mythology, at least, these predictions fail. The Mountain of the
Gods is Olympus, an actual place. The Underworld River, the Styx, is
avoided by the gods. The North Wind, according to Ovid, is associated with
every part of the underworld; it could probably be associated with every
place on land and heaven, too. The Heaven-supporting hero, Atlas, is
located at the very edge of the world. Of the four unambiguous referents,
three are mutually exclusive and the fourth could fit anywhere. The
remaining items have no obvious referent in Greek mythology; one may, with
some imagination, make them fit into Talbott's model or not, as one pleases.
--
Mark Isaak "The first principle is that you must not
is...@aurora.com fool yourself, and you're the easiest
person to fool." - Richard Feynman
David N. Talbott
On the subject of the world mountain I had written--
>>Now if a model, based on the reconstruction of ancient memory,
>>hypothesizes the actual presence of a such a stream--stretching between
>>planets (in this case, between the Earth and the planet Mars, in polar
>>alignment)--the model offers a testable set of highly unique
>>predictions. It says:
>>
>> The Mountain of the Gods = Underworld River
>> = North Wind/South Wind
>> = Heaven-Supporting Hero
>> = Axial Sword/Spear
>> = Generative Column
>> = Masculine Serpent-Dragon
>> = Path of Luminous Souls
But how does one proceed to verify such an extraordinary set of equations?
I have suggested that a key is to go back to the earliest expressions of
cosmic symbolism, and I gave as an example the Egyptian Shu, the first
form of the warrrior hero and the pillar of heaven: And I noted
that, remarkably, this single figure revealed *all* of the attributes
listed. I also mentioned the Mesopotamian Enlil and the Greek Boreas,
who "irrationally" combine several of the same, seemingly contradictory
attributes. It is the recurrence of such improbable juxtapositions that
conventional theory has never explained and *will* never explain. And yet
the axial stream hypothesized by the Saturn theory, if actually
experienced, would eliminate any doubt as to why these irreconcilable
images were repeatedly brought into juxtaposition. A mountain or pillar
constituted of "wind" or "water" is an absurdity in our natural
experience, but in no sense an absurdity if you grant the Saturn theory
just for the sake of argument. And that is the only way to test the
explanatory power of a theory.
In response to that brief post on the World Mountain, Mark Isaak took
flight across the panorama of Greek myth--
>In Greek mythology, at least, these predictions fail. The Mountain of the
>Gods is Olympus, an actual place. The Underworld River, the Styx, is
>avoided by the gods. The North Wind, according to Ovid, is associated with
>every part of the underworld; it could probably be associated with every
>place on land and heaven, too. The Heaven-supporting hero, Atlas, is
>located at the very edge of the world. Of the four unambiguous referents,
>three are mutually exclusive and the fourth could fit anywhere. The
>remaining items have no obvious referent in Greek mythology; one may, with
>some imagination, make them fit into Talbott's model or not, as one pleases.
Mark, I am not trying to be offensive, but this is not an analysis of
anything. It is just a browsing through a popular dictionary of Greek
myth. In every instance you have simply accepted the first lines you
encountered. This is why we are going to focus on one issue only in our
discourse: the Cosmic Serpent motif. That will give us plenty to work
with.
If you really want to see whether, even *two thousand years* after the
first expressions of the polar mountain image, the curious juxtapositions
I mentioned can be seen, check out the Greek Boreas, but go the roots,
young man, go to the roots. I could give you a hundred instances in
Greek myth alone, in which the echoes of those archaic equations will be
seen.
I notice you mentioned Olympus as "an actual place." This is the first
point of misunderstanding we will have to clear up. The fact that you
read about a mountain in Macedonia called Olympus does not make the
mythical Olympus an "actual place." You have to start by distinguishing
the symbol from the thing symbolized, as I've already noted many, many
times. EVERY ARCHETYPE WAS LOCALIZED, BROUGHT DOWN TO EARTH, INJECTING
CONTRADICTION INTO THE STORY. Here was a brief note I put up on the
principle, relating directly to Olympus--
START QUOTE:
symbolized. What is symbolized is the archetype, the cosmic mountain.
END OF QUOTE
Dave
Michael Noreen
Replying to is...@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
: > The Mountain of the Gods = Underworld River
: > = North Wind/South Wind
: > = Heaven-Supporting Hero
: > = Axial Sword/Spear
: > = Generative Column
: > = Masculine Serpent-Dragon
: > = Path of Luminous Souls
:
: In Greek mythology, at least, these predictions fail.
In Norse mythology most of these predictions fail. There is no
underworld river, the north and south winds are not referred to, there
is no heaven-supporting hero. There is an (evil) dragon, Nidhögg,
although its sex seems to be female - it spawns other dragons.
As for the others one could possibly squeeze them in since they're so
general; ie the 'generative column' could be the Tree of Life - but so
could the axial spear/sword. Path of luminous souls - there is a
luminous BRIDGE dead heroes pass to get into Valhalla.
Basically these 'common themes' are so general that anything can be
made to fit them. Let's have a look at Star Trek - The Next
Generation:
- Underworld River: the tubo lifts.
- Winds. N/A.
- Heaven supporting hero. N/A.
- Axial sword/spear: the central portion of Enterprise, which carries
the weaponry.
- Generative column: the Warp core.
- Masculine serpent-dragon: Worf
- path of luminous souls: N/A, unless one counts the luminous beings
they run into every two episodes or so.
Here's a few other themes you can add:
* talking animals
* small humanoids which live underground.
* living weapons (spears/sword)
* flying large mammals (horses, goats...)
etc etc etc.
: Mark Isaak "The first principle is that you must not
MVH: Mike Noreen |"Cold as the northern winds
Net: ev-mi...@nrm.se | in December mornings,
| Cold is the cry that rings
| from this far distant shore."
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to
any commercial mail list. So up yours, mail-spammers!
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) wrote:
>Now if a model, based on the reconstruction of ancient memory,
>hypothesizes the actual presence of a such a stream--stretching between
>planets (in this case, between the Earth and the planet Mars, in polar
>alignment)--the model offers a testable set of highly unique
>predictions. It says:
> The Mountain of the Gods = Underworld River
> = North Wind/South Wind
> = Heaven-Supporting Hero
> = Axial Sword/Spear
>-- 09:39 --talk.origins-- 28 MORE --help:?--37%--
> = Heaven-Supporting Hero
> = Axial Sword/Spear
> = Generative Column
> = Masculine Serpent-Dragon
> = Path of Luminous Souls
>Now it's crucial to keep in mind that while the hypothesis of an
>interplanetary stream will predict these symbolic equations, natural
>experience familiar to us today will not predict any of these equations
>and will in fact repudiate such equations as absurd. A mountain or pillar
>does not look or behave like a river stretching between heaven and earth;
>it does not look like a dragon; and the idea of a mountain constituted of
>"wind" would be preposterous.
I can't figure out where people would get the idea of a Generative
Column. And how could such a motif be related Spears and Serpents? ;-)
Then again, maybe I don't get out as much as I should.
Matt Silberstein
----------------------------------------
What is the scariest line you know? How about:
"My name is Number 6, what's yours?"
Paul J. Gans
David N. Talbott (dtal...@teleport.com) wrote:
[deletions. Talbott was replying to Isaac...]
: If you really want to see whether, even *two thousand years* after the
What strikes me as interesting about this is the near-universal
human belief that things were always better in the "olden days".
We hear it from a current presidential candidate in the U.S.,
we hear it from many commentators on the current scene, I heard
it from my father, and my children have heard it from me.
Indeed, its literary roots go back over 2000 years. We *always*
have lived in a debased age.
What is curious about the idea of the "Golden Age" past is its
dating. It is almost always dated to the previous generation.
When this is pointed out (i.e. my children reminding me that
Grandpa used to say that it was better in *his* youth) the
conclusion is that the world has been continuously degenerating.
But there is a better explanation. Almost all of us become used
to the safety and certainty of our childhoods. From that vantage
point things were fixed and unchanging. Of course they were,
our vantage point covered only three or four years of experience.
So those days almost always become the "Golden Years".
We grow up and we regret the loss of those "halcyon days of yore".
David N. Talbott
>In talk.origins dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) wrote:
>>Now if a model, based on the reconstruction of ancient memory,
>>hypothesizes the actual presence of a such a stream--stretching between
>>planets (in this case, between the Earth and the planet Mars, in polar
>>alignment)--the model offers a testable set of highly unique
>>predictions. It says:
>> The Mountain of the Gods = Underworld River
>> = North Wind/South Wind
>> = Heaven-Supporting Hero
>> = Axial Sword/Spear
>> = Generative Column
>> = Masculine Serpent-Dragon
>> = Path of Luminous Souls
>>Now it's crucial to keep in mind that while the hypothesis of an
>>interplanetary stream will predict these symbolic equations, natural
>>experience familiar to us today will not predict any of these equations
>>and will in fact repudiate such equations as absurd. A mountain or pillar
>>does not look or behave like a river stretching between heaven and earth;
>>it does not look like a dragon; and the idea of a mountain constituted of
>>"wind" would be preposterous.
>I can't figure out where people would get the idea of a Generative
>Column. And how could such a motif be related Spears and Serpents? ;-)
>Then again, maybe I don't get out as much as I should.
>Matt Silberstein
Yes, that's the point. The *repeated* juxtaposition of column, wind,
water, spear, phallus and serpent will never be explained in conventional
contexts. But it is predicted by the Saturn theory. Why is the mother
goddess the "Queen" of the world mountain? Why did the Hindus insist that
their axis-mountain, Meru, was the "phallus of Shiva"? Why does the
mother goddess cohabit with the world mountain? Why is she "raped" by the
mountain? If you accept the events hypothesized by the Saturn theory, I
will not need to tell you why any of these motifs were repeatedly
brought together. You will immediately see for yourself.
There is a limit to my ability to carry on a discussion with respect to
these things, where there is no familiarity with the published material,
however.
David N. Talbott
Replying to is...@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
: > The Mountain of the Gods = Underworld River
: > = North Wind/South Wind
: > = Heaven-Supporting Hero
: > = Axial Sword/Spear
: > = Generative Column
: > = Masculine Serpent-Dragon
: > = Path of Luminous Souls
:
: In Greek mythology, at least, these predictions fail.
In Norse mythology most of these predictions fail. There is no
underworld river, the north and south winds are not referred to, there
is no heaven-supporting hero. There is an (evil) dragon, NidhM-vgg,
David N. Talbott
Well, I was trying to post a response to Michael Noreen, but I kept
getting a stupid message about "8-bit characters". So I tried
reconstructing the conversation by pasting in pieces, then all of a sudden
the damned thing got posted before I could finish. Anyway, here is the
best I can do for now:
I had indicated these indentities of the World Mountain as recurring
archetypes:
>: > The Mountain of the Gods = Underworld River
>: > = North Wind/South Wind
>: > = Heaven-Supporting Hero
>: > = Axial Sword/Spear
>: > = Generative Column
>: > = Masculine Serpent-Dragon
>: > = Path of Luminous Souls
>:
Then Michael stated the following:
>In Norse mythology most of these predictions fail. There is no
>underworld river, the north and south winds are not referred to, there
>is no heaven-supporting hero. There is an (evil) dragon, NidhM-vgg,
>although its sex seems to be female - it spawns other dragons.
You're thinking too narrowly here Michael. If you look at the suggested
reference for what I called the "underworld river", for example, you will
realize that the interpretation of the column as "water" would include the
following: river, fountain, water spout, well, spring. Now it is a fact
beyond dispute that the warrior hero is, to an incredible degree,
repeatedly associated with such mythical "water sources," welling
up from below the land of the gods. And this includes Norse myth if you
will look more closely.
But always keep in mind: One of the first rules of the historical inquiry
is to let the earlier sources illuminate the later. As you follow the
motifs down through history, they are progressively fragmented, and for
the obvious reason. A warrior is not a wind, not a fountain, not a sword,
not a mountain. As time goes on the storytellers will not continue to
maintain the equations in any explicit sense, because they are absurd,
which is the point we are making here. It is *because they are absurd*
that the original combinations, in the earliest recorded languages, become
so crucial. Thousands of echoes of these identities will be found in
later symbolism, but you have to look more deeply, to the roots of words
and symbols, and to the recurring curiosities and anomalies of myth to see
them.
All of the key motifs will in fact be found in Norse mythology, even
though it comes very late in the scheme. Thousands of years are more than
sufficient to permit a shedding of associations that no longer make sense,
but language goes on, and carries forward countless nuances and numerous
families of meanings that can be explored at length to verify that the
echoes of the ancient identities never faded entirely.
If there is genuine interest, I strongly suggest you check some of the
published material, which will at least provide some guidelines for
determining the "predictions" of the Saturn theory.
Dave
Michael Noreen
Replying to dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott)
: >: > The Mountain of the Gods = Underworld River
: >: > = North Wind/South Wind
: >: > = Heaven-Supporting Hero
: >: > = Axial Sword/Spear
: >: > = Generative Column
: >: > = Masculine Serpent-Dragon
: >: > = Path of Luminous Souls
: >In Norse mythology most of these predictions fail. There is no
: >underworld river, the north and south winds are not referred to, there
: >is no heaven-supporting hero. There is an (evil) dragon, NidhM-vgg,
: >although its sex seems to be female - it spawns other dragons.
:
: You're thinking too narrowly here Michael. If you look at the suggested
: reference for what I called the "underworld river", for example, you will
: realize that the interpretation of the column as "water" would include the
: following: river, fountain, water spout, well, spring. Now it is a fact
: beyond dispute that the warrior hero is, to an incredible degree,
: repeatedly associated with such mythical "water sources," welling
: up from below the land of the gods. And this includes Norse myth if you
: will look more closely.
I take it you are referring to the three springs watering the three
roots of the tree of life here. I must say that equating these springs
with ie Styx is very tenuous, and basically means that the 'underworld
river' should read 'presence of one or several bodies of water'. Now,
although there will be water mentioned in most if not all myths I feel
that giving 'underground river' such a broad interpretation removes
any value of the myth.
: But always keep in mind: One of the first rules of the historical inquiry
: is to let the earlier sources illuminate the later. As you follow the
: motifs down through history, they are progressively fragmented, and for
: the obvious reason. A warrior is not a wind, not a fountain, not a sword,
: not a mountain.
Well, I don't know, but all these (except fountain - it seems to me
women (for obvious reasons) are usually associated with fountains,
like the Norns or The Lady of the Lake) are often used to characterise
warriors - one could easily refer to a warrior as being a sword (of
his master) or (move like) the wind or a mountain (of strength),
simply because objects like these are used as poetic analogies to
human characteristics. Just as he could be equated to a lion or eagle.
However, that does not mean that all waters in myth are really women
or that all lions, mountains or winds are memories of real, existing
men.
: As time goes on the storytellers will not continue to
: maintain the equations in any explicit sense, because they are absurd,
: which is the point we are making here. It is *because they are absurd*
: that the original combinations, in the earliest recorded languages, become
: so crucial.
As I don't share the view that these likenings are absurd, I don't
follow the reasoning here.
: Thousands of echoes of these identities will be found in
: later symbolism, but you have to look more deeply, to the roots of words
: and symbols, and to the recurring curiosities and anomalies of myth to see
: them.
What I see is that people will always be impressed by the immobility,
size and strength of a mountain; by the speed and elusiveness of wind;
by the beauty and killing-capacity of large carnivores; and the
similarity between a sword/penis well/vagina. If there is a common
basis for this, it IMO lies in the way we think and associate, not in
a common background based on actual events.
: All of the key motifs will in fact be found in Norse mythology, even
Well, one has to stretch the definitions rather a lot.
