The Great Year and The Wheel of Time
MaxWilder
(www.thegreatyear.com). It discusses a very old concept that is beginning to
be revisited by scientists and other modern thinkers pertaining to a huge
historical cycle of 24,000 years traditionally or 25,800 years by modern
measurements (www.revealer.com/greatyear.htm). It apparently is a part of
many ancient calendar systems and has some strong evidence in modern day
astronomy.
Plato broke the cycle down into Iron, Bronze, Silver and Golden Ages, each
with it's own distinct characteristics. Iron was at the bottom, representing
a "dark" age, ascending through a Bronze Age, then a slightly longer Silver
Age, and finally a long Golden Age, before descending again through Silver
and Bronze back to Iron to begin the cycle again. In India it is called the
Yuga Cycle, with similar Age distinctions.
The Greco-Roman-Mithraic culture described it by it's observed celestial
movement, called "The Precession of the Equinox". It was noted that every
Spring Equinox, the constellations were slightly shifted from their position
the previous year. They charted the Age by the constellation above during
the Equinox, a path which moved through each of the Zodiac constellations.
We are now near the end of the Age of Pisces, and near the Age of Aquarius.
By the popularity of the song "The Age of Aquarius", I'm surprised that this
Great Year is not more commonly known.
I'm equally surprised that I can find no reference to this phenomenon in any
of the Wheel of Time websites I've searched. Did I miss it? Or am I the
first to bring it up (which seems unlikely).
If the Wheel of Time has "seven spokes, each representing an Age", that
would put each age at around 3500-3600 years, which is just about the length
of time between the Breaking of the World and the current timeframe in the
books.
I think this concept needs to be added to the list of "Sources" RJ has drawn
upon for this series, if it's not hidden in the FAQ somewhere already.
Does anybody have more expertise in this area?
Max
Loki
> I just saw a fascinating PBS special called "The Great Year"
> (www.thegreatyear.com). It discusses a very old concept that is beginning to
> be revisited by scientists and other modern thinkers pertaining to a huge
> historical cycle of 24,000 years traditionally or 25,800 years by modern
> measurements (www.revealer.com/greatyear.htm). It apparently is a part of
> many ancient calendar systems and has some strong evidence in modern day
> astronomy.
>
> Plato broke the cycle down into Iron, Bronze, Silver and Golden Ages, each
> with it's own distinct characteristics. Iron was at the bottom, representing
> a "dark" age, ascending through a Bronze Age, then a slightly longer Silver
> Age, and finally a long Golden Age, before descending again through Silver
> and Bronze back to Iron to begin the cycle again. In India it is called the
> Yuga Cycle, with similar Age distinctions.
Wouldn't that be a wave instead of a circle though? Up then back down
gradually?
Iron > Bronze > Silver > Gold > Silver > Bronze > Iron
I have always pictured society going from Gold to Iron through a
cataclysmic event.
And how can theorists create this historical cycle if we have yet to
go through one complete turn (not counting Atlantis loony theories)?
Who is to say there isn't something beyond the Gold Age?
Will Frank
<snip: Cyclic history>
> Does anybody have more expertise in this area?
Cyclic history is not a new idea. Consider Gibbons' _The Rise And Fall
Of The Roman Empire_, or if you prefer an SF source, try Asimov's
short story _Nightfall_.
As to the Age of Pisces/Age of Aquarius cycle of the zodiac, trust me,
this is not news.
--
Thinker, Fighter, Will "scifantasy" Frank
Reader, Writer, wmf...@stwing.upenn.edu
Artist, Gamer, http://www.stwing.upenn.edu/~wmfrank
Modern-Day Geek. AIM: scifanta42
MaxWilder
news:9b345946.04040...@posting.google.com...
The circle they depicted had Iron at the bottom, Bronze and Silver as we
ascend the left side, Gold as we cross the top, then as we descend the right
side Silver, then Bronze, and finally Iron at the bottom. Yes, a little
redundant, but with two or more ancient cultures describing the same thing,
they were pretty confident with the circle.
> I have always pictured society going from Gold to Iron through a
> cataclysmic event.
Our drop to a dark age happened over a few hundred years during the Early
Christian Era. No cataclysmic events that I know of. Of course, the real
cataclysm could have been 3500 years ago when the Earth was flooded and
wiped out all traces of earlier civilizations. Noah ring a bell? Perhaps the
only traces of the REAL Ages past are vague stories of higher civilizations
like Atlantis.
> And how can theorists create this historical cycle if we have yet to
> go through one complete turn (not counting Atlantis loony theories)?
> Who is to say there isn't something beyond the Gold Age?
The sucky part of this whole theory is that there's no way to prove or
disprove it, historically speaking. We're barely getting out of the Iron Age
ourselves, and it'll be thousands of years before we approach the Great
Year's Golden Age.
And remember, nobody in Rand's time would believe half the stuff that was
possible during the Age of Legends. Sho-wings and shock lances and such. I
prefer to keep an open mind about Atlantis stories. Myths often have a small
kernel of truth behind them.
It might even be a metaphor for a much larger, even off-planet empire that
we are only beginning to dream of. If you've played Knights of the Old
Republic, that's exactly what happened to one of the races of aliens the
game visits. They had an "Infinite Empire" of more than 500 worlds, and when
it collapsed they retreated to their home planet, and myths of their past
were minimized.
For some reason this Great Year idea appeals to me more than the Darwinian
straight line of evolution.
Max
Ryan Reich
> Our drop to a dark age happened over a few hundred years during the Early
> Christian Era. No cataclysmic events that I know of. Of course, the real
> cataclysm could have been 3500 years ago when the Earth was flooded and
> wiped out all traces of earlier civilizations. Noah ring a bell? Perhaps
> the only traces of the REAL Ages past are vague stories of higher
> civilizations like Atlantis.
Are you actually paying more than lip service to the idea of a Flood?
What about the Garden of Eden? How about the miracles of God and Jesus
Christ? You can't pick one without mentioning the others.
> The sucky part of this whole theory is that there's no way to prove or
> disprove it, historically speaking. We're barely getting out of the Iron
> Age ourselves, and it'll be thousands of years before we approach the
> Great Year's Golden Age.
Repeat that first sentence to yourself a few times. A historical theory
which cannot be proven or disproven on historical grounds is worthless.
> And remember, nobody in Rand's time would believe half the stuff that was
> possible during the Age of Legends. Sho-wings and shock lances and such. I
> prefer to keep an open mind about Atlantis stories. Myths often have a
> small kernel of truth behind them.
It's hard to fault someone who's actually keeping an open mind (yeah,
yeah, unlike me. Find a real retort) but you should save your credulity
for stuff that has a chance of being verifiable. All physical evidence
contradicts the existence of such a civilization. It's a complete
non-starter to claim that "myths often have a kernel of truth", since
someone using that to justify their gullibility is probably gullible
enough to have a low standard of truth by which to judge these kernels.
Which myths and kernels were you thinking of?
> It might even be a metaphor for a much larger, even off-planet empire that
> we are only beginning to dream of. If you've played Knights of the Old
> Republic, that's exactly what happened to one of the races of aliens the
> game visits. They had an "Infinite Empire" of more than 500 worlds, and
> when it collapsed they retreated to their home planet, and myths of their
> past were minimized.
And now you compare the real world to a video game. Bear in mind that
Ursula Le Guin wrote a series about the "Hainish" who populated the galaxy
with humanoid races yet somehow made it all consistent with evolution.
Perhaps you should take her books into serious consideration.
> For some reason this Great Year idea appeals to me more than the
> Darwinian straight line of evolution.
There's something distinctly charming about choosing one's worldview on
the basis of preference rather than evidence. How quaint; like Aristotle
trying to reason the structure of the universe without ever bothering,
say, to roll two different balls downhill together and see if they did, in
fact, fall at the same rate. But Darwinian evolution is not so straight,
either, and I am inclined myself to believe that someone who prefers a
cyclic history to an increasingly complex linear one is simply afraid of
the implications of unbounded possibility.
--
Ryan Reich
ry...@uchicago.edu
MaxWilder
news:pan.2004.04.09....@uchicago.edu...
> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 22:49:56 +0000, MaxWilder wrote:
> > Our drop to a dark age happened over a few hundred years during the
Early
> > Christian Era. No cataclysmic events that I know of. Of course, the real
> > cataclysm could have been 3500 years ago when the Earth was flooded and
> > wiped out all traces of earlier civilizations. Noah ring a bell? Perhaps
> > the only traces of the REAL Ages past are vague stories of higher
> > civilizations like Atlantis.
>
> Are you actually paying more than lip service to the idea of a Flood?
> What about the Garden of Eden? How about the miracles of God and Jesus
> Christ? You can't pick one without mentioning the others.
The idea of a massive flood a few thousand years ago is noted in many
different cultural histories, not just in the Bible. There's evidence that
the entire Mediterranean Sea was filled in a flood when the Atlantic broke
through the straights of Gibraltar. And new evidence that the Black Sea was
filled with sea water in a flood as well. There's no telling what kind of
cities could have been wiped away when those floods happened, or what other
geological forces were happening around the world at the same time. However,
the Adam and Eve story also could be seen as a metaphor for the loss of a
civilization. If you know the story, you'll notice that after Adam and Eve
leave paradise, there are suddenly a bunch of other people around, including
a completely separate society.