: Dave
Michael Noreen
Replying to dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott)
: Yes, that's the point. The *repeated* juxtaposition of column, wind,
: water, spear, phallus and serpent will never be explained in conventional
: contexts. But it is predicted by the Saturn theory.
Wouldn't it be more correct to say that the Saturn myth is based on
them? (This was a rhetorical question)
: Why is the mother
: goddess the "Queen" of the world mountain?
You mean like Zeus?
: Why did the Hindus insist that
: their axis-mountain, Meru, was the "phallus of Shiva"?
As pointed out, associating erect structures with phalluses hardly
requires any huge stretch of the imagination.
: Why does the
: mother goddess cohabit with the world mountain? Why is she "raped" by the
: mountain?
This must refer to some world-wide myth I am not aware of. One may
guess Hindu mythology?
: If you accept the events hypothesized by the Saturn theory, I
: will not need to tell you why any of these motifs were repeatedly
: brought together. You will immediately see for yourself.
The Saturn Myth from what I've seen takes great liberties with which
myths it includes, and how they are interpreted. One thing which isn't
totally clear: are you really suggesting that the Earth has orbited
Saturn, and that some 'racial memory' of this is left in these myths?
How do you explain ie the growth rings in 350 million years old
corals, which corresponds to the Earth being orbited by the Moon, and
the Moon at the position predicted by its observed slow movement away
from Earth? Clearly this means that nothing major has influenced the
relative rotation and position of Earth/Moon for atleast the last 350
million years, and to me that seems to disprove the Saturn Myth.
Paul J. Gans
David N. Talbott (dtal...@teleport.com) wrote:
[deletions]
: There is a limit to my ability to carry on a discussion with respect to
: these things, where there is no familiarity with the published material,
: however.
He's outta here, folks. Any day now.
It is curious that here is no limit on Talbott's ability to
argue about planetary dynamics, about which he assures us he
knows little. Of course, he's done no relevent reading in
that area.
But as soon as folks start showing that his understanding of
myth is about as deep as his understanding of Newton, he's
suddenly unable to continue to discuss things.
ev.co...@ames.net
For a second there, I thought my buddy Dave Talbott had
lost it, and that it was he who had written that Norse
mythology did not provide an example of the heaven-
supporting hero. Turns out that the culprit was
Michael Noreen. Here's what he wrote in response
to Dave's enumeration of themes associated with
the Mountain of the Gods:
[Dave]
>
> I had indicated these indentities of the World Mountain as recurring
> archetypes:
>
> >: > The Mountain of the Gods = Underworld River
> >: > = North Wind/South Wind
> >: > = Heaven-Supporting Hero
> >: > = Axial Sword/Spear
> >: > = Generative Column
> >: > = Masculine Serpent-Dragon
> >: > = Path of Luminous Souls
> >:
> Then Michael stated the following:
>
> >In Norse mythology most of these predictions fail. There is no
> >underworld river, the north and south winds are not referred to, there
> >is no heaven-supporting hero. There is an (evil) dragon, NidhM-vgg,
> >although its sex seems to be female - it spawns other dragons.
>
A classic example of the heaven supporting hero is provided
by Thor, as various scholars of Norse myth have discerned.
I discuss this aspect of Thor's mythus in my article on
Indra, an acknowledged counterpart of Thor in Vedic
tradition. Thus, it is well-known that Thor became
identified with the main supporting pillars of individual
temples and houses, thereby imitating the World Pillar
which upheld heaven. Here's what one scholar had to
say: "As Thor upheld the world, he upheld the temple and
many another building." (E. Turville-Petrie, Myth and
Religion of the North, 1964, p. 87).
Hope this helps.
Mark Isaak
In article <dtalbott.840246369@julie> dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) writes:
>On the subject of the world mountain I had written--
>
>>>Now if a model, based on the reconstruction of ancient memory,
>>>hypothesizes the actual presence of a such a stream--stretching between
>>>planets (in this case, between the Earth and the planet Mars, in polar
>>>alignment)--the model offers a testable set of highly unique
>>>predictions. It says:
>>>
>>> The Mountain of the Gods = Underworld River
>>> = North Wind/South Wind
>>> = Heaven-Supporting Hero
>>> = Axial Sword/Spear
>>> = Generative Column
>>> = Masculine Serpent-Dragon
>>> = Path of Luminous Souls
>
>But how does one proceed to verify such an extraordinary set of equations?
>I have suggested that a key is to go back to the earliest expressions of
>cosmic symbolism, and I gave as an example the Egyptian Shu, the first
The Egyptian firmament was supported by four pillars, none of which were
Shu (although he does marginally qualify as heaven-supporting hero for
lifting up the heavens once). But then, Shu has no connection to the
obvious Generative Column or Masculine Serpent-Dragon of Egyptian mythology.
Not that I expect you to have difficulty building connections out of
coincidences.
>And I noted that, remarkably, this single figure revealed *all* of the
>attributes listed.
It's hardly remarkable, if you're willing to stretch interpretations as far
as you do. I'd call it inevitable.
>I also mentioned the Mesopotamian Enlil and the Greek Boreas,
>who "irrationally" combine several of the same, seemingly contradictory
>attributes. It is the recurrence of such improbable juxtapositions that
>conventional theory has never explained and *will* never explain.
You have yet to show that they are improbable. With the layers and layers
of interpretation you put upon the primary sources, a juxtaposition of just
about any set of attributes will be inevitable.
>A mountain or pillar constituted of "wind" or "water" is an absurdity in
>our natural experience. . .
It never seems to shows up in myth, either.
>but in no sense an absurdity if you grant the Saturn theory
>just for the sake of argument. And that is the only way to test the
>explanatory power of a theory.
If the only way to test your theory is to see things that aren't there, I
don't think your theory is very good.
>>In Greek mythology, at least, these predictions fail. The Mountain of the
>>Gods is Olympus, an actual place. The Underworld River, the Styx, is
>>avoided by the gods. The North Wind, according to Ovid, is associated with
>>every part of the underworld; it could probably be associated with every
>>place on land and heaven, too. The Heaven-supporting hero, Atlas, is
>>located at the very edge of the world. Of the four unambiguous referents,
>>three are mutually exclusive and the fourth could fit anywhere. The
>>remaining items have no obvious referent in Greek mythology; one may, with
>>some imagination, make them fit into Talbott's model or not, as one pleases.
>
>Mark, I am not trying to be offensive, but this is not an analysis of
>anything.
It is an analysis of your prediction that the Mountain of the Gods, the
Underworld River, the North Wind, and the World Pillar are one and the same.
They are not, according to Greek myth. They are the same only if you
reinterpret Greek myth into something else.
>It is just a browsing through a popular dictionary of Greek
>myth. In every instance you have simply accepted the first lines you
>encountered.
On the contrary, it is based on entire stories, as anyone who knows Greek
myth will agree. Of course, it *is* only based on what the stories say, not
on what you say they say.
>If you really want to see whether, even *two thousand years* after the
>first expressions of the polar mountain image, the curious juxtapositions
>I mentioned can be seen, check out the Greek Boreas, but go the roots,
>young man, go to the roots.
The roots are the myths themselves, are they not? That's where I go.
>I notice you mentioned Olympus as "an actual place." This is the first
>point of misunderstanding we will have to clear up. The fact that you
>read about a mountain in Macedonia called Olympus does not make the
>mythical Olympus an "actual place." You have to start by distinguishing
>the symbol from the thing symbolized, as I've already noted many, many
>times.
You just pegged my Ironymeter. Just a couple days ago I posted something
making essentially the same point to you. Apparently, you are the only
person who is able to distinguish symbol from symbolized in a way that fits
your theory. That is why your theory fails.
>EVERY ARCHETYPE WAS LOCALIZED, BROUGHT DOWN TO EARTH, INJECTING
>CONTRADICTION INTO THE STORY.
All around the world, mythology is replete with myths of beings which were
born on earth, lived most of their lives there, and were BROUGHT UP TO THE
HEAVENS. The archetype *starts* on the earth. Your idea of what symbolizes
what is exactly backwards. Don't take my word for it; read the myths.
--
Mark Isaak "The first principle is that you must not
David N. Talbott
From the Class Clown:
>It is curious that here is no limit on Talbott's ability to
>argue about planetary dynamics, about which he assures us he
>knows little. Of course, he's done no relevent reading in
>that area.
>But as soon as folks start showing that his understanding of
>myth is about as deep as his understanding of Newton, he's
>suddenly unable to continue to discuss things.
Well, maybe it's time for me to implement a new policy, since you are so
sure of yourself.
From this point on, when you respond to one of my posts, I am going to
take that as authorization to include your response in a published
article, to be titled "Tap Dancing with the Class Clown." It's something
I've wanted to do for a long time, but was uncertain about legal
ramifications.
It will be the next best thing to the debate you've steadfastly avoided.
Dave
David N. Talbott
>Replying to dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott)
>: Yes, that's the point. The *repeated* juxtaposition of column, wind,
>: water, spear, phallus and serpent will never be explained in conventional
>: contexts. But it is predicted by the Saturn theory.
>Wouldn't it be more correct to say that the Saturn myth is based on
>them? (This was a rhetorical question).
It would be correct, but not *more* correct. The Saturn theory *predicts*
the recurring themes of myth in the very explicit sense that if the events
occurred the ability of the events to account for (predict) the recurring
themes would be beyond dispute.
>: Why is the mother
>: goddess the "Queen" of the world mountain?
>You mean like Zeus?
No, the oldest goddesses in the world *co-habited* with the world
mountain. The mountain was an aspect of the warrior hero, whose descent,
in the most archaic forms of the story, brings forth the mountain.
>: Why did the Hindus insist that
>: their axis-mountain, Meru, was the "phallus of Shiva"?
>As pointed out, associating erect structures with phalluses hardly
>requires any huge stretch of the imagination.
Yes, but that's only part of the point. The fact that a column is seen as
masculine and an enclosure is seen as feminine is crucial to the
predictive ability of the Saturn theory. But to make this prediction, the
theory proposes that the reference was *there*. The reason to believe
that the reference was to something seen is the full range of motifs, and
the symbolic equations between them. That the oldest and most
fundamental and most universal thematic content of ancient cultures
is predicted by such an unusual theory cannot be rationalized away..
>: Why does the
>: mother goddess cohabit with the world mountain? Why is she "raped" by the
>: mountain?
>This must refer to some world-wide myth I am not aware of. One may
>guess Hindu mythology?
The principle is found in the most original layers of mother goddess
symbolism--in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Canaan, and India--its echoes continuing
to reverberate through later symbolism. The earliest myths and language
of the goddess show that the expressions "Queen of the Mountain" and
"Spouse upon the Mountain" relate to the generative symbolism of the
mountain. The mountain is a form of the warrior-hero, who "heaps up the
mountain," to use the Sumerian expression. That is why so many early
forms of the hero appear, in one way or another, as a heaven-supporting
pillar.
>: If you accept the events hypothesized by the Saturn theory, I
>: will not need to tell you why any of these motifs were repeatedly
>: brought together. You will immediately see for yourself.
>The Saturn Myth from what I've seen takes great liberties with which
>myths it includes, and how they are interpreted.
No, as I've tried to point out, the methodology does not allow for taking
liberties. It permits only the use of *recurring* themes, of acknowledged
literal meanings of words, and ancient pictures of things in the sky. The
fact that, when you restrict yourself to incontrovertible data, every
theme answers to unified forms in the sky, is the whole point NOT ONE
THEME ANSWERS TO ANYTHING IN OUR SKY TODAY.
If you have the time to browse through some of the comments of t.o
critics, they will help to make the point for me. See if you can find an
instance in which they cite a recurring theme or an incontrovertible fact.
You will see that they are trying to challenge the thesis on the basis a)
of things experts may be unclear about, or b) the even greater number of
things that the *author* doesn't know or is unclear about.
Apply the required methodology and you will see that it really does work.
But if the implied events never occurred, that methodology, exposing the
universal substratum of ancient memory, *couldn't* work.
One thing which isn't
>totally clear: are you really suggesting that the Earth has orbited
>Saturn, and that some 'racial memory' of this is left in these myths?
I have suggested that the earth was part of an earlier congregation of
planets, moving in such a way as to present the recorded images with which
the planets were associated.
>How do you explain ie the growth rings in 350 million years old
>corals, which corresponds to the Earth being orbited by the Moon, and
>the Moon at the position predicted by its observed slow movement away
>from Earth? Clearly this means that nothing major has influenced the
>relative rotation and position of Earth/Moon for atleast the last 350
>million years, and to me that seems to disprove the Saturn Myth.
>
Though I am skeptical about this, I am interested. If the evidence is in
fact incontrovertible, then the theory is going to have to deal with it.
None of these things is going to be resolved overnight, and we are on an
electronic mission at this very moment to find well-trained explorers in
the different disciplines touched by the theory.
Dave.
David N. Talbott
From <DwE59...@aurora.com> is...@aurora.com (Mark Isaak):
>In article <dtalbott.840246369@julie> dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) writes:
>>On the subject of the world mountain I had written--
>>
>>>>Now if a model, based on the reconstruction of ancient memory,
>>>>hypothesizes the actual presence of a such a stream--stretching between
>>>>planets (in this case, between the Earth and the planet Mars, in polar
>>>>alignment)--the model offers a testable set of highly unique
>>>>predictions. It says:
>>>>
>>>> The Mountain of the Gods = Underworld River
>>>> = North Wind/South Wind
>>>> = Heaven-Supporting Hero
>>>> = Axial Sword/Spear
>>>> = Generative Column
>>>> = Masculine Serpent-Dragon
>>>> = Path of Luminous Souls
>>
>>But how does one proceed to verify such an extraordinary set of equations?
>>I have suggested that a key is to go back to the earliest expressions of
>>cosmic symbolism, and I gave as an example the Egyptian Shu, the first
>>form of the warrrior hero and the pillar of heaven.
>The Egyptian firmament was supported by four pillars, none of which were
>Shu (although he does marginally qualify as heaven-supporting hero for
>lifting up the heavens once). But then, Shu has no connection to the
>obvious Generative Column or Masculine Serpent-Dragon of Egyptian mythology.
>Not that I expect you to have difficulty building connections out of
>coincidences.
Mark, Mark, Mark. The "four pillars" were *called* the four pillars of
Shu. Every context of the four pillars is predicted by the Saturn theory,
but I could not get you to acquaint yourself with the published material
if I *paid* you to do so. Check out the various images of Shu separating
Geb and Nut. Then notice the well-known image of Geb and Nut, *without*
Shu, but with the cosmic phallus of Geb stretching upward, in the exact
position occupied by Shu in the other illustrations. Shu is the
heaven-supporting pillar, and the pillar is the generative column. (I am
not the first one to notice this identity, by the way.)
>>And I noted that, remarkably, this single figure revealed *all* of the
>>attributes listed.
>It's hardly remarkable, if you're willing to stretch interpretations as far
>as you do. I'd call it inevitable.
Okay, let's stop right here if you are not going to engage the argument.
It is just too damned transparent that you are simply picking out a
popular book and taking the few sentences you find on Shu as an exhaustive
review. READ THE BOOK I PUBLISHED. IT'S CALLED *THE SATURN MYTH*,
published by Doubleday in 1980 . Look up "Shu" in the index. Then tell me
I stretched meanings somewhere. All of the implausible, incongrous,
irrational identities of the god are discussed in that book and in my
published articles. The seemingly absurd equations are predicted by the
Saturn theory, and neither predicted nor explained by conventional theory.