And yes, I have every right to look at the historical aspects of the Bible
without believing in the religious aspects. It's ridiculous to say that they
must be taken together.
> > The sucky part of this whole theory is that there's no way to prove or
> > disprove it, historically speaking. We're barely getting out of the Iron
> > Age ourselves, and it'll be thousands of years before we approach the
> > Great Year's Golden Age.
>
> Repeat that first sentence to yourself a few times. A historical theory
> which cannot be proven or disproven on historical grounds is worthless.
What a sad, sad person you must be. To not even consider the possibility of
something without absolute proof? Do you think for yourself at all? Perhaps
there will be a way to prove or disprove the theory in future, but what I
meant was that there's likely no way for us to know one way or the other
during our lifetimes. Certainly, if human beings continue to move forward
for the next 30,000 years without a slip back to the dark ages, then the
theory will be disproven. I just wish I could know now.
> > And remember, nobody in Rand's time would believe half the stuff that
was
> > possible during the Age of Legends. Sho-wings and shock lances and such.
I
> > prefer to keep an open mind about Atlantis stories. Myths often have a
> > small kernel of truth behind them.
>
> It's hard to fault someone who's actually keeping an open mind (yeah,
> yeah, unlike me. Find a real retort) but you should save your credulity
> for stuff that has a chance of being verifiable. All physical evidence
> contradicts the existence of such a civilization. It's a complete
> non-starter to claim that "myths often have a kernel of truth", since
> someone using that to justify their gullibility is probably gullible
> enough to have a low standard of truth by which to judge these kernels.
> Which myths and kernels were you thinking of?
There's a big difference between accepting the possibility of something and
believing in it whole-heartedly. I'm not a gullible person to believe that
we have an incomplete picture of our past.
> > It might even be a metaphor for a much larger, even off-planet empire
that
> > we are only beginning to dream of. If you've played Knights of the Old
> > Republic, that's exactly what happened to one of the races of aliens the
> > game visits. They had an "Infinite Empire" of more than 500 worlds, and
> > when it collapsed they retreated to their home planet, and myths of
their
> > past were minimized.
>
> And now you compare the real world to a video game. Bear in mind that
> Ursula Le Guin wrote a series about the "Hainish" who populated the galaxy
> with humanoid races yet somehow made it all consistent with evolution.
> Perhaps you should take her books into serious consideration.
You are one seriously argumentative person. I never claimed that what's in
the video game is what happened in real life. I'm just saying it's an
interesting idea. Just like the Wheel of Time is an interesting idea. I
don't believe that RJ's books are historical fact either.
> > For some reason this Great Year idea appeals to me more than the
> > Darwinian straight line of evolution.
>
> There's something distinctly charming about choosing one's worldview on
> the basis of preference rather than evidence.
I'm talking about a theory which precedes the historical evidence, which
goes back only four or five thousand years. There's no evidence one way or
the other, that I know of. Except for some ancient civilizations that had
remarkably advanced astronomical knowledge. You prefer to think humans were
idiots who didn't even know how to write. I prefer to think there are other
possibilities.
> I am inclined myself to believe that someone who prefers a
> cyclic history to an increasingly complex linear one is simply afraid of
> the implications of unbounded possibility.
And I'm inclined to believe that someone who dismisses new ideas so easily
would probably believe the world is flat if that's what all your peers told
you. Though the cyclical history theory is more appealing from a
storytelling perspective, I'm perfectly fine with either theory, or even the
fact that in the future there will be new theories of human history. I'll
give them just as much thought and consideration. I, for one, enjoy
thinking.
Aside from the fact that there are *some* people who think this is a
worthless notion, is it not clearly related to RJ's Wheel of Time? Should it
be dismissed or included as a source alongside other ridiculous stories like
the Arthurian legends, the Fisher King, and Greek, Roman, and Norse
mythology?
Max
MaxWilder
<wmf...@force.stwing.upenn.edu> wrote:
>Also Sprach MaxWilder:
>
><snip: Cyclic history>
>
>> Does anybody have more expertise in this area?
>
>Cyclic history is not a new idea. Consider Gibbons' _The Rise And Fall
>Of The Roman Empire_, or if you prefer an SF source, try Asimov's
>short story _Nightfall_.
>
>As to the Age of Pisces/Age of Aquarius cycle of the zodiac, trust me,
>this is not news.