Dave
David N. Talbott
From the Class Clown:
Yes, we've all heard that rationalization of the myth of the Golden Age.
In truth, this rationalization breaks down the instant you investigate the
global myth and its recurring contexts. None of the recurring themes of
myth stands in isolation. There is no Golden Age without a Universal
Monarch, the celestial prototype of kings. The Universal Monarch is the
central luminary of the sky, often translated as the "sun". But in the
ancient astronomies, the words translated as "sun" are the words for
the planet Saturn, as acknowledged by the best experts. Hence, the Latin
Saturn, was remembered as the founder of the Golden Age.
The Golden Age ended in catastrophe and wars of the gods, events
celebrated in the New Year's festivals around the world. In this period
of chaos, a fiery *serpent* or *dragon* was seen in the sky. On
examination, the spiraling form of the serpent or dragon turns out to be
the raging mother goddess. And on examination the raging mother goddess
turns out to be the departed heart-soul of the Universal Monarch. And on
examination the departed heart-soul turns out to be the planet Venus.
These equations and hundred of others are predicted by the Saturn theory,
but are neither predicted nor explained by conventional theory. And it is
the recurrence of the same *contexts* or linkage between themes that
accents the predictive power of the events hypothesized by the Saturn
theory.
Dave
For general background information, check out the Kronia Communications
website-in-development--
Michael Noreen
Replying to ev.co...@ames.net
: > >In Norse mythology most of these predictions fail. There is no
: > >underworld river, the north and south winds are not referred to, there
: > >is no heaven-supporting hero. There is an (evil) dragon, NidhM-vgg,
: > >although its sex seems to be female - it spawns other dragons.
: >
:
: A classic example of the heaven supporting hero is provided
: by Thor, as various scholars of Norse myth have discerned.
That is interesting, as there is no support for it in the myths. The
only way to draw that conclusion, AFAI can see, is to define 'The
leading hero of any mythos' to be 'heaven supporting hero'. Or can you
point me to some passage in Norse mythos where Thor supports the
heavens?
: Thus, it is well-known that Thor became
: identified with the main supporting pillars of individual
: temples and houses
Total news to me. There is nothing supporting this in the mythos,
AFAIK. Thor is known as 'the son of the Earth', and it is not clear to
me how anyone can know whether he was associated with the main pillars
of temples and houses, since no heathen temple or detailed description
of a heathen temple survives. I don't think this conclusion can be
drawn without extrapolating from other mythos.
: thereby imitating the World Pillar
: which upheld heaven.
WHICH world pillar? There is no world pillar upholding the heaven in
Norse Mythology; the 'heaven' is the skull of Ymer the giant, which
Odin and his brothers Vile and Ve slew to create the world.
: Here's what one scholar had to
: say: "As Thor upheld the world, he upheld the temple and
: many another building." (E. Turville-Petrie, Myth and
: Religion of the North, 1964, p. 87).
No mention of this in Vilhelm Groenbech's "Nordiska myter och sagor"
(Norse Myth and Saga), 1965.
: Ev Cochrane
Ted Holden
>In <321863b0...@news.kth.se> ev-mi...@nrm.se (Michael Noreen) writes:
>>How do you explain ie the growth rings in 350 million years old
>>corals, which corresponds to the Earth being orbited by the Moon, and
>>the Moon at the position predicted by its observed slow movement away
>>from Earth?
Very easily: the idea of those corals being 350 million years old is a
bunch of BS founded upon an axiomatic system of assumptions and beliefs
and circular reasoning, rather than upon any real evidence. Major facets
of all such dating systems are coming unraveled even as we speak. Finding
obvious human/hominid mandible pieces in supposedly 300 million-year-old
carboniferous coal beds, for instance. Take a look at:
http://access.digex.com/~medved/conrad/mandible.htm
if you don't believe me. Or take a look at the Brontosaur pictographs
found on Southwestern canyon walls in the 20's (The Hava Supai expedition
article in the Catastrophism www site at:
http://access.digex.com/~medved/Catastrophism.html
Dinosaurs are supposed to have been 70 million years ago, at least 65
million years before humans would have been there to draw them.
Ted Holden
http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html
______
[ \ ^^^^^^^^^^ / ]
\ \ / /---
| \ \ / / |
_..-'( / _0 | 0_ \ )`-.._
./'. '||\\. / \ _ / \ .//||` .`\
'.|'.'||||\\|.. _______ / \__/ \__/ \ _____..|//||||`.`|.`
/'.||'.||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||.`||.`\.
Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.
Paul J. Gans
It is curious that this is your response to my post. I will let
the readership decide why you have responded in this manner.
But I have one thing to warn you about. You jolly well better be certain
about the legal implications of publishing anything I post without
permission. Because if you do publish material that I have not authorized
I surely will look to legal remedies. It seems to me that the proposed
title alone would indicate that slander was intended.
------- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Kipp McMichael
David N. Talbott wrote:
> But in the
> ancient astronomies, the words translated as "sun" are the words for
> the planet Saturn, as acknowledged by the best experts.
Please document this claim (without listing you are cochrane in the list
of the "best experts").
--
Kipp McMichael
kmcm...@bamanet.ua.edu
Robert Miller
In article <dtalbott.840592332@linda>,
>fundamental and most universal thematic content of ancient cultures
>is predicted by such an unusual theory cannot be rationalized away..
It doesn't matter, because you used those myths to construct your theory
in the first place. Suppose I have some data A, and I use it to
construct a hypothesis. Does it benefit my hypothesis at all that I can
use it to predict A? I already knew A. The question is whether I can
use it to predict some data B.
Michael Noreen
Replying to med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden)
: >>How do you explain ie the growth rings in 350 million years old
: >>corals, which corresponds to the Earth being orbited by the Moon, and
: >>the Moon at the position predicted by its observed slow movement away
: >>from Earth?
:
: Very easily: the idea of those corals being 350 million years old is a
: bunch of BS founded upon an axiomatic system of assumptions and beliefs
: and circular reasoning, rather than upon any real evidence.
This is all very well Ted, if it wasn't for the fact that you were
proven to be wrong on this and numerous other cases, and that your
insistance to cling to your 'human mandible' actually makes you a
liar. So don't disturb us grown-ups when we're discussing.
: Ted Holden
Paul J. Gans
Kipp McMichael (kmcm...@bamanet.ua.edu) wrote:
: David N. Talbott wrote:
: > But in the
: > ancient astronomies, the words translated as "sun" are the words for
: > the planet Saturn, as acknowledged by the best experts.
: Please document this claim (without listing you are cochrane in the list
You DARE to question the word of the most brilliant mythologist
the world has ever seen?
Boy are you in for it. You will either get (a) the "superior
response" which amounts to Talbott feeling sorry for you, you
ignorant fool, or (b) the "nasty response" which amounts to
Talbott slamming you in no uncertain terms for your ignorance.
And, if he deigns to give you any bibliographic evidence at
all it will be to other Saturnists. There will not be a person
you would recognize as an expert among them.
Christopher C. Wood
In article <medved.840629911@access5>, med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
|> >In <321863b0...@news.kth.se> ev-mi...@nrm.se (Michael Noreen) writes:
|> >>How do you explain ie the growth rings in 350 million years old
|> >>corals, which corresponds to the Earth being orbited by the Moon, and
|> >>the Moon at the position predicted by its observed slow movement away
|> >>from Earth?
|> Very easily: the idea of those corals being 350 million years old
|> is a bunch of BS founded upon an axiomatic system of assumptions
|> and beliefs and circular reasoning, rather than upon any real
|> evidence. Major facets of all such dating systems are coming
|> unraveled even as we speak.
Only in the minds of Ted, excuse me Theodore, Ed, and the followers of
Sidney and Queen Maeve. Hmmmmmmmmmm......
|> Finding obvious human/hominid mandible pieces in supposedly 300
|> million-year-old carboniferous coal beds, for instance.
Except that the objects found are obviously not even bone.
Chris
--
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood chr...@lexis-nexis.com ca...@CFAnet.com
Paul J. Gans
: Replying to is...@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
:
: : > The Mountain of the Gods = Underworld River
: : > = North Wind/South Wind
: : > = Heaven-Supporting Hero
: : > = Axial Sword/Spear
: : > = Generative Column
: : > = Masculine Serpent-Dragon
: : > = Path of Luminous Souls
: : In Greek mythology, at least, these predictions fail.
:
:
: underworld river, the north and south winds are not referred to, there
: is no heaven-supporting hero. There is an (evil) dragon, NidhM-vgg,
: although its sex seems to be female - it spawns other dragons.
How does the Saturn business explain this? It must, you know,
not only explain your "common motifs" but must also explain why
the "common motifs" were ignored, as in Norse mythology.
abe...@peg.pegasus.oz.au
The predicted nexus of symbols for the Mountain of the Gods can be
very clearly seen in paintings of the Wagilag Sisters Dreaming by
several different Northern Arnhem land aboriginal artists.
The following is taken from my "Symbols of a Different Sky" posted
today to talk.origins
**************************************************************
Notes to demonstrate the persistence of the specific !image!
predictions of the Polar Configuration in contemporary Australian
Aboriginal Art.
"Aboriginal Art" Wally Caruana, Thames & Hudson, 1993
Page 49: !Half-light/half-dark! enclosure containing
-4- characters; Direct visual !association! of the !erect!
serpent's body, the multi-branched !tree!, the !phallus!, the
!pathway!, VIA a rounded !hill! See also Dawudi's 1969 version on
page 63 of "Windows on the Dreaming." See also the four versions
collected by Karel Kupka in "Un Apt a l'etat Brut" and "Peintres
Aborigines d'Australia." See also page 20 and page 57 of "Spirit
in Land" published by the Art Gallery of Victoria.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* . === . EFMRL Research *
* // | \\ Exploring the Saturn Myth *
* // .-. \\ *
* ||---( )---|| Internet: abe...@peg.apc.org *
* \\ `-' // *
* \ \..|../ / ONE -1- Column *
* `...o...' TWO -2- Crescents *
* / | \ THREE -3- Circles *
* / | \ FOUR -4- Cross *
* / | \ SEVEN -7- somethings *
* / | \ NINE -9- Spiral *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
David N. Talbott
From <321adc26...@news.kth.se> ev-mi...@nrm.se (Michael Noreen):
>Replying to ev.co...@ames.net
>: > >In Norse mythology most of these predictions fail. There is no
>: > >underworld river, the north and south winds are not referred to, there
>: > >is no heaven-supporting hero. There is an (evil) dragon, NidhM-vgg,
>: > >although its sex seems to be female - it spawns other dragons.
>: >
>:
>: A classic example of the heaven supporting hero is provided
>: by Thor, as various scholars of Norse myth have discerned.
>That is interesting, as there is no support for it in the myths. The
>only way to draw that conclusion, AFAI can see, is to define 'The
>leading hero of any mythos' to be 'heaven supporting hero'. Or can you
>point me to some passage in Norse mythos where Thor supports the
>heavens?
You seem to be repeating the error of other t.o critics. You are assuming
*before* you investigate that we are misrepresenting evidence. Let me
remind you that someone else brought up Norse myth and said the
predictions of the Saturn theory fail when it comes to this later
material. I said you have to look deeper in the later material, because
of fragmentation, but that all of the predicted symbolism will be found.
Ev came on to mention Thor. Is this being selective? Who is the most
famous of Norse warrior-heroes, it it is not Thor? I can guarantee you
that if Mark Isaak had been the one to bring up Thor, he would have said,
"Thor is not a world pillar." He would have said this because in the
popular summary he was reading, no mention was made of this underlying
identity. YOU HAVE TO LOOK DEEPER, TO the ROOTS OF THE LOCAL SYMBOLS.
Ev wrote:
>: Thus, it is well-known that Thor became
>: identified with the main supporting pillars of individual
>: temples and houses
And Michael responded:
>Total news to me. There is nothing supporting this in the mythos,
>AFAIK. Thor is known as 'the son of the Earth', and it is not clear to
>me how anyone can know whether he was associated with the main pillars
>of temples and houses, since no heathen temple or detailed description
>of a heathen temple survives. I don't think this conclusion can be
>drawn without extrapolating from other mythos.
>: thereby imitating the World Pillar
>: which upheld heaven.
>WHICH world pillar? There is no world pillar upholding the heaven in
>Norse Mythology; the 'heaven' is the skull of Ymer the giant, which
>Odin and his brothers Vile and Ve slew to create the world.
Once again, the fact that you do not see a reference to a "world pillar"
in the index of a popular book on Norse myth does not exclude the archaic
idea. Why not trust instead the word of one of the world's leading
experts, which Ev cited:
>: Here's what one scholar had to
>: say: "As Thor upheld the world, he upheld the temple and
>: many another building." (E. Turville-Petrie, Myth and
>: Religion of the North, 1964, p. 87).
>No mention of this in Vilhelm Groenbech's "Nordiska myter och sagor"
>(Norse Myth and Saga), 1965.
My point exactly. Both you and Mark Isaak are committing the same
fallacy: assuming in advance that we are representing evidence every time
you fail to find the connection we are suggesting. But short of
republishing several volumes of material in this electronic forum, we can
only respond to this fallacious reasoning in bits and pieces, as time
allows.
Dave
Wayne Throop
::: ev.co...@ames.net
::: A classic example of the heaven supporting hero is provided by Thor,
::: as various scholars of Norse myth have discerned. [...]
::: Thus, it is well-known that Thor became identified with the main
::: supporting pillars of individual temples and houses
: dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott)
: Both you [(Michael Noreen)] and Mark Isaak are committing the same
: fallacy: assuming in advance that we are representing evidence every
: time you fail to find the connection we are suggesting. But short of
: republishing several volumes of material in this electronic forum, we
: can only respond to this fallacious reasoning in bits and pieces, as
: time allows.
That's hardly a fair criticism. Ev's claim was that Thor is
a "classic example of the heaven-supporting hero", and that
"it is well-known that Thor became identified with the main
supporting pillars of individual temples and houses", and he
advanced a reference snippet:
::: Here's what one scholar had to say: "As Thor upheld the world, he
::: upheld the temple and many another building." (E. Turville-Petrie,
::: Myth and Religion of the North, 1964, p. 87).
I propose to you that "one scholar" doesn't establish "well known", and
the quoted text doesn't establish that Thor "became identified with the
main supporting pillars of individual temples and houses" because of his
mythos.
I grant you, it is possible that other "scholars" (feh)
also comment on this, and it's possible that the surrounding context
on page 87 of the above reference does establish what the snippet
does not.
Nevertheless. The retort that other experts don't mention this
cannot fairly be brushed aside as a "fallacy". Ev said it was
"well known", and a "classic example". The fact that major works
don't mention it at all contradict both of these points.
Even supposing Talbott and Cochrane (and their references) are
correct about Thor fitting their (dare I say procrustean) schema,
this isn't "well known" or "a classic instance".
--
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
thr...@cisco.com
Landis D. Ragon
med...@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) wrote:
>>In <321863b0...@news.kth.se> ev-mi...@nrm.se (Michael Noreen) writes:
>>>How do you explain ie the growth rings in 350 million years old
>>>corals, which corresponds to the Earth being orbited by the Moon, and
>>>the Moon at the position predicted by its observed slow movement away
>>>from Earth?
>Very easily: the idea of those corals being 350 million years old is a
>bunch of BS founded upon an axiomatic system of assumptions and beliefs
>and circular reasoning, rather than upon any real evidence. Major facets
>of all such dating systems are coming unraveled even as we speak. Finding
>obvious human/hominid mandible pieces in supposedly 300 million-year-old
>carboniferous coal beds, for instance. Take a look at:
>http://access.digex.com/~medved/conrad/mandible.htm
>if you don't believe me. Or take a look at the Brontosaur pictographs
>found on Southwestern canyon walls in the 20's (The Hava Supai expedition
>article in the Catastrophism www site at:
>http://access.digex.com/~medved/Catastrophism.html
Been there, done that... not convinced, not impressed, ho-hum...