I know it's not new. I said several times that it is ancient. But has
anybody discussed it in terms of its relevancy to RJ's Wheel of Time?
Max
Ryan Reich
The Bible purports to be a historical document and a religious document at
the same time; the particular bit of history you've chosen is convenient
for you because it has some physical evidence to support it, but is
fundamentally a religious event as well in the book itself. Basically,
you did exactly what I said you needed to do, and which you seem to
disagree with below: found evidence. But there's no evidence for miracles
so you dismiss them as religious aspects rather than history. And since
you're claiming that the flood could be the Cataclysm which ended an age,
could you say more about how it must have actually been part of a
worldwide phenomenon, rather than an event affecting only the
Mediterranean area? And what it must have destroyed? It's convenient to
dismiss the lack of evidence as evidence itself of the magnitude of the
disaster, when in fact all it destroyed may have been small settlements or
cities of no greater importance than those which replaced them.
>> > The sucky part of this whole theory is that there's no way to prove
>> > or disprove it, historically speaking. We're barely getting out of
>> > the Iron Age ourselves, and it'll be thousands of years before we
>> > approach the Great Year's Golden Age.
>>
>> Repeat that first sentence to yourself a few times. A historical
>> theory which cannot be proven or disproven on historical grounds is
>> worthless.
>
> What a sad, sad person you must be. To not even consider the possibility
> of something without absolute proof? Do you think for yourself at all?
> Perhaps there will be a way to prove or disprove the theory in future,
> but what I meant was that there's likely no way for us to know one way
> or the other during our lifetimes. Certainly, if human beings continue
> to move forward for the next 30,000 years without a slip back to the
> dark ages, then the theory will be disproven. I just wish I could know
> now.
I'm right, whether or not you like the way I think. You've endorsed a
theory of history but admitted that there's no way to prove it, which
makes the theory worthless as a way of understanding history or of
conceiving the future. As you have presented it, cyclic history is a
curiosity that ties together a few historical events without creating any
sort of extendable framework on which to build a real predictive
philosophy. Also, unless the theory claims to be really general and cover
all of natural history, we have gone through exactly one cycle since there
was enough evidence to deduce any historical details. In addition, unless
you are claiming that the Golden Age was a truly fantastic era on par with
or exceeding our own in complexity and technology, the cycle would have
been a lot shallower in the past. And who's to say, then, that it was
really anything fundamental at all, rather than simply random?
>> > And remember, nobody in Rand's time would believe half the stuff that
>> > was possible during the Age of Legends. Sho-wings and shock lances
>> > and such. I prefer to keep an open mind about Atlantis stories.
>> > Myths often have a small kernel of truth behind them.
>>
>> It's hard to fault someone who's actually keeping an open mind (yeah,
>> yeah, unlike me. Find a real retort) but you should save your
>> credulity for stuff that has a chance of being verifiable. All
>> physical evidence contradicts the existence of such a civilization.
>> It's a complete non-starter to claim that "myths often have a kernel of
>> truth", since someone using that to justify their gullibility is
>> probably gullible enough to have a low standard of truth by which to
>> judge these kernels. Which myths and kernels were you thinking of?
>
> There's a big difference between accepting the possibility of something
> and believing in it whole-heartedly. I'm not a gullible person to
> believe that we have an incomplete picture of our past.
Why do you accept the possibility of cyclic history, though? Just because
we have an incomplete picture of our past is no reason to discard the
standard model and go to something completely different. What are the
events which contradict linear history? What mountain of evidence
supports cyclic history as well as the mountain which supports linear
history? What do you think of other theories, like "intelligent design",
that appear scientific and are consistent in a general way with standard
theories, but cannot be proven? It's possible, I suppose, that all life
was created deliberately and its development directed intelligently, but
then, how would that differ in its effects in any way from the current
theory? Even truly counterintuitive developments in evolution have been
explained by the principles of natural selection, and although someone
cynical could argue that the workarounds are overly complex blemishes on
the theory that cry out for a simplified replacement, they can't really
claim their "intelligent design" as the preferred candidate. After all,
another example of this supplantation in the history of science is the
replacement of "epicycles" and the geocentric theory with the heliocentric
theory of the solar system; no God or creator enters the picture. And
thus it is here; even if our understanding of the past is incomplete, why
should your incomplete theory be any better?
>> > It might even be a metaphor for a much larger, even off-planet empire
>> > that we are only beginning to dream of. If you've played Knights of
>> > the Old Republic, that's exactly what happened to one of the races of
>> > aliens the game visits. They had an "Infinite Empire" of more than
>> > 500 worlds, and when it collapsed they retreated to their home
>> > planet, and myths of their past were minimized.
>>
>> And now you compare the real world to a video game. Bear in mind that
>> Ursula Le Guin wrote a series about the "Hainish" who populated the
>> galaxy with humanoid races yet somehow made it all consistent with
>> evolution. Perhaps you should take her books into serious
>> consideration.
>
> You are one seriously argumentative person. I never claimed that what's
> in the video game is what happened in real life. I'm just saying it's an
> interesting idea. Just like the Wheel of Time is an interesting idea. I
> don't believe that RJ's books are historical fact either.
Then why are you quoting fantasy in a discussion of history? There are
many potentially interesting models of history that have not been written
down or which you have not read, and simply the fact that you have read
this one doesn't support your theory any more than it would otherwise be
supported. It still sounds to me as though you are saying that since
someone has conceived of this idea of artificial colonization giving rise
to creation myths, even though it was in a completely creditless medium,
it is somehow more credible in a serious setting.
>> > For some reason this Great Year idea appeals to me more than the
>> > Darwinian straight line of evolution.
>>
>> There's something distinctly charming about choosing one's worldview on
>> the basis of preference rather than evidence.
>
> I'm talking about a theory which precedes the historical evidence, which
> goes back only four or five thousand years. There's no evidence one way
> or the other, that I know of. Except for some ancient civilizations that
> had remarkably advanced astronomical knowledge. You prefer to think
> humans were idiots who didn't even know how to write. I prefer to think
> there are other possibilities.
I'll forgive you for calling me a sad person above because I said
something similar to you, but you are completely groundless in putting
words into my mouth here. On the contrary, it would seem from your
predilection towards mythical history that you are the one who thinks
humans are idiots, and would rather explain the intellectual
accomplishments of early civilizations by appealing to some cycle that,
presumably, would donate knowledge to these civilizations from still
earlier ones. When does it start? When do humans actually acquire the
knowledge? I prefer to think that they acquired it once, four thousand
years ago, rather than having it explained to them by mythical
predecessors. Yes, there are other possibilities, but why bother with
them?
>> I am inclined myself to believe that someone who prefers a cyclic
>> history to an increasingly complex linear one is simply afraid of the
>> implications of unbounded possibility.
>
> And I'm inclined to believe that someone who dismisses new ideas so
> easily would probably believe the world is flat if that's what all your
> peers told you. Though the cyclical history theory is more appealing
> from a storytelling perspective, I'm perfectly fine with either theory,
> or even the fact that in the future there will be new theories of human
> history. I'll give them just as much thought and consideration. I, for
> one, enjoy thinking.
Are you saying this as a scientist or an amateur philosopher? Because if
it were the former you might be a little slower to criticize me for
criticizing your theory purely on the grounds of its lack of evidence.
But I can forgive a philosopher for elevating thought itself above any
potentially useful application.
--
Ryan Reich
ry...@uchicago.edu
Leigh Butler
It's been discussed or mentioned many times, I'm sure. The idea of
cyclical history is a very well-known phenomenon, and appears in many
cultures, especially Eastern ones, tying into the idea of
reincarnation and so forth.
As for being mentioned in the FAQ, the Miscellaneous References
section discusses it (somewhat indirectly) in the "Time of Illusions"
entry, but it doesn't have its own separate entry, no.
Is "Max Wilder" your real name?
Jean Dufresne
>
> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 22:49:56 +0000, MaxWilder wrote:
> >
> > For some reason this Great Year idea appeals to me more than the
> > Darwinian straight line of evolution.
>
> There's something distinctly charming about choosing one's worldview on
> the basis of preference rather than evidence.
Yes, and a large proportion of people do just that. Has to do with the
human condition and psyche, I guess. Note, however, that the OP said
that the idea appealed to him/her, not that s/he chose it. I can
understand that. For example, I can say that the fantasy of a divine
Justice and of an ultimate righting of wrongs appeals to me, still I
know it for a fantasy and that if we want justice and a just world we
must actually and consistently work for it here and now.
--
Jean
Jean Dufresne
>
> The idea of a massive flood a few thousand years ago is noted in many
> different cultural histories, not just in the Bible.
So?
> There's evidence that
> the entire Mediterranean Sea was filled in a flood when the Atlantic broke
> through the straights of Gibraltar.
What evidence?
> I have every right to look at the historical aspects of the Bible
> without believing in the religious aspects. It's ridiculous to say that they
> must be taken together.
However, you may be confusing mythical and "historical" aspects.
--
Jean
MaxWilder
It's a pen name I use on the internet.
MaxWilder
wrote:
Ok, this discussion has gotten way out of hand. I am not trying to
convince anybody of anything, I just was introduced to a nifty idea
that I'd never heard of before and I wanted to talk about it's
relation to the WoT.