A quick question, Ted; why does your (yes, I know, it's not really
yours, its just on your web page) pictograph of a 'dinosaur' have a
big hole in its body?
I really suggest that enquiring minds take a look at the second
pictograph at http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/supai.html and see
if it looks like a dinosaur to you. (Hint: think scorpion... right
claw is at top of picture, left claw is at bottom of picture, tail is
to the right, with the two bumps on the left of the body representing
the 'face' of the scorpion)
As for the 'Elephant beating a 14' tall man who retreated to knee-deep
water to escape elephant's wrath' Elephants can SWIM! (at least
modern elephants can) If prehistoric elephants couldn't swim then when
did this ability evolve?
David N. Talbott
From <4vf2bk$2...@freeside.fc.net> rmi...@freeside.fc.net (Robert Miller):
>In article <dtalbott.840592332@linda>,
>David N. Talbott <dtal...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>That the oldest and most
>>fundamental and most universal thematic content of ancient cultures
>>is predicted by such an unusual theory cannot be rationalized away..
>It doesn't matter, because you used those myths to construct your theory
>in the first place. Suppose I have some data A, and I use it to
>construct a hypothesis. Does it benefit my hypothesis at all that I can
>use it to predict A? I already knew A. The question is whether I can
>use it to predict some data B.
Of course it is useful if it predicts A, but much less useful if it fails
to predict B, C or D as well.
It was several weeks ago that I stated the challenge, just for a healthy
exercise. Is there a recurring theme of ancient cultures around the world
that is not predicted by the Saturn theory? I thought it might be fun to
see what various folks came up with. If you've been following the
discussion perhaps you would care to mention a theme that has been brought
up that you do not believe is predicted by the Saturn theory in terms so
explicit that you yourself will agree: if the claimed events occurred no
other explanation of the theme is needed.
It is when you begin to see how specific some of the recurring themes are
that you realize what the predictive power of a theory really means.
Dave
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) wrote:
>In <4v4dh1$i...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>>In talk.origins dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) wrote:
>>>Now if a model, based on the reconstruction of ancient memory,
>>>hypothesizes the actual presence of a such a stream--stretching between
>>>planets (in this case, between the Earth and the planet Mars, in polar
>>>alignment)--the model offers a testable set of highly unique
>>>predictions. It says:
>>> The Mountain of the Gods = Underworld River
>>> = North Wind/South Wind
>>> = Heaven-Supporting Hero
>>> = Axial Sword/Spear
>>> = Generative Column
>>> = Masculine Serpent-Dragon
>>> = Path of Luminous Souls
>>>Now it's crucial to keep in mind that while the hypothesis of an
>>>interplanetary stream will predict these symbolic equations, natural
>>>experience familiar to us today will not predict any of these equations
>>>and will in fact repudiate such equations as absurd. A mountain or pillar
>>>does not look or behave like a river stretching between heaven and earth;
>>>it does not look like a dragon; and the idea of a mountain constituted of
>>>"wind" would be preposterous.
>>I can't figure out where people would get the idea of a Generative
>>Column. And how could such a motif be related Spears and Serpents? ;-)
>>Then again, maybe I don't get out as much as I should.
>>Matt Silberstein
>Yes, that's the point. The *repeated* juxtaposition of column, wind,
>water, spear, phallus and serpent will never be explained in conventional
>contexts. But it is predicted by the Saturn theory. Why is the mother
>goddess the "Queen" of the world mountain? Why did the Hindus insist that
>their axis-mountain, Meru, was the "phallus of Shiva"? Why does the
>mother goddess cohabit with the world mountain? Why is she "raped" by the
>mountain? If you accept the events hypothesized by the Saturn theory, I
>will not need to tell you why any of these motifs were repeatedly
>brought together. You will immediately see for yourself.
>There is a limit to my ability to carry on a discussion with respect to
>these things, where there is no familiarity with the published material,
>however.
I can't think of any possible answers to your questions, except that
possibly it has something to do with sex.
Verbing weirds language - W. W.
David N. Talbott
From <321B3F...@bamanet.ua.edu> Kipp McMichael
<kmcm...@bamanet.ua.edu):
>David N. Talbott wrote:
>> But in the
>> ancient astronomies, the words translated as "sun" are the words for
>> the planet Saturn, as acknowledged by the best experts.
>Please document this claim (without listing you are cochrane in the list
>of the "best experts").
Here is a remarkable fact: the celestial power invoked as "sun" by
the world's first religions is not the body we call Sun today. In fact
the star-worshippers specifically distinguished it from our Sun by
calling it best sun, the primeval sun, the central sun.
Natives of Mexico recall that prior to the present age, an
exemplary sun ruled the world, but this was not the sun of today.
His name was Quetzalcoatl. The Maya maintained essentially the
same idea, calling the primeval sun god Huracan. The Incas of
Peru spoke of a former sun "superior" to the present sun. To the
ancient Egyptians, the sun god Ra, the model ruler, reigned over a
fortunate era for a time, then retired from the world. The Sumerian
An, ruling with "terrifying splendor," was not our Sun but the
central luminary of the sky, later departing to a more remote
domain.
When it comes to the well-known sun gods of early man, nothing
in the mythical record seems to have unnerved the experts. As to
the original solar character of the Greek Helios, Latin Sol,
Assyrian Shamash, or Egyptian Ra, scholars have maintained an
unwavering confidence. And surely you can see why: could it
really be doubted that Helios, radiating light from his brow and
mounted on a fiery chariot, is our sun?
In Egypt, countless hymns to the god Ra extol him as the divine
power opening the "day." "The lords of all lands ... praise Ra
when he riseth at the beginning of each day." Ra is the "great
Light who shinest in the heavens ... Thou art glorious by reason of
thy splendours ..."
In the same way, Assyrian and Babylonian texts depict the god
Shamash as the supreme light of the sky, governing the cycle of
day and night. Such images would seem to leave no question as to
the solar character of these gods.
And yet the profile of the great "sun" gods presents a fascinating
dilemma. During the past century several authorities noticed that
Greek and Latin astronomical texts show a mysterious confusion of
the "Sun"--Greek Helios, Latin Sol--with the outermost planet,
Saturn. Though the designation seems bizarre, the expression "star
of Helios" or "star of Sol" was applied to Saturn! Of the
Babylonian star-worshippers the chronicler Diodorus writes: "To
the one we call Saturn they give a special name, 'Sun-Star.'"
Similarly, the Greek historian Nonnus gives Kronos as the Arab
name of the "sun," though Kronos meant only Saturn and no other
celestial body. Hyginus, in listing the planets, names first Jupiter,
then the planet "of Sol, others say of Saturn." A Greek ostrakon,
cited by the eminent classicist, Franz Boll, identifies the Egyptian
sun god Ra, not with our sun, but with the planet Saturn. This
repeated confusion of the Sun and Saturn seems to make no sense
at all. Can you imagine any difficulty in separating the two bodies,
or distinguishing the one from the other?
One fact beyond dispute is that the word Helios did become the
Greek word for our Sun, just as the Latin Sol gave his name to our
Sun. The same can be said for older Shamash and Ra: the names
of these gods became the names for the solar orb. But that's where
the connection with our Sun ends and the mystery of Saturn, the
Universal Monarch, begins.
In seeking to explain the curious confusion of the sun and Saturn,
late nineteenth century linguists came up with a simple
explanation: The confusion, they said, was the result of the
similarity of the Greek name Helios to the Greek rendering of the
Phoenician god El, a god identified with Kronos, the planet Saturn.
So it was all just a misunderstanding of language.
But this explanation could not survive more than a few decades.
For as the leading expert Franz Boll soon pointed out, the
identification of the "sun" god as Saturn was more widespread and
more archaic than previously acknowledged.
In the Epinomis of Plato (who lived in the fifth and fourth centuries
B.C.), there is an enumeration of the planets, which, as customarily
translated, entails this unstartling statement: "There remain, then,
three stars (planets), one of which is preeminent among them for
slowness, and some call him after Kronos."
Yet the original reading is not Kronos but Helios--which is to say
that the original text gave the name Helios to Saturn. But later
copyists, who could not believe that Helios was anything other
than the sun, "corrected" the reading to "Kronos."
Moreover, as Boll discovered, this practice of "correcting" the
name of Saturn, from Helios to Kronos, was quite common among
later copyists. Based on his reading of the most original Greek
manuscripts, Boll drew a startling conclusion: the sun god Helios
and the planet-god Saturn were "one and the same god."
Now if this only seems to accentuate the puzzle, there is more.
Hindu astronomical lore deemed the planet Saturn as Arka, the star
"of the sun." And certain wise men of India often asserted that the
"true sun" Brahma, the central light of heaven, was none other than
Saturn. This in turn, reminds us of a rarely-noted teaching of the
alchemists, preservers of so many ancient mysteries. The planet
Saturn, they recalled, was not just a planet; it was "the best sun"!
Such language--true sun, best sun--is strangely reminiscent of that
language used by native Americans when describing the superior
sun, who had presided over the era of peace and plenty.
Among the Assyrians and Babylonians, the "sun"-god par
excellence was the well-known figure Shamash, the "light of the
gods" In countless texts and symbolic representations Shamash is
depicted as the ruling light and god of the day. Most familiar is the
image of the god standing in the cleft of a mountain, a curved,
notched sword in hand, introducing the dawn. Or, alternatively, he
is shown holding or turning a great celestial wheel.
Apart from a few experts on Babylonian astronomy, historians and
mythologists as a whole seem to be unaware that in Babylonian
astronomical texts, the sun god Shamash and the planet Saturn
merge in a most unexpected way. Where one would expect
references to the Sun, one finds instead the name of the planet
Saturn!
In the nineteenth century, the pioneering archaeologist and
historian, George Rawlinson, noting that Shamash was repeatedly
associated with the planet Saturn, put an exclamation point to the
mystery. "How is it possible," Rawlinson asked, "that the dark and
distant planet Saturn can answer to the luminary who 'irradiates the
nations like the sun, the light of the gods?'"
In 1909, the leading expert Morris Jastrow brought this anomaly to
the attention of others in a fascinating article entitled "Sun and
Saturn." According to Jastrow, Babylonian astrological texts
could not have presented the equation of Saturn and the sun more
boldly: "The planet Saturn is Shamash," they say.
As strange as it may seem, as difficult as it may be to comprehend,
the ancient sun god is not the body we call "Sun" today. But how
could such a strange identity have attached itself to the now-distant
planet? For over a century now, the "best experts" have failed to
provide a persuasive answer to that question, and that is why it is
time to push the theoretical boundaries outward. An explanation *is*
possible, but not until we are willing to consider why it was that
around the world the now distant planets were remembered as immense
and terrifying powers in the sky.
David N. Talbott
From <8409...@sheol.org> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop):
Wayne, you are quite correct that "one scholar" will not establish that
Thor's identity as world pillar is "well-known". "Well-documented" is
perhaps a better phrase, since most popular reviews of gods and symbols
rarely penetrate to the underlying motifs. Over the years I've encountered
numerous references to the pillar aspect of Thor, but not in popular
reviews, and I think there's a moral to this story. Aspects of gods and
heroes that do not make sense are progressively shed. A man is not a
pillar. So once the archetypal, celestial hero has been reduced by
storytelling to human dimensions, the various identities in relation to
the axis-pillar will either gradually disappear or find expression as
metaphors. The hero will be described as "like" a mountain, or "like the
wind", or placed in the *servitude* of a former great king, or be "bound"
to a pillar, or "arise" from a river, or possess a sword originally
"embedded" in a pillar or drawn from a river. Once the original mythical
interpretations of the axis-pillar are clear, it is impossible to explore
the deeper strata of later myth without seeing the echoes of the original
images circling all about the famous hero figures. But one has to be
willing to look beneath the surface, as I've repeated more than once.
A comprehensive discussion of ancient pillar-gods, including Thor, will be
found in A.B. Cook's monumental three-volume work, *Zeus*.
In all of this, it is necessary to ask again and again, Why did one nation
after another remember an ancestral warrior-hero, whose identity resolves
itself into the identity of the world mountain of global myth? Could
anything in our uneventful sky have prompted that root identity?
And let's not forget the other half of that question: are there any
recurring aspects of the hero's root identity that are not predicted by
the Saturn theory?
Speaking of metaphor: "procrustean schema"? I object!
Dave
ev.co...@ames.net
Recently Tim Thompson wrote as follows:
>But there is simply no reason to believe
> that ancient people lived in a state of virtual panic for fear of
> divine retribution. The Saturn Myth style of "in-yer-face" catastrophism
> could certainly generate immediate panic, but there is no sign of
> this in mythology as an overriding concern.
Tim, your novice status in the field of mythology is showing.
Ian is quite right: Peoples from both the Old and New Worlds
anxiously awaited the appearance of Venus, afraid that
a change in its course would herald the end of the world.
Many of the peoples of Mesoamerica sacrificed human
victims on such occasions. Human sacrifices to Venus
were common in the Old World as well.
Here is a description of Venus (Inanna) from ancient
Mesopotamian mythology:
"Planet for the warcry...whose mail is combat,
clothed in chilling fear...At the thought of your name,
heaven and the netherworld quake...Shining torch of
heaven...Fiery glow that blazes against the enemy,
who wreaks destruction on the fierce, ... Ishtar."
(B. Foster, Before the Muses, 1993, pp. 510-512)
Here is a description of Venus (Inanna) from
Sumerian myth:
"Like a dragon you have deposited venom on the land.
When you roar at the earth like Thunder, no vegetation
can stand up to you. A flood descending from its
mountain, Oh foremost one, you are the Inanna of
heaven and earth! Raining the fanned fire down upon
the nation..." (W. Hallo & J. van Dijk, The Exaltation
of Inanna, 1968, p. 15)
Are you going to tell me that there is no sign of panic,
foreboding, or awe in the voice of the poet?
--
ev.co...@ames.net
In response to a recent post of mine, Michael Noreen wrote
as follows:
Michael Noreen wrote:
>
> Replying to ev.co...@ames.net
>
> : > >In Norse mythology most of these predictions fail. There is no
> : > >underworld river, the north and south winds are not referred to, there
> : > >is no heaven-supporting hero. There is an (evil) dragon, NidhM-vgg,
> : > >although its sex seems to be female - it spawns other dragons.
> : >
> :
> : A classic example of the heaven supporting hero is provided
> : by Thor, as various scholars of Norse myth have discerned.
>
> That is interesting, as there is no support for it in the myths. The
> only way to draw that conclusion, AFAI can see, is to define 'The
> leading hero of any mythos' to be 'heaven supporting hero'. Or can you
> point me to some passage in Norse mythos where Thor supports the
> heavens?
>
> : Thus, it is well-known that Thor became
> : identified with the main supporting pillars of individual
> : temples and houses
>
> Total news to me. There is nothing supporting this in the mythos,
> AFAIK. Thor is known as 'the son of the Earth', and it is not clear to
> me how anyone can know whether he was associated with the main pillars
> of temples and houses, since no heathen temple or detailed description
> of a heathen temple survives. I don't think this conclusion can be
> drawn without extrapolating from other mythos.
>
> : thereby imitating the World Pillar
> : which upheld heaven.
>
> WHICH world pillar? There is no world pillar upholding the heaven in
> Norse Mythology; the 'heaven' is the skull of Ymer the giant, which
> Odin and his brothers Vile and Ve slew to create the world.