Let me summarize what I've HEARD about it:
- Several ancient calendar systems indicate a cycle of approximately
24,000 years. These ancient cultures also had remarkable grasps of
astronomy, which we are now beginning to recognize more fully.
- The Precession of Equinoxes is a scientifically proven phenomenon
which has a cycle of similar length, though I've also heard it is
25,800 years.
- One possible explanation for the Precession of Equinoxes is the
existence of a companion sun. Our two systems would revolve around
each other in a cycle that would take a similar length of time.
- The acceleration and deceleration of our solar system would create
changes in the intensity of our electromagnetic environment, which may
effect living creatures some way, since we are electro-chemical
beings. This is obviously the most difficult to believe part of the
theory, but it is also the only part which directly affects humans.
- RJ's Wheel of Time has seven spokes, each representing an Age. If
each age is approximately 3500 years long, the full cycle of the WoT
is therefore approximately 24,500 years.
I just wanted to talk about the theories in relation to the WoT, not
try to change anybody's beliefs. I myself am nowhere near convinced
that it is true, only possible. I never intended to argue it's
merits, and since I am neither a historian nor a scientist, I will no
longer try. One might say I am a very amateur philosopher, but I am
much more interested in good stories than anything else.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Max
Daryl Krupa
> > On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 22:49:56 +0000, MaxWilder wrote:
> > > Our drop to a dark age happened over a few hundred years during the
> Early
> > > Christian Era. No cataclysmic events that I know of. Of course, the real
> > > cataclysm could have been 3500 years ago when the Earth was flooded and
> > > wiped out all traces of earlier civilizations. Noah ring a bell? Perhaps
> > > the only traces of the REAL Ages past are vague stories of higher
> > > civilizations like Atlantis.
Max:
Postglacial sea level rise finished about 6000 years ago, so
there was no cataclysmic flooding 3500 years ago, unless it was
a terrestrial river-valley flood:
http://www.yates.clara.net/changes_files/image002.gif
http://freespace.virgin.net/mark.davidson3/sea_level_rise/past.htm
http://rmocfis.upr.clu.edu/~morelock/2_image/18holsm.gif
<snip>
> There's evidence that the entire Mediterranean Sea was filled
> in a flood when the Atlantic broke through the straights of Gibraltar.
The last time that happened was 5.4 million years ago.
> And new evidence that the Black Sea was
> filled with sea water in a flood as well.
If the Black Sea flooded with seawater, it was 9000 years ago,
when global sea level rose high enough to start trickling over
the high point (sill) in the floor of the Bosphorus Strait,
and there is no conclusive evidence that it involved
a catastrophic rise in Black Sea level.
At least, that's what Bill Ryan (co-author of _Noah's Flood:
the event that changed history_) has been saying lately.
His and Walter Pitman's claim of a catastrophic flood about
7500 years ago has been disproven.
Ryan now agrees with his critics that the "event" at about
7500 years ago was just "a salinity change" (his words).
See this article on Black Sea level, especially Fig. 5,
where the authors try their best to accomodate Ryan and Pitman's
hypothesis, describing river-mouth sediment on the Turkish shore:
http://lava.tamu.edu/courses/geol101/herbert/docs/BlackSeaFloodCritique.pdf
And there's this one, from the south end of the Bosphorus, which
says that the Black Sea was overflowing southward until about
9000 years ago:
ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/GSAToday/gt0205.pdf
Oh, and Ballard did not find Noah's house.
The two pieces of wood taken from his Site 82 dated to
about 4500 years ago and Napoleon's time.
> There's no telling what kind of cities could have been wiped away
> when those floods happened,
Unfortunately, there were no cities in the Mediterranean when
the Gibraltar dam last broke (no human beings yet), and the possible
Black Sea flood was too early for large cities.
> or what other geological forces were happening around the world
> at the same time.
Oh, yes there is. Lots of people have worked long and hard to
establish the postglacial chronology of events, and the geological
forces were not much different from what you see and hear about today.
<snip>
> There's a big difference between accepting the possibility of
> something and believing in it whole-heartedly.
> I'm not a gullible person to believe that we have
> an incomplete picture of our past.
<snip>
No, you're not a gullible person. But you have been misled about
the Mediterranean and Black Sea "floods".
If you want more info, just ask for it here.
Hoping that this helps in limiting the discussion,
Daryl Krupa
John S. Novak, III
> Ok, this discussion has gotten way out of hand. I am not trying to
> convince anybody of anything, I just was introduced to a nifty idea
> that I'd never heard of before and I wanted to talk about it's
> relation to the WoT.
Okay, first, learn how to use your damned editor. There was no
fucking need to leave 192(!!) lines of text in there.
> Let me summarize what I've HEARD about it:
> - The acceleration and deceleration of our solar system would create
> changes in the intensity of our electromagnetic environment, which may
> effect living creatures some way, since we are electro-chemical
> beings. This is obviously the most difficult to believe part of the
> theory, but it is also the only part which directly affects humans.
Okay, second, what the *fuck* are you talking about?
What acceleration and deceleration of our solar system?
How would this change our electromagnetic environment?
How would this affect *us*, given that you can squat in a high
intensity field like that generated in NMRI machines for days without
any adverse effect?
> - RJ's Wheel of Time has seven spokes, each representing an Age. If
> each age is approximately 3500 years long, the full cycle of the WoT
> is therefore approximately 24,500 years.
Third, this hardly matters, because there's no evidence for
the idea that all ages are the same length.
And fourth, good grief, every little culture to drag itself out of the
neolithic stage comes up with a cyclical time motif. The concept of
linear time is the oddity, not cyclical time.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
The Humblest Man on the Net
Steve Craig
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 11:48:27 -0500, Ryan Reich <ry...@uchicago.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 09:12:56 +0000, MaxWilder wrote:
> >
> >> "Ryan Reich" <ry...@uchicago.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:pan.2004.04.09....@uchicago.edu...
> >>> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 22:49:56 +0000, MaxWilder wrote:
<snip text>
learn to do this. Snip text you don't need.
>
> Ok, this discussion has gotten way out of hand. I am not trying to
> convince anybody of anything, I just was introduced to a nifty idea
> that I'd never heard of before and I wanted to talk about it's
> relation to the WoT.
>
> Let me summarize what I've HEARD about it:
>
*cracks nuckles*
lets begin...
> - Several ancient calendar systems indicate a cycle of approximately
> 24,000 years. These ancient cultures also had remarkable grasps of
> astronomy, which we are now beginning to recognize more fully.
Yes, we are starting to recogize that they had a good grasp on
astronomy, for an ancient civilazation without advanced mathematics,
scientific methodology, or technology.
Considering all they had was a stick to make a sundial, and a healthy
imagination to come up with constellation names, they did alright for
themselves.
> - The Precession of Equinoxes is a scientifically proven phenomenon
> which has a cycle of similar length, though I've also heard it is
> 25,800 years.
> - One possible explanation for the Precession of Equinoxes is the
> existence of a companion sun. Our two systems would revolve around
> each other in a cycle that would take a similar length of time.
The other "actaul" explanation for the Precessian of Equinoxes is the
precession of the Earth's magnetic poles with respect to the celestial
equator. Spinning things precess in fields. LIke Massive bodies in
gravitational fields, magnetic dipoles, in NMR machines.
If you say we have a binary companian, I will find out where you live
and point and laugh at you everytime you enter and exit.
> - The acceleration and deceleration of our solar system would create
> changes in the intensity of our electromagnetic environment, which may
> effect living creatures some way, since we are electro-chemical
> beings. This is obviously the most difficult to believe part of the
> theory, but it is also the only part which directly affects humans.
>
um....
this is bordering on astrology. Which I won't dignify with my time
(except for the 30 seconds it took me to say I won't dignify it).
Now watch this next part...
<snip remaining, irrelevent text>
Wasn't that easy.
Steve Craig
MaxWilder
relevancy>
Thank you, everybody, for opening my eyes. I now understand that
raswr-j is right and everybody else is wrong. I'll just keep reading
the FAQ without the ridiculous notion that it might be incomplete; I
see now that is not possible. Forgive me for intruding on your
omniscient newsgroup. I'll just see myself to the door. Feel free to
mock me on my way out, I'm sure I deserve it.
Duncan J Macdonald
> <snip everybody arguing the veracity of a concept instead of it's
> relevancy>
You do know that you've got that backwards right? If a concept wishes
for relevancy, it is a necessary condition for it to be verifiable, or
at least, not trivially falsifiable.
> Thank you, everybody, for opening my eyes. I now understand that
> raswr-j is right and everybody else is wrong.
Remember to bow to the West-by-North-West three times daily.
> I'll just keep reading
> the FAQ without the ridiculous notion that it might be incomplete; I
> see now that is not possible.
The FAQ is far from complete. It contains Frequently Asked Questions,
and digests of the discussion of those Questions here on this group as
well as outside sources such as the author speaking at signings, etc.
> Forgive me for intruding on your
> omniscient newsgroup.
"We" knew that.