>
> : Here's what one scholar had to
> : say: "As Thor upheld the world, he upheld the temple and
> : many another building." (E. Turville-Petrie, Myth and
> : Religion of the North, 1964, p. 87).
>
> No mention of this in Vilhelm Groenbech's "Nordiska myter och sagor"
> (Norse Myth and Saga), 1965.
>
> : Ev Cochrane
Michael first claims there is no Norse example of the
heaven-supporting hero. I then provide a reference
from a top scholar contradicting him, and his sole
response is "No mention of this in Vilhelm Groenbech's"
book. Whatever happened to "thanks for correcting me?"
Kipp McMichael
ev.co...@ames.net wrote:
>
> Michael first claims there is no Norse example of the
> heaven-supporting hero. I then provide a reference
> from a top scholar contradicting him, and his sole
> response is "No mention of this in Vilhelm Groenbech's"
> book. Whatever happened to "thanks for correcting me?"
Because you didn't correct him! And quite frankly, I am apt to
mistrust the writings of anyone you call "a top scholar."
Mike's arguments still stand that Norse mythology does indeed go
against your "universal" grain - Yggdrasil, the world tree, is the only
thing close to a world pillar in Norse and it *did not* hold up the sky.
Thor was not identified with any type of Atlasean status. Simply finding
some slightly possible connection in a mythology to your Saturn Myth and
then calling it s "classic example" is highly misleading and quite
simply, dishonest.
--
Kipp McMichael
kmcm...@bamanet.ua.edu
Kipp McMichael
ev.co...@ames.net wrote:
[quotes of the Sumerian war Venus snipped]
>
> Are you going to tell me that there is no sign of panic,
> foreboding, or awe in the voice of the poet?
Ev, all you have done is find a mythology in which Venus is a war
goddess and the nore its unsurprising fierceness. What about Greek
mythology where Venus is the goddess of love (who enters battle only at
Troy and quickly flees from a slight injury)?
In Persian astrology, the planet Venus was looked upon as a favorable
sign - hows does Venus as the bringer of destruction fit with this
protrayal?
--
Kipp McMichael
kmcm...@bamanet.ua.edu
ev.co...@ames.net
On the subject of Thor's possible identification with
the World Pillar, Dave Talbott wrote as follows:
David N. Talbott wrote:
[quotes by myself and Wayne Throop deleted]
Here are a few snippets from another handy source, H.R.
Davidson's Gods and Myths of Northern Europe. One of
leading scholars of Norse lore, Davidson discusses the
theme of the World Pillar/World Tree at great length:
"The World Tree, Yggdrasill, formed the center of the
universe...The idea of the World Tree as a fixed and
eternal center persists through the confusion, an image
of tremendous power. This image indeed appears to have
once dominated the religious thought of much of Europe
and Asia...Admittedly certain ideas connected with
the tree seem to be very old, and we know too that the
Germanic peoples had the idea of a World Pillar,
associated with the cult of the supreme sky god. In
a Saxon chronicle of about 970 written by Widukind,
there is a description of the setting up of a column
in honor of Mars...He states that the name of Mars
was Hermin [parallel with Irminsul deleted] Irminsul
was the column of the universe, upholding all things.
It is thought that Irmin was another name for the
sky god, Tiwaz, among the Saxons, and that the World
Pillar, which upheld the sky, was associated with
his worship." (pp. 190-196)
That Tiwaz was identified with Mars is well-known.
Thus we appear to have a direct connection of Mars
with the World Pillar and the upholding of the sky
apart from my identification of Thor with Mars. Now
here is what Davidson has to say about Thor:
"We can discern in it [an Icelandic foundation tale]
the custom of the settlers to take the oak pillars
of Thor's temple with them to Iceland. The pillar,
as we have seen, was sacred to the god, and there
seems good reason to believe that this was because
the pillar represented the sacred tree, in which
the power of the god dwelt." (pp. 87-88).
Granted, Davidson's recognition that Thor originally
represented the World Pillar is not as explicit
as Turville-Petrie's, but the connection is apparent
nonetheless.
ev.co...@ames.net
Kipp, I can see that you delight in offering off-the-cuff
remarks about Venusian figures with little or no analysis
or references being provided. This makes it difficult
to know just what you mean and/or what you want us to
explain. Perhaps I can start by noting that Aphrodite
was likewise represented as a warrior in ancient Greek
cult. Indeed, the further back you trace the goddess
the more she resembles Ishtar (most scholars suggest
a common origin of the two goddesses in the ancient
Near East), although it is true that the Greeks had
a marked tendency to downplay her "fierce" aspect.
Your reference to Persian astrology is too vague to
form an adequate response. Suffice it to say that
Venus-goddesses around the world manifested apparently
contradictory themes: love/war, beautiful queen/witch,
bright/dark, giver of life/destroyer of life, etc.
The theory of Talbott and myself attempts to explain
each of these themes (and hundreds more could easily
have been outlined) by reference to the recent history
of the planet Venus. Inasmuch as astrology preserves
a faithful reference to Venus' past history--witness
the references in Babylonian astrology to Venus'
"beard", "horns", association with war, etc--it
stands to reason that it would give Venus a dangerous
or benign influence in accordance with the particular
sign.
Scott H. Mullins
In article <dtalbott.841006641@kelly>,[del]
>And yet the profile of the great "sun" gods presents a fascinating
>dilemma. During the past century several authorities noticed that
>Greek and Latin astronomical texts show a mysterious confusion of
>the "Sun"--Greek Helios, Latin Sol--with the outermost planet,
>Saturn. Though the designation seems bizarre, the expression "star
>of Helios" or "star of Sol" was applied to Saturn! Of the
>Babylonian star-worshippers the chronicler Diodorus writes: "To
>the one we call Saturn they give a special name, 'Sun-Star.'"
Here is an explanation: a group of people worship a god named
Saturn (or Kronos, or whomever). They associate him with the biggest
freaking thing in the sky, the sun. Second group of people come along
who worship Sol (or Ra, or whomever) and who associate him also
with the sun. Second group of people kick the asses of the first
group. The sun is associated with Sol, and Saturn is booted to the outer
reaches.
You will cry: too simplistic, you are ignorant, I cannot be bothered
with such peonic notions. However, my scenario has at least one
redeeming feature that yours does not: mine is physically possible.
[del]
Scott
Paul J. Gans
ev.co...@ames.net wrote:
While I make no claim to knowing anything about anything,
I do note that the reference to Aphrodite above may, in
fact, be a reference to Artimis Huntress.
I know nothing about mythology, but it may in fact be the
opinion of some world reknowned experts somewhere that
Venus was part of a triple goddess system. This, of course,
cannot be predicted by Saturnism, since they know of no
triple planets.
The Greek triple is Artemis-Aphrodite-Crone, the three
mysterious (at least to men) aspects of womanhood. The
young pre-mature Artemis, boylike and athletic, the
mature very womanly Aphrodite, the very embodyment of
sexual reproduction, and the aged and ancient Crone, the
old woman, the ancient one, the mother who knows death.
As I say, I know nothing about any of these. Since I've
not seen Artemis or Crone discussed by Saturnists, they
may, in fact, not even exist.
Paul J. Gans
ev.co...@ames.net wrote:
: On the subject of Thor's possible identification with
I'm fascinated. Could you give me a reference to the
Chronicle by the Saxon Widukind written in 970? Widukind
would, of course, have been a Christian and likely a cleric.
Thus any material discussing the raising of a pillar to
honor Mars would be VERY INTERESTING.
You do understand that I do not admit to knowing anything about
things medieval. I'm just an explorer here and references
to pagan practices by putatively christian writers interests
me. Perhaps I can get a private group of world-reknowned
experts to look at the chronicle and give me their opinions,
but first, of course, I need a reference to the chronicle.
Mark Isaak
In article <dtalbott.840592332@linda> dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) writes:
>Yes, but that's only part of the point. The fact that a column is seen as
>masculine and an enclosure is seen as feminine is crucial to the
>predictive ability of the Saturn theory. But to make this prediction, the
>theory proposes that the reference was *there*. The reason to believe
>that the reference was to something seen is the full range of motifs, and
>the symbolic equations between them. That the oldest and most
>fundamental and most universal thematic content of ancient cultures
>is predicted by such an unusual theory cannot be rationalized away..
If I understand this paragraph right, you are saying, "I see a consistent
pattern of a phallus being identified as male and a vagina being identified
as female. My theory proposes that this pattern refers to some
configuration of planets and other cosmic stuff. The reason to believe my
theory is because it predicts that pattern will show up everwhere, and
indeed it does show up consistently. That a male phallus and female vagina
is predicted by such an unusual theory cannot be rationalized away."
I hope people can see why I'm not impressed with Talbott's methods.
>No, as I've tried to point out, the methodology does not allow for taking
>liberties. It permits only the use of *recurring* themes, of acknowledged
>literal meanings of words, and ancient pictures of things in the sky.
Whenever I start talking about using the literal meanings of words like
"underworld" or "river", you tell me they're symbolic.
>The fact that, when you restrict yourself to incontrovertible data, every
>theme answers to unified forms in the sky, is the whole point NOT ONE
>THEME ANSWERS TO ANYTHING IN OUR SKY TODAY.
According to you, the underworld is part of the sky, the ocean is part of
the sky, mountains are part of the sky, snakes are part of the sky, people
are part of the sky. The only reason every theme answers to forms in the
sky is because you arbitrarily put them there. The reason not one theme
answers to anything in our sky today is because you were wrong to put them
there.
--
Mark Isaak "The first principle is that you must not
is...@aurora.com fool yourself, and you're the easiest
person to fool." - Richard Feynman
ev.co...@ames.net
David N. Talbott wrote:
>
> From <4vm9u4$s...@freeside.fc.net> rmi...@freeside.fc.net (Robert Miller):
>
[del]
>
> >>3. In virtually every major ancient culture Venus was remembered as a
> >>goddess. In fact, Venus is the only planet with that distinction--a
> >>strange fact noticed by many but *never* explained.
>
> >This is the real reason for my response. How does the Saturn theory
> >explain Venus being identified as a goddess, particularly the goddess of
> >love as the Greeks and Romans viewed it? Aphrodite is not a particularly
> >terrifying figure in Greek mythology.
>
> A very good question, but one requiring more introduction to the Saturn
> theory than I could give in a couple of paragraphs. The principle of
> goddess Venus and masculine Mars relates to the highly concrete activities
> of the two bodies in the hypothesized polar configuration. Venus' role,
> in more ways than one, is that of an enclosure, and the role of Mars is
> that of impregnating seed and child within the enclosure, together with an
> inseparable link to the world mountain, mythically speaking the generative
> column planting the Martian "seed" in the womb of the goddess.
>
> These are issues where visualization is crucial in order to see the
> integrity of the theory, and I recommend the video introduction,
> "Remembering the End of the World."
>
> One of the great archetypes of myth is the ancestral hero consorting with
> the goddess, or with the daughter of a great king (echo of the Universal
> Monarch Saturn). The theme can be traced to the beginnings of
> civilization. There is no conventionally-acceptable explanation for the
> global distribution of this theme, much less for the recurring, highly
> specific associations of the two archetypal characters.
>
> But in the course of storytelling over many centuries the personalities
> tend to fragment into separate, less complex, characters. In medieval
> times, for example, the princess might be victimized by a wicked queen or
> witch, or by a dragon descending on the village. Typically, she will then
> be rescued by an ancestral hero or prince. How would we know, from
> these later stories themselves, that the witch and the dragon are
> actually the terrible aspect of the princess herself? The hero is
> rescuing her from her own alter ego. You discover this by tracing the
> stories to their earliest expressions, where you find one goddess who is
> simultaneously the "love" goddess, a goddess of life, the very heart and
> soul of the Universal Monarch, but who takes on a terrifying countenance
> as hag or devourer in connection with a cosmic catastrophe, raging in the
> sky as a fiery serpent or dragon. In archetypal terms, the conquest or
> pacification of the terrible goddess by the warrior-hero is the story
> of the ancestral hero rescuing the beautiful princess from her terrible
> aspect.
>
> Seen from this larger perspective, Aphrodite can be understood as a
> transitional figure, on the way to the medieval beautiful princess, but
> still retaining many links to the earlier Venus-figures of Egypt,
> Mesopotamia, and the Mediterranean, whose terrible aspect has not yet been
> separated out into the distinctly wicked-witch-like figure. Look deeply at
> Aphrodite and you will find that numerous symbols of the terrible goddess
> could not be hidden altogether.
>
> I apologize for not having the time to respond to your other questions.
> Perhaps I can return to these matters in the next few days.
>
> Dave
Thus it is that scholars have recognized that Aphrodite
herself lies behind the forms of Ariadne, the prototype
of the rescued maiden, as well as Medea, one of the
clearest examples of the witch-goddess in all of Greek
mythology. That Aphrodite herself was an Ishtar-like
figure associated with war is indicated by the fact
that she was depicted as a warrior in ancient Greek
cult.
--
David N. Talbott
>In article <dtalbott.840592332@linda> dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) writes:
>>Yes, but that's only part of the point. The fact that a column is seen as
>>masculine and an enclosure is seen as feminine is crucial to the
>>predictive ability of the Saturn theory. But to make this prediction, the
>>theory proposes that the reference was *there*. The reason to believe
>>that the reference was to something seen is the full range of motifs, and
>>the symbolic equations between them. That the oldest and most
>>fundamental and most universal thematic content of ancient cultures
>>is predicted by such an unusual theory cannot be rationalized away..
>If I understand this paragraph right, you are saying, "I see a consistent
>pattern of a phallus being identified as male and a vagina being identified
>as female. My theory proposes that this pattern refers to some
>configuration of planets and other cosmic stuff. The reason to believe my
>theory is because it predicts that pattern will show up everwhere, and
>indeed it does show up consistently. That a male phallus and female vagina
>is predicted by such an unusual theory cannot be rationalized away."
Mark, you are still trying to respond to a theory without knowing anything
about it. The simple and incontrovertible fact is that the earliest
strata of ancient sources invoke on *every page* two phenomena that do not
exist in our sky: a cosmic column, presented in numerous symbolic
forms (I've previously outlined several), and a cosmic power identified
simultaneously as an enclosure and as the central eye, heart and soul of
the ancient "sun god". If you will familiarize yourself with the
published material you will not disagree that *if the hypothesized events
occurred* no further explanation will be needed for the "masculine"
symbolism of the martian column and the "feminine" symbolism of the
Venus-enclosure. So what are we arguing about here?
Perhaps, since we're looking at all of this from two different
perspectives, my statements are as incomprehensible to you as yours are to
me. So let me go back to the beginning. Are you claiming that we are
misrepresenting evidence when we say there is a global myth of a cosmic
column with which the archetypal warrior-hero was identified? Are you
saying that we are misrepresenting evidence when we claim that the
archetypal goddess is an *enclosure* situated above the cosmic column?
As far as I can tell, you are simply asserting that the "feminine"
qualities of the goddess and the "masculine" qualities of the hero imply a
human origin. I suppose that claim would be perfectly logical if we could
ignore the historical evidence. But there is no possibility that the
earliest forms of the goddess and hero were of terrestrial origin. The
only problem is that the their explicit cosmic forms do not exist in our
sky, which poses the mystery: why do the same highly improbable forms
occur around the world?
Dave
David N. Talbott
Let me begin by announcing that the Class Clown is now the distinguished
professor Paul Gans, a humble servant and explorer.
Well, Paul, even a mocking humility becomes you. Why not send me a postal
address, and I'll send you a copy of the video. "Remembering the End of
the World." There you will see exactly how the Saturn theory accounts for
the three-fold goddess in relationship to what I've called the "Radiant
Venus." In fact, the three-fold goddess is discussed also in my upcoming
AEON article, which will be completed in the next few days. This, too,
I'll gladly send along if you are interested. In the case of the
three-fold goddess, I am certain you will agree that, granting the claimed
events, the three-fold goddess and all related symbols are immediately
explained.
>The Greek triple is Artemis-Aphrodite-Crone, the three
>mysterious (at least to men) aspects of womanhood. The
>young pre-mature Artemis, boylike and athletic, the
>mature very womanly Aphrodite, the very embodyment of
>sexual reproduction, and the aged and ancient Crone, the
>old woman, the ancient one, the mother who knows death.
>As I say, I know nothing about any of these. Since I've
>not seen Artemis or Crone discussed by Saturnists, they
>may, in fact, not even exist.
In truth both Artemis and the Crone are very much a part of the theory,
insofar as they represent recurring motifs. In all sincerity, we have not
overstated the case when we say that the Saturn theory does work in the
sense that it predicts all of the recurring themes of ancient cultures.
And we are not overstating the case when we say that no recurring
theme, when explored at its roots answers to anything in present
experience.
Dave
David N. Talbott
>ev.co...@ames.net wrote:
My oh my. Kipp, the idea of the world pillar as a universal archetype,
was not invented by me, or by Ev. Have you never heard of the Germanic
Irminsaul-pillars? These are recognized as symbols of the
heaven-supporting pillar, and identified with Mars. Look out at Mars.
Does it look like a pillar to you? Why did every ancient race remember a
great warrior or hero who just happens to have held aloft the great sphere
of "heaven"? Why did ancient astronomers around the world look out at
Mars and see this highly improbable figure?
To even begin to see the deeper meanings of myth you have to go beyond the
popular summaries. For centuries people have been reducing myth to what
is *comprehensible* to them. The overlapping images of the cosmic column
we've been talking about *are not comprehensible* to people and will
therefore either disappear from the stories or be reinterpreted in ways
that *can* be comprehended. A popular summary of later myths is virtually
useless when exploring the underpinnings of myth. And least of all could
something you read in such a summary justify that reckless comment about
dishonesty.
Dave
MikeNoreen
Replying to dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott)
: >That is interesting, as there is no support for it in the myths. The
: >only way to draw that conclusion, AFAI can see, is to define 'The
: >leading hero of any mythos' to be 'heaven supporting hero'. Or can you
: >point me to some passage in Norse mythos where Thor supports the
: >heavens?
:
: You seem to be repeating the error of other t.o critics. You are assuming
: *before* you investigate that we are misrepresenting evidence. Let me
: remind you that someone else brought up Norse myth and said the
: predictions of the Saturn theory fail when it comes to this later
: material. I said you have to look deeper in the later material, because
: of fragmentation, but that all of the predicted symbolism will be found.
But where is Thor said to be heaven supporting? Which support do you
find in the mythos to justify claiming him to be a "classic example of
a heaven supporting hero"? I can't see how the claim can be made other
than by extrapolation to other mythos, or by defining the leading hero
as 'heaven supporting'. So - does the 'prediction' fail because it is
later material or is Thor a "classic example"? It can't be both.
: Ev came on to mention Thor. Is this being selective? Who is the most
: famous of Norse warrior-heroes, it it is not Thor? I can guarantee you
: that if Mark Isaak had been the one to bring up Thor, he would have said,
: "Thor is not a world pillar." He would have said this because in the
: popular summary he was reading, no mention was made of this underlying
: identity. YOU HAVE TO LOOK DEEPER, TO the ROOTS OF THE LOCAL SYMBOLS.
I don't quite follow your train of thought here but - deeper than the
actual source? Deeper than the mythos? What then, but to extrapolate
from other mythos?
: Ev wrote:
:
: >: Thus, it is well-known that Thor became
: >: identified with the main supporting pillars of individual
: >: temples and houses
:
: And Michael responded:
:
: >Total news to me. There is nothing supporting this in the mythos,
: >AFAIK. Thor is known as 'the son of the Earth', and it is not clear to
: >me how anyone can know whether he was associated with the main pillars
: >of temples and houses, since no heathen temple or detailed description
: >of a heathen temple survives. I don't think this conclusion can be
: >drawn without extrapolating from other mythos.
I still think this is a valid statement. I don't think this conclusion
can be drawn without extrapolation from other mythos - and I need not
point out that such extrapolation will be very subjective.
: >: thereby imitating the World Pillar
: >: which upheld heaven.
:
: >WHICH world pillar? There is no world pillar upholding the heaven in
: >Norse Mythology; the 'heaven' is the skull of Ymer the giant, which
: >Odin and his brothers Vile and Ve slew to create the world.
:
: Once again, the fact that you do not see a reference to a "world pillar"
: in the index of a popular book on Norse myth does not exclude the archaic
: idea. Why not trust instead the word of one of the world's leading
: experts, which Ev cited:
Because THERE IS NO WORLD PILLAR IN NORSE MYTHOLOGY. You have to go
OUTSIDE of Norse mythos to find such a pillar.
: >: Here's what one scholar had to
: >: say: "As Thor upheld the world, he upheld the temple and
: >: many another building." (E. Turville-Petrie, Myth and
: >: Religion of the North, 1964, p. 87).
Because I don't have access to this particular work, obviously. I do
have access to:
: >No mention of this in Vilhelm Groenbech's "Nordiska myter och sagor"
: >(Norse Myth and Saga), 1965.
And he doesn't mention this, despite having a chapter on the origins
of the gods (ie that the Vanir gods probably predate the Asir gods).
There is no instance in the mythos where Thor upholds the world or the
heavens.
: My point exactly. Both you and Mark Isaak are committing the same
: fallacy: assuming in advance that we are representing evidence every time
: you fail to find the connection we are suggesting. But short of
: republishing several volumes of material in this electronic forum, we can
: only respond to this fallacious reasoning in bits and pieces, as time
: allows.
OK, so it's like this: All leading heroes are heaven supporting; all
vertical objects are world pillars; all bodies of water are
underground rivers. That there is no support for this interpretation
in the mythos doesn't matter, because you (or, in this case E.
Turville-Petrie) know what the old Norsemen REALLY meant, deep down,
despite it being obvious that they didn't know so themselves, and
furthermore that this is scientific FACT; all mythos actually being no
more than slightly garbled memories of a time when the Earth orbited
Saturn.
By interpreting ANY water as the underground river, ANY hero as the
heaven-supporting hero, and ANY erect object as the world pillar you
make your generalizations so broad that literally any mythos,
including Star Trek or the Gummi bears, will fit. That also means that
you cannot draw any conclusions from the myths, because there's no
telling that the homologies are homologies, but that it is very likely
they are not.
AFAI can see this invalidates your reasoning, atleast for Norse
mythos. If this analysis is incorrect, please tell me how and why Thor
would be heaven supporting, or what the world pillar might be, or
which water in the mythos you would NOT have interpreted as being the
underground river.
: Dave
MVH: Mike Noreen |"Cold as the northern winds
Net: ev-mi...@nrm.se | in December mornings,
| Cold is the cry that rings
| from this far distant shore."
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to
any commercial mail list. So up yours, mail-spammers!
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
ev.co...@ames.net wrote:
: Kipp, I can see that you delight in offering off-the-cuff
: remarks about Venusian figures with little or no analysis
: or references being provided. This makes it difficult
: to know just what you mean and/or what you want us to
: explain. Perhaps I can start by noting that Aphrodite
: was likewise represented as a warrior in ancient Greek
: cult.
Forgive my butting in, and admittedly I may be quite rusty on my Greek
mythology, but wasn't it Aethena (sp?) that was the warrior-goddess?
Scott H. Mullins
David N. Talbott wrote:
[del]
> One of the great archetypes of myth is the ancestral hero consorting with
> the goddess, or with the daughter of a great king (echo of the Universal
> Monarch Saturn). The theme can be traced to the beginnings of
> civilization. There is no conventionally-acceptable explanation for the
> global distribution of this theme, much less for the recurring, highly
> specific associations of the two archetypal characters.
You're joking, right? Are you really claiming that there is no
acceptable explanation for this except by way of planetary
pinball?
Dave, this theme is seen in the animal kingdom and in everyday social
interactions between humans. The toughest guy (read: the male with the
most desirable genetic characteristics) always gets the best girl
(read: the female with the most desirable genetic characteristics).
It's a universal theme because it's universal among species that reproduce
sexually.
Scott
Richard Koepsel
Hello,
It seems that one must be careful when encountering the terms "sun", "earth"
and "saturn" because they did not necessarily mean the same thing to the
ancients that they mean to us.
For example, "earth", as used mystically by the ancients, sometimes meant
what we would understand as "the ecliptic or disk of the solar system relative
to the earth's movements as seen on the backgroung of the zodiac (the four
cardinal points of the zodiac were the called the 'four corners of the
earth')" and did not mean just our planetary globe, i.e. it meant all of the
positions of the planet earth in its orbit seen according to the background of
the fixed stars.
Similarly, "sun" also seems to have meant solar system to the ancient mystic
butsolar system not merely limited to the ecliptic but to the celestial sphere.
In that same mystical usage, "saturn" meant the far reaches in both time and
space of the solar system or "earth". It was in this usage that ancient mystics
referred to "saturn" as "the gateway to chaos".
The idea put forth in this thread of a "spiritual sun" that is not the sun
that we see in the sky but something antecedant to it and surpassing it in
glory is, indeed, a conception of mysticism from ancient times to Mme.
Blavatski and the theosophists. The mystical usage of the term "spiritual sun"
is very much like the notion of a "counter earth" or "counter sun" or "saturn"
expressed in this thread. In this regard "saturn", at the extremity of the
solar system, sometimes seems to represent the lining of the solar system
or seems to describe the extent of it and thus stands for the whole solar
system. Of course, the "spiritual sun" represented much more to the mystic
as is usually the case with mystics. The idea of this saturn-sun standing in
subtle juxtaposition in its apparent darkness and remoteness to the obvious
central orb is rather pleasing to the mytical mind with its bent to paradox.
I realize that this is not a very scholarly posting, rife with citations, but
my study has been more under the hat of a mystic than a scholar and I seem
to have ignored many of the manners of scholarship. I only hope it is helpful
in provinding another (hopefully useful) point of view on the subject.
Richard
ev.co...@ames.net
Scott H. Mullins wrote as follows with respect to the
possibility that an amateur/non-astronomer such as myself
could contribute positively to the knowledge surrounding
the origin of the Martian meteorites:
>
> In article <4vtlfv$p...@basement.replay.com>,
> Chris Nedin <cne...@geology.adelaide.edu.au> wrote:
> [del]
> >Exacatly. Situations like this (geologists and biologists differing) have
> >and do occur. A classic example would be the ancestry of whales.
> >Palaeontologists suggested, on the basis of sketchy fossil evidence, that
> >whales appeared to be descended from group A, molecular biologists
> >sequenced rDNA and said that whales appeared descended from group B.
A better example, more comparable to the work of Talbott
and myself, would be any number of laymen who have
deciphered the great languages of the world. The most recent
example, perhaps, is that offered by Michael Ventris, a
British architect, who cracked Linear B, the ancient script
of Mycenaean Greece and Crete. Virtually all of the experts
were certain that it had nothing to do with Greek, yet it
ultimately proved to be an early form of Greek, as correctly
predicted by Immanuel Velikovsky, author of Worlds in Collision.
Certainly Talbott and I are amateurs in the field of astronomy,
but I suspect we know a good deal more about the recent
history of the solar system than *any* astronomer. And
there's a very simple reason for this admittedly bizarre
situation: We take seriously the ancient testimony describing
wholesale changes in the order of the solar system.
> [del]
> >>However, if there were, in fact, valid historical grounds for believing
> >>that there should be more Martian meteorites than have been found
> >>then I would say that there would good reason to take another
> >>look at the evidence.
At last something we can all agree on.
> >Yes, but this posibility does not follow from Ev's denial. If Ev had said
> >'I do not believe the current theories on martian meteorites because X, Y,
> >Z' *then* we whould have something to go on.
This last sentence, in fact, aptly describes my position vis a vis
the origin of the Martian meteorites. Presumably Chris Nedin
has not read my article "Martian Meteorites in Ancient Myth and
Modern Science," Aeon, 1995, pp. 57-73. Consequently I
cannot imagine why he has spent so much time recently
pontificating with regards to the alleged failings of what I
might or might not believe. May I suggest that folks interested
in this subject simply read my article on the subject, at which
point I will be more than happy to debate one and all. (As I
write, the article is being added to the Aeon website, address
listed below).
> However, I'm sure that Everett believes that he _does_ have evidence.
> The fact that the V'ists haven't yet made any valid _physical_ predictions
> would certainly seem to cast a deep, dark shadow on that "evidence"
> but I wouldn't expect that to slow him down.
[ill-considered jab at Dave Talbott deleted]
Yes, Ev does indeed think he has some evidence in favor of his
position. Compelling evidence, in fact, but hardly conclusive.
On this matter, I am perfectly content to the let future findings
re the dating and origin of the Martian rocks determine the
issue.
As for predictions, I have made several respecting what I
expect to be found on Mars. For example, several years back
I predicted that fossils of primitive life forms would be found
on Mars. I was led to consider this hypothesis because of my
research into ancient traditions, which strongly suggested that
Mars only recently moved in close proximity to Earth, at
which time it certainly possessed great oceans and an
extensive atmosphere of some sort. It stands to reason that
if the Earth had life--the human mythmakers who described
a catastrophic Mars immediately overhead--the red planet
might have recently had life as well. There have been other
predictions as well, none of which, I suspect, will be
confirmed or denied until humans actually land on Mars
and perform a wide variety of experiments on the various
terrains. It is worth noting here, however, that what
stands as a glaring anomaly for conventional versions of the
history of the solar system--overwhelming evidence of oceans
of water on the surface of Mars--is simply one of dozens of
"findings" consistent with the thesis defended by Talbott
and myself.
> [del]
> >How about, "Ev's denial is unsupported and brings nothing to the discussion
> >on the scientific evidence as it pertains to martian meteorites"?
>
> Let's see: it's pedantic, slightly condescending, and entirely accurate.
> That's the ticket!
>
> Scott
In your dreams, perhaps, but not in reality. Chris Nedin, after
all, is the same fellow who sought to correct my statement that
there were around a dozen examples of Martian meteorites
which have been found on Earth. He claimed there were only
ten. WRONG! Scott Mullins is the very fellow who wrote
some time back that: "The basic geology of Mars has probably
remained constant since its formation." WRONG! May I
offer a few words of advice for these two bastions of
scientific knowledge: Better to simply quit this thread while
you're behind rather than be embarrassed further.
Alan Scott
In article <dtalbott.841112396@linda>,
David N. Talbott <dtal...@teleport.com> wrote:
<snip>
>As far as I can tell, you are simply asserting that the "feminine"
>qualities of the goddess and the "masculine" qualities of the hero imply a
>human origin. I suppose that claim would be perfectly logical if we could
>ignore the historical evidence. But there is no possibility that the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>earliest forms of the goddess and hero were of terrestrial origin. The
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>only problem is that the their explicit cosmic forms do not exist in our
>sky, which poses the mystery: why do the same highly improbable forms
>occur around the world?
I think you have not adequately defended the underlined portion in this
forum at least. I have seen a quote by Aristotle, but that can easily
be discounted by itself. Certainly it is possible that some of the
gods had their sources in celestial objects.
Do you feel justified in taking any passage from ancient mythology
and interpreting it in relation to celestial objects?
In my opinion, this crucial point should be defended for each and every
passage you use in your exegisis. I would be interested in seeing your
main points in support of this assertion.
--
Al Scott....Creationist Quote of the Month--David Ford again!!--
..the electron has a classical radius of 2.8x10^-15 meters, which would be
within your stated upper bound of 10^-18 meters.
David N. Talbott
From <4vsjnl$r...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> smu...@primenet.com (Scott H.
Mullins):
>In article <dtalbott.841006641@kelly>,
>David N. Talbott <dtal...@teleport.com> wrote:
>[del]
>>And yet the profile of the great "sun" gods presents a fascinating
>>dilemma. During the past century several authorities noticed that
>>Greek and Latin astronomical texts show a mysterious confusion of
>>the "Sun"--Greek Helios, Latin Sol--with the outermost planet,
>>Saturn. Though the designation seems bizarre, the expression "star
>>of Helios" or "star of Sol" was applied to Saturn! Of the
>>Babylonian star-worshippers the chronicler Diodorus writes: "To
>>the one we call Saturn they give a special name, 'Sun-Star.'"
>Here is an explanation: a group of people worship a god named
>Saturn (or Kronos, or whomever). They associate him with the biggest
>freaking thing in the sky, the sun. Second group of people come along
>who worship Sol (or Ra, or whomever) and who associate him also
>with the sun. Second group of people kick the asses of the first
>group. The sun is associated with Sol, and Saturn is booted to the outer
>reaches.
You are assuming, Scott, that the challenge is to explain an anomaly in a
particular land. That is not, and has never been the challenge. The
challenge is to explain *recurring* anomalies, anomalies present among
diverse cultures, and if possible to offer an an explanation in terms that
will also account for the linkage between anomalies. I've already cited a
fair number of anomalies to which the Saturn-Sun equation is inseparably
linked. I don't recall anyone denying that if the hypothesized events
occurred the anomalies would be explained.
It is when intelligent people begin to realize that the way they have been
viewing a subject cannot explain the data in front of them that they
begin to expand the boundaries of prior theory.
Dave
Paul J. Gans
David N. Talbott (dtal...@teleport.com) wrote:
[deletions]
: Well, Paul, even a mocking humility becomes you. Why not send me a postal
: address, and I'll send you a copy of the video. "Remembering the End of
: the World." There you will see exactly how the Saturn theory accounts for
: the three-fold goddess in relationship to what I've called the "Radiant
: Venus." In fact, the three-fold goddess is discussed also in my upcoming
: AEON article, which will be completed in the next few days. This, too,
: I'll gladly send along if you are interested. In the case of the
: three-fold goddess, I am certain you will agree that, granting the claimed
: events, the three-fold goddess and all related symbols are immediately
: explained.
Well, good for you. Of course, no mainstream publication will
touch it, but good for you nevertheless.
By the way, the Goddess is not pleased with you.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Paul J. Gans
:
: >In article <dtalbott.840592332@linda> dtal...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) writes:
: >>Yes, but that's only part of the point. The fact that a column is seen as
: >>masculine and an enclosure is seen as feminine is crucial to the
: >>predictive ability of the Saturn theory. But to make this prediction, the
: >>theory proposes that the reference was *there*. The reason to believe
: >>that the reference was to something seen is the full range of motifs, and
: >>the symbolic equations between them. That the oldest and most
: >>fundamental and most universal thematic content of ancient cultures
: >>is predicted by such an unusual theory cannot be rationalized away..
:
: >If I understand this paragraph right, you are saying, "I see a consistent
: >pattern of a phallus being identified as male and a vagina being identified
: >as female. My theory proposes that this pattern refers to some
: >configuration of planets and other cosmic stuff. The reason to believe my
: >theory is because it predicts that pattern will show up everwhere, and
: >indeed it does show up consistently. That a male phallus and female vagina
: >is predicted by such an unusual theory cannot be rationalized away."
:
: Mark, you are still trying to respond to a theory without knowing anything
: strata of ancient sources invoke on *every page* two phenomena that do not
: exist in our sky: a cosmic column, presented in numerous symbolic
: forms (I've previously outlined several), and a cosmic power identified
: simultaneously as an enclosure and as the central eye, heart and soul of
: the ancient "sun god". If you will familiarize yourself with the
: published material you will not disagree that *if the hypothesized events
: occurred* no further explanation will be needed for the "masculine"
: symbolism of the martian column and the "feminine" symbolism of the
: Venus-enclosure. So what are we arguing about here?
My more-than-twenty years of study of chemistry lead me to
believe that this might be wrong. Now, I'm not saying it
*is* wrong, nor am I proposing a model here. What I want is
a group of explorers to come forward and study this.
: Perhaps, since we're looking at all of this from two different
: perspectives, my statements are as incomprehensible to you as yours are to
: me. So let me go back to the beginning. Are you claiming that we are
: misrepresenting evidence when we say there is a global myth of a cosmic
: column with which the archetypal warrior-hero was identified?
Yes. You are misrepresenting it.
: Are you
: saying that we are misrepresenting evidence when we claim that the
: archetypal goddess is an *enclosure* situated above the cosmic column?
Yes, you are misrepresenting it.
: As far as I can tell, you are simply asserting that the "feminine"
: qualities of the goddess and the "masculine" qualities of the hero imply a
: human origin.
Seems right to me.
: I suppose that claim would be perfectly logical if we could
: ignore the historical evidence.
There is no historical evidence for Saturnism. None whatsoever.
Myth is not history and only an obfuscator would claim that they
are the same.
: But there is no possibility that the
: earliest forms of the goddess and hero were of terrestrial origin. The
: only problem is that the their explicit cosmic forms do not exist in our
: sky, which poses the mystery: why do the same highly improbable forms
: occur around the world?
You assert this, but you are wrong. There is absolutely no
reason to assume cosmic billiards to be behind mythology. No
reputable expert in the field has found it necessary to invoke
cosmic explanations. Only you and your acolytes have that need.
And since you were Velikovskians BEFORE you invented Saturnism,
I am strongly motivated to assume that you were convinced of
the cosmic catastrophies BEFORE you ever really examined myth.
Many of your assertions about myth have been negated here. Many
counter-examples have been given. Statistics have been presented
to show that your "motifs" are NOT universal.
Of course, I'm just an explorer here.
Ian Tresman
koe...@lobelia.physics.wisc.edu (Richard Koepsel) wrote:
>It seems that one must be careful when encountering the terms "sun", "earth"
>and "saturn" because they did not necessarily mean the same thing to the
>ancients that they mean to us.
Agreed.
>The idea put forth in this thread of a "spiritual sun" that is not the sun...
>The mystical usage of the term "spiritual sun"
>is very much like the notion of a "counter earth" or "counter sun" or "saturn"
>expressed in this thread. In this regard "saturn", at the extremity of the
>solar system, sometimes seems to represent the lining of the solar system
In which case, it would be worthing looking at the origin of this
idea.
Ian Tresman, Society for Interdisciplinary Studies
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/sis/
Paul J. Gans
ev.co...@ames.net wrote:
[non-Cochrane material deleted]
: Thus it is that scholars have recognized that Aphrodite
: herself lies behind the forms of Ariadne, the prototype
: of the rescued maiden, as well as Medea, one of the
: clearest examples of the witch-goddess in all of Greek
: mythology. That Aphrodite herself was an Ishtar-like
: figure associated with war is indicated by the fact
: that she was depicted as a warrior in ancient Greek
: cult.
I know nothing about myth and claim to know nothing about myth.
But it seems to me that Ariadne is an important figure in worship
of the Goddess. The Goddess does not fit the Saturn myth, of
course, and so is not mentioned.
And, if I knew something about any of this, which I don't,
I might assert that Ariadne and Medea, to the extent that
they were goddesses, represent different aspects of the
one true goddess.
I'm totally ignorant about myth, but I feel (on the basis
of my research in chemistry) that many gods and goddesses
have varied aspects. One can easily pick and choose among
these aspects and come up with anything you want.
Paul J. Gans
: professor Paul Gans, a humble servant and explorer.
[deletions]
Thank you.
Paul J. Gans
David N. Talbott (dtal...@teleport.com) wrote:
: In truth both Artemis and the Crone are very much a part of the theory,
: insofar as they represent recurring motifs. In all sincerity, we have not
: overstated the case when we say that the Saturn theory does work in the
: sense that it predicts all of the recurring themes of ancient cultures.
: And we are not overstating the case when we say that no recurring
: theme, when explored at its roots answers to anything in present
: experience.
Well, there you are. That's the weakness in your position.
You say "no recurring theme, when explored at its ROOTS..."
(emphasis added).
This seems to mean that the literal representation of your myths
do NOT back your position. You have to get to their roots. And,
by some accident, you, who read no Akkadian, no Sumerian, no
ancient Aztec, no proto-Tibetian, YOU can discern the true
roots of myth.
And you claim that Saturnism isn't a religion?
Cheez.
ev.co...@ames.net
Paul, you wear your ignorance like a badge of honor.
Frankly, it suits you perfectly. This is the most
honest post I've ever seen you offer.
> ----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
--
ev.co...@ames.net
Scott H. Mullins wrote:
>
> In article <322395...@ames.net>, <ev.co...@ames.net> wrote:
>
> [del]
> >In your dreams, perhaps, but not in reality. Chris Nedin, after
> >all, is the same fellow who sought to correct my statement that
> >there were around a dozen examples of Martian meteorites
> >which have been found on Earth. He claimed there were only
> >ten. WRONG!
>
> inconsequential and trivial? Your paragraph above is truly
> pathetic. Chris _almost_immediately_ corrected himself on the number
> of Martian meteorites found.
Right. He sought to correct me, got it wrong, and then
promptly corrected himself, *right after I corrected him*.
>
> Why don't you jump in on Nedin's analysis of the frequency
> of Martian meteorites relative to the total number of meteorites?
> Hhhmmm? Come on, Everett, if Mars made that flyby of Poughkeepsie
> then where are the tons of debris from it? Where are they? Out
> with it! We want those Martian meteorites you're hiding!
>
> [del]
>
> Scott
All in due time.
Paul J. Gans
ev.co...@ames.net wrote:
: In response to a recent post of mine, Michael Noreen wrote
: as follows:
[deletions]
: > No mention of this in Vilhelm Groenbech's "Nordiska myter och sagor"
: > (Norse Myth and Saga), 1965.
: >
: > : Ev Cochrane
:
: Michael first claims there is no Norse example of the
: heaven-supporting hero. I then provide a reference
: from a top scholar contradicting him, and his sole
: response is "No mention of this in Vilhelm Groenbech's"
: book. Whatever happened to "thanks for correcting me?"
What ever happened to "thanks for correcting me" when it
was pointed out that the Saturn configuration is unstable?
Robert Miller
I didn't see the reply to my posting, only the reply to the reply, so I'll
put my remarks here. The post to which I am now replying does not
address a number of points I made originally, but I have no idea whether
David failed to address them or Everett deleted David's response to those
points.
In article <32225A...@ames.net>, <ev.co...@ames.net> wrote:
>David N. Talbott wrote:
>>
>> Venus' role,
>> in more ways than one, is that of an enclosure, and the role of Mars is
>> that of impregnating seed and child within the enclosure, together with an
>> inseparable link to the world mountain, mythically speaking the generative
>> column planting the Martian "seed" in the womb of the goddess.
So according to this you expect Venus would contain a great deal of
Martian material, correct? I'm not sure how seeing a stream of
meteorites going from one planet to another would cause one planet to be
identified as female while the other is male. But then again, I'm not
sure how such an "impregnation" is possible in the first place. The
gravitational pull of Venus on Mars wouldn't do it, because it would pull
the entire planet with the same acceleration it would pull any rocks
sitting on the surface of the planet.
>> One of the great archetypes of myth is the ancestral hero consorting with
>> the goddess, or with the daughter of a great king (echo of the Universal
>> Monarch Saturn).
Is this surprising? It is not something you need Saturn to explain for
you. Given that you have a warrior hero, a logical question is who he
marries. Who else would an exalted hero marry, except for a princess or
possibly a goddess? The marriage is a reward for his great feats, after
all. Do you suppose Herakles is going to slay the great beast in order
to win the hand of a peasant girl? These heroes played for high stakes
and got high rewards in return.
>> You discover this by tracing the
>> stories to their earliest expressions, where you find one goddess who is
>> simultaneously the "love" goddess, a goddess of life, the very heart and
>> soul of the Universal Monarch, but who takes on a terrifying countenance
>> as hag or devourer in connection with a cosmic catastrophe, raging in the
>> sky as a fiery serpent or dragon.
You don't need to construct a Saturn scenario to explain this one,
either. Throughout history men have, in general, been fascinated by
female sexuality, and have desired it for the pleasures it gives them.
They have also feared it for the control it has over them. Men have
consistently regarded women as having a dual nature, either virgins or
whores, and that regard is not confined to myth alone. Indeed, it seems
to be part of male human nature. Add the mother aspect of woman and you
have all three faces of the Triple Goddess, a figure which appears in
most mythologies, a Goddess who is simultaneously maiden, mother, and
crone. All of this is explainable through psychology.
>> Look deeply at
>> Aphrodite and you will find that numerous symbols of the terrible goddess
>> could not be hidden altogether.
I'm afraid I don't know that much about Aphrodite in Greek myth, only
that she was a relatively minor goddess compared to Hera or Athena.
Aphrodite is the goddess of love and beauty, who had a bit part in "The
Iliad" and was responsible for turning Medusa into what she became (as
punishment for making love in her temple).
>That Aphrodite herself was an Ishtar-like
>figure associated with war is indicated by the fact
>that she was depicted as a warrior in ancient Greek
>cult.
I remain skeptical. Certainly by Homer's time Aphrodite had nothing to
do with war. She protected Paris from harm, was wounded by one of the
Achaeans because of it, and retreated to Olympus where she never appeared
again in the story. The other gods and goddesses chastised her for
getting involved in something which was not her concern.
Scott H. Mullins
>> However, I'm sure that Everett believes that he _does_ have evidence.
>> The fact that the V'ists haven't yet made any valid _physical_ predictions
>> would certainly seem to cast a deep, dark shadow on that "evidence"
>> but I wouldn't expect that to slow him down.
>[ill-considered jab at Dave Talbott deleted]
Really? Perhaps you would care to explain what is ill-considered
about:
***
The fact that Talbott now
feels that he can "explain" sexual selection via the "Saturn theory"
would also seem to cast something of a pall over the proceedings
but, again, don't expect that to slow Everett down. The fact that
he is now explaining Freudian imagery via Saturnianism, etc., etc.
***
Are you claiming that he is _not_ doing this? You mean you think
that his explanation of why the hero gets the girl is really necessary?
>Yes, Ev does indeed think he has some evidence in favor of his
>position.
You are of course entitled to you opinion, no matter how
unsubstantiated or wrong-headed.
[del]
>In your dreams, perhaps, but not in reality. Chris Nedin, after
>all, is the same fellow who sought to correct my statement that
>there were around a dozen examples of Martian meteorites
>which have been found on Earth. He claimed there were only
>ten. WRONG!
Wow, you grip tight those victories, eh Everett? No matter how
inconsequential and trivial? Your paragraph above is truly
pathetic. Chris _almost_immediately_ corrected himself on the number
of Martian meteorites found.
Why don't you jump in on Nedin's analysis of the frequency
Scott H. Mullins
In article <dtalbott.841196975@kelly>,
David N. Talbott <dtal...@teleport.com> wrote:
>From <4vsjnl$r...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> smu...@primenet.com (Scott H.
>Mullins):
>>Here is an explanation: a group of people worship a god named
>>Saturn (or Kronos, or whomever). They associate him with the biggest
>>freaking thing in the sky, the sun. Second group of people come along
>>who worship Sol (or Ra, or whomever) and who associate him also
>>with the sun. Second group of people kick the asses of the first
>>group. The sun is associated with Sol, and Saturn is booted to the outer
>>reaches.
>
>You are assuming, Scott, that the challenge is to explain an anomaly in a
>particular land. That is not, and has never been the challenge. The
>challenge is to explain *recurring* anomalies, anomalies present among
>diverse cultures,
David, this _does_ explain this recurrance of the "motif" throughout
the world. Ass-kicking is a universal constant. To the victors go
the spoils, including the right to describe the night sky.
> and if possible to offer an an explanation in terms that
>will also account for the linkage between anomalies.
But what if the anomalies are not truly linked? Then you will have
an explanation of nothing.
Scott
Tim Thompson
In article <3220E5...@ames.net>, ev.co...@ames.net writes:
> Recently Tim Thompson wrote as follows:
>> But there is simply no reason to believe
>> that ancient people lived in a state of virtual panic for fear of
>> divine retribution. The Saturn Myth style of "in-yer-face" catastrophism
>> could certainly generate immediate panic, but there is no sign of
>> this in mythology as an overriding concern.
[Cochrane ... ]
> Tim, your novice status in the field of mythology is showing.
Big deal, isn't it supposed to?
> Ian is quite right: Peoples from both the Old and New Worlds
> anxiously awaited the appearance of Venus, afraid that
> a change in its course would herald the end of the world.
> Many of the peoples of Mesoamerica sacrificed human
> victims on such occasions. Human sacrifices to Venus
> were common in the Old World as well.
My knowledge of human sacrifice is limited to the Aztecs.
However, I have often heard that the prevalence of human sacrifice
was usually over-estimated. So, exactly who did all of this
sacrificing and when? Did all cultures do this, or just a few?
Did they do it for millenia, a few centuries, a few years?
Do we know it was Venus they sacrificed to (not that it matters
all that much).
> Here is a description of Venus (Inanna) from ancient
> Mesopotamian mythology:
>
> "Planet for the warcry...whose mail is combat,
> clothed in chilling fear...At the thought of your name,
> heaven and the netherworld quake...Shining torch of
> heaven...Fiery glow that blazes against the enemy,
> who wreaks destruction on the fierce, ... Ishtar."
> (B. Foster, Before the Muses, 1993, pp. 510-512)
First, I don't like all the "..."s. Maybe that's just a weakness
of mine, but I like to see what people are really saying. Can you give
the whole text? Second, is that Foster talking, or is this a transcription
or translation of an original source? Aside from a desire to know what
people are saying, I also like to know who said it. If this is Foster
on his own, I care a lot less about it. If it's an original source it
clearly carries more intrinsic oomph.
> Here is a description of Venus (Inanna) from
> Sumerian myth:
>
> "Like a dragon you have deposited venom on the land.
> When you roar at the earth like Thunder, no vegetation
> can stand up to you. A flood descending from its
> mountain, Oh foremost one, you are the Inanna of
> heaven and earth! Raining the fanned fire down upon
> the nation..." (W. Hallo & J. van Dijk, The Exaltation
> of Inanna, 1968, p. 15)
>
> Are you going to tell me that there is no sign of panic,
> foreboding, or awe in the voice of the poet?
Curiously enough, my response is "irrelevant". Remember that the claim you
and Tresman are putting forth is that the common people, en masse and as a
routine custom, lived in terror of Venus. What you have actually shown us is
one passage of unknown pedigree, and another from a poem about Inanna. Poets
write about firey downfall all the time, but it doesn't mean the world is
in a state of perpetual panic.
What we see here are the words of poets, works of art created for who
knows what purpose. What we do not see here is a chronicle of life in
ancient times attesting to the constant morbid fear of Venus. I think
you overstate your case, by relying on insufficient source material to
support such a claim. In fact, I am not at all convinced that there exists
enough source material of the appropriate style to warrant the claim being
anything other than a conjecture.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J...@jpl.nasa.gov
California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer.
Atmospheric Corrections Team - Scientific Programmer.
David N. Talbott
In <KOEPSEL.96...@lobelia.physics.wisc.edu> koe...@lobelia.physics.
wisc.edu (Richard Koepsel) writes:
>Hello,
>It seems that one must be careful when encountering the terms "sun", "earth"
>and "saturn" because they did not necessarily mean the same thing to the
>ancients that they mean to us.
>For example, "earth", as used mystically by the ancients, sometimes meant
>what we would understand as "the ecliptic or disk of the solar system relative
>to the earth's movements as seen on the backgroung of the zodiac (the four
>cardinal points of the zodiac were the called the 'four corners of the
>earth')" and did not mean just our planetary globe, i.e. it meant all of the
>positions of the planet earth in its orbit seen according to the background of
>the fixed stars.
>Similarly, "sun" also seems to have meant solar system to the ancient mystic
>butsolar system not merely limited to the ecliptic but to the celestial sphere.
>In that same mystical usage, "saturn" meant the far reaches in both time and
>space of the solar system or "earth". It was in this usage that ancient mystics
>referred to "saturn" as "the gateway to chaos".
>The idea put forth in this thread of a "spiritual sun" that is not the sun
>that we see in the sky but something antecedant to it and surpassing it in
>glory is, indeed, a conception of mysticism from ancient times to Mme.
>Blavatski and the theosophists. The mystical usage of the term "spiritual sun"
>is very much like the notion of a "counter earth" or "counter sun" or "saturn"
>expressed in this thread. In this regard "saturn", at the extremity of the
>solar system, sometimes seems to represent the lining of the solar system
>or seems to describe the extent of it and thus stands for the whole solar
>system. Of course, the "spiritual sun" represented much more to the mystic
>as is usually the case with mystics. The idea of this saturn-sun standing in
>subtle juxtaposition in its apparent darkness and remoteness to the obvious
>central orb is rather pleasing to the mytical mind with its bent to paradox.
Actually, Richard, this is the one of the more sincere and enjoyable
posts I've bumped into recently.
The rise of mystical philosophies has been of interest to me since the
first phase of the planetary research. Very early it became clear to me
that something primitive and archaic in human experience had provided
what I came to call "the Great Analogy" for later philosophy, the first
sciences, and various mystic enterprises. Plato's Unmoved Mover rests on
the analogy of the archaic central sun. The axial "Spindle of Necessity"
is an echo of the polar column. The state of "supreme rest" achieved by
eastern mystics has an explicit analogy in the *motionlessness* achieved
by Brahma, the central sun. The Kundalini powers are explicitly tied to
the primeval, spiraling serpent in relation to the axial "spinal" column.
What eventually became clear and undeniable was that immediate, highly
concrete, highly dramatic experience preceded all philosophical
reflection, even as it provided a universal experiential substratum for
such reflections.
The central sun of ancient ritual precedes any evidence of philosophy or
metaphysics. It precedes the great religions familiar to us today, even
as it provides them with a mythically-based content inspiring the upward
movement of imagination toward philosophy, science and the spiritual
awakening of consciousness.
Your reference to a "counter-earth" is of particular interest. This
idea, developed in Theosophist traditions, has a very ancient root. When
properly interpreted, it will transform our understanding of the ancient
creation legend. One of the greatest surprises in my own research was the
discovery that the early forms of the creation legend do not relate to the
origins of our earth, our sky, or anything else in our world. The
accounts relate specifically to a habitation organized by the ancient sun
god as *his own dwelling in the sky*. What is "created" is the *land par
excellence*, the prototype in the sky for every kingdom, every
localization of sacred space on earth. Saturn's Kingdom of Heaven was the
prescribed form for the sacred kingdom on earth.
But of course confusion arose from the localization of myth. Every
localized "holy land" took its name from the cosmic original. Hence, in
the telling and re-telling of the creation legend, the cosmic drama was
eventually brought down to earth.
The issue becomes extremely important for a number of reasons--most
importantly, for our understanding of the mythical cataclysm. What is
"overthown" in the primeval catastrophe is the created, celestial *land of
the gods*. The truth is that local catastrophes are not a subject of
myth--except in the sense that what was seen and heard and experienced on
earth affected the language with which the story of the cosmic
catastrophe was recounted. The archetypal figures occupying the ancestral
"land" are the gods, and the upheaval is virtually synonymous with the
mythical "death" of Saturn.
One of the fastest ways to verify this point is to explore the location of
the ancient paradise, which is really synyonymous with the created "land".
In one instance after another you will discover that this paradise lies on
the summit of the axial World Mountain, and it is the dwelling of the
Universal Monarch himself.
I trust you will not take this as an attempt on my part to refute anything
you suggested, but simply to offer additional perspective.
Dave
David N. Talbott
I think that with a moment's reflection, Paul, you will agree that the way
you expose literal meanings is to go to the roots. And of course,
thankfully, I don't have to learn all of the ancient languages, because
there are many fine experts out there who have done extensive treatments
of these languages.
But in one instance after another, translators have had to *mistranslate*
literal meanings in order to make various texts "intelligible". I've
given several examples of this previously, in relation to Egyptian texts,
about which I am quite conversant, but the same problem occurs in
translations of other ancient texts. The cause of the problem is that the
world remembered and celebrated by the first skywatchers is not the world
*we* know.
When you employ the acknowledged, literal meanings of the words, the sky
depicted is, yes indeed, the very sky worshiped by members of our new
Saturn cult.
Dave
David N. Talbott
>ev.co...@ames.net wrote:
>[non-Cochrane material deleted]
>: Thus it is that scholars have recognized that Aphrodite
>: herself lies behind the forms of Ariadne, the prototype
>: of the rescued maiden, as well as Medea, one of the
>: clearest examples of the witch-goddess in all of Greek
>: mythology. That Aphrodite herself was an Ishtar-like
>: figure associated with war is indicated by the fact
>: that she was depicted as a warrior in ancient Greek
>: cult.
>I know nothing about myth and claim to know nothing about myth.
>But it seems to me that Ariadne is an important figure in worship
>of the Goddess. The Goddess does not fit the Saturn myth, of
>course, and so is not mentioned.
>And, if I knew something about any of this, which I don't,
>I might assert that Ariadne and Medea, to the extent that
>they were goddesses, represent different aspects of the
>one true goddess.
>I'm totally ignorant about myth, but I feel (on the basis
>of my research in chemistry) that many gods and goddesses
>have varied aspects. One can easily pick and choose among
>these aspects and come up with anything you want.
No, the groundrules do not allow you to pick and choose anything. Only
broadly-recurring themes count as evidence, and a unified theory must
account for all recurring themes. The only evidence permitted is
factual material that cannot be denied. The predictive ability of the
Saturn theory, from top to bottom, can be defended entirely on the basis
of general themes acknowledged by comparative mythologists, together with
themes that have not been acknowledged, but are reconstructed on facts
provided by specialists, where the facts themselves are not the subject of
dispute.
As an exercise, to challenge me on this, you might take some rather
general summary statement I've made, and ask me to defend it on the basis
of incontrovertible data. Or, do this: in *The Saturn Myth*, you will
find that each section has a summary statement. Consider first the
summary statement, then check the evidence provided, to see if my
assertions go beyond the objective data.
Dave
David N. Talbott
>ev.co...@ames.net wrote:
>: Kipp, I can see that you delight in offering off-the-cuff
>: remarks about Venusian figures with little or no analysis
>: or references being provided. This makes it difficult
>: to know just what you mean and/or what you want us to
>: explain. Perhaps I can start by noting that Aphrodite
>: was likewise represented as a warrior in ancient Greek
>: cult.
>Forgive my butting in, and admittedly I may be quite rusty on my Greek
>mythology, but wasn't it Aethena (sp?) that was the warrior-goddess?
Athena was indeed the most famous and explicit of Greek warrior goddesses.
But investigation will show that every well-developed goddess figure in
earlier times possessed a warring aspect, even if the goddess was
popularly associated, like Aphrodite, with "feminine charm" and
"life-giving" attributes.
As I have noted in AEON articles, the life-giving quality of the goddess
relates specifically to the concrete role of the goddess as the central
star of the ancient "sun" pictographs. The luminous, streaming material
radiating from Venus across the face of the "sun" (Saturn) was viewed
mythically as "soul-essence," and as "life." The Universal Monarch, in
the most literal sense, was *animated* by these luminous streams. That is
why, when Venus departed from that central position, so many different
myths recalled the event as the "death" of the Universal Monarch. It was
on this occasion that the goddess took on her warring or terrible aspect.
Dave
wa...@av3.enet.dec.com
In article <5030uo$7...@news.nyu.edu>, ga...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) writes:
|>ev.co...@ames.net wrote:
|>: Paul J. Gans wrote:
|>: >
|>: > ev.co...@ames.net wrote:
|>: >
|>: > [non-Cochrane material deleted]
|>: >
|>: > : Thus it is that scholars have recognized that Aphrodite
|>: > : herself lies behind the forms of Ariadne, the prototype
|>: > : of the rescued maiden, as well as Medea, one of the
|>: > : clearest examples of the witch-goddess in all of Greek
|>: > : mythology. That Aphrodite herself was an Ishtar-like
|>: > : figure associated with war is indicated by the fact
|>: > : that she was depicted as a warrior in ancient Greek
|>: > : cult.
|>: >
|>: > I know nothing about myth and claim to know nothing about myth.
|>: > But it seems to me that Ariadne is an important figure in worship
|>: > of the Goddess. The Goddess does not fit the Saturn myth, of
|>: > course, and so is not mentioned.
|>: >
|>: > And, if I knew something about any of this, which I don't,
|>: > I might assert that Ariadne and Medea, to the extent that
|>: > they were goddesses, represent different aspects of the
|>: > one true goddess.
|>: >
|>: > I'm totally ignorant about myth, but I feel (on the basis
|>: > of my research in chemistry) that many gods and goddesses
|>: > have varied aspects. One can easily pick and choose among
|>: > these aspects and come up with anything you want.
|>:
|>: Paul, you wear your ignorance like a badge of honor.
|>: Frankly, it suits you perfectly. This is the most
|>: honest post I've ever seen you offer.
|>:
|>: > ----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
|>:
|>: --
|>:
|>:
|>: Ev Cochrane
|>: Editor/Publisher of Aeon
|>: A Journal of Myth and Science
|>: http://www.ames.net/aeon/
|>: Email: ev.co...@ames.net
|>
|>
|>I claim loki points.
|>
|> ------- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
|>
|>
Well, I don't know, forcing Ev to say something loaded with mindless irony?
Fish in a barrel and all that. Perhaps some Loki points should be awarded, but
the degree of difficulty rating will certainly be low.
Dave Wark
Scott H. Mullins
In article <dtalbott.841295604@linda>,
>
>>Forgive my butting in, and admittedly I may be quite rusty on my Greek
>>mythology, but wasn't it Aethena (sp?) that was the warrior-goddess?
>
>Athena was indeed the most famous and explicit of Greek warrior goddesses.
>But investigation will show that every well-developed goddess figure in
>earlier times possessed a warring aspect, even if the goddess was
>popularly associated, like Aphrodite, with "feminine charm" and
>"life-giving" attributes.
David, I don't want to make untoward guesses about your personal life,
but it would seem that you have never been married. _All_ women, no
matter how "feminine" or "life-giving" have their warrior side. All
you need do to find it is to leave the seat up one too many times.
I'll ask again: do you _really_ think that this is something that
requires celestial explanation?
Scott