> I'll just see myself to the door. Feel free to
> mock me on my way out, I'm sure I deserve it.
You got a 4.9 overall. The Russian judge marked you down for too much
wallowing is sarcasm.
--
Duncan J Macdonald
duncan.m...@navy.mil
macdo...@comcast.net
Steve Craig
I wasn't trying to mock you. I was trying to point out that the
precision of the vernal equinox and, therefore the autumal equinox, is
due to a known, and measurable phenominon.
Maybe I was a little snotty in my tone. Stick around, you will
develop the skin required to deal with snotty people like me. I just
tend to fire off when people mention astronomy.
Steve Craig
MaxWilder
<macdo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 07:09:13 GMT, MaxWilder said...
>> <snip everybody arguing the veracity of a concept instead of it's
>> relevancy>
>
>You do know that you've got that backwards right? If a concept wishes
>for relevancy, it is a necessary condition for it to be verifiable, or
>at least, not trivially falsifiable.
>
<pounding head against wall>
Please refer to the WoT FAQ, Section 3. Please cite examples of the
veracity of the concepts therein. Or more simply, look up the
definition of the word 'relevance'.
I dare say Thor, Odin, and the Fisher King have little or no
scientific evidence supporting their existence, yet they warrant
mentions in the FAQ.
It is the _truth_ that theories of cyclical history, like the Great
Year, have been around for a long time. In this way, some of them
might have been used as source material for RJ's books.
Since the bloody _name_ of the bloody _series_ is "Wheel of Time", and
is obviously all about cyclical history, does anybody think it might
be worth mentioning in the FAQ some of the more well known cyclical
history theories? EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE _CLEARLY_ WRONG.
The only argument I can see against my suggestion is that nobody else
ever questions the source of the series title and overall concept, and
therefore it does not qualify as a Frequently Asked Question.
Richard Boye'
>
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 11:29:12 -0400, Duncan J Macdonald
> <macdo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 07:09:13 GMT, MaxWilder said...
> >> <snip everybody arguing the veracity of a concept instead of it's
> >> relevancy>
> >
> >You do know that you've got that backwards right? If a concept wishes
> >for relevancy, it is a necessary condition for it to be verifiable, or
> >at least, not trivially falsifiable.
> >
>
> <pounding head against wall>
>
> Please refer to the WoT FAQ, Section 3. Please cite examples of the
> veracity of the concepts therein. Or more simply, look up the
> definition of the word 'relevance'.
>
> I dare say Thor, Odin, and the Fisher King have little or no
> scientific evidence supporting their existence, yet they warrant
> mentions in the FAQ.
>
> It is the _truth_ that theories of cyclical history, like the Great
> Year, have been around for a long time. In this way, some of them
> might have been used as source material for RJ's books.
>
> Since the bloody _name_ of the bloody _series_ is "Wheel of Time", and
> is obviously all about cyclical history, does anybody think it might
> be worth mentioning in the FAQ some of the more well known cyclical
> history theories? EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE _CLEARLY_ WRONG.
Well, "Max," did it ever occur to you that people are cognizant of the
"time as a cyclical wheel" concept and therefore it is one of those
things so blatantly apodictic that it's really not necessary to add
sections explaining one of the most eternal, global cultural theorems in
the world?
What, exactly, are you trying to discuss? That time as wheel is clearly
lifted from eastern mythos?
"Max," in my general experience in this group which, sad to say, is
coming up on ten years, this is not something that is Frequently Asked,
as it is fairly and screechingly obvious. Ergo, no FAQ article.
--
Richard M. Boye' * wa...@webspan.net
Typing into the Void:
http://www.webspan.net/~waldo/books/blogger.html
"Some men lead lives of quiet desperation.
My desperation makes a pathetic whining sound."
Max Wilder
>"time as a cyclical wheel" concept and therefore it is one of those
>things so blatantly apodictic that it's really not necessary to add
>sections explaining one of the most eternal, global cultural theorems in
>the world?
If it was blatantly apodictic then people wouldn't be having fits over
my daring to bring up the subject. I don't know where you grew up,
here in California there is no wide-spread cognizance of ancient and
eternal global cultural time theories.
>What, exactly, are you trying to discuss? That time as wheel is clearly
>lifted from eastern mythos?
That it is clearly borrowed from a number of sources which had world
views that differ from today's accepted 'time as a straight line'
theory. Since I am a fairly well-read college educated person and I
hadn't heard much about and/or payed any attention to those concepts
before reading the WoT series, I thought it might be worth discussing
in that context. Clearly I was wrong.
>"Max," in my general experience in this group which, sad to say, is
>coming up on ten years, this is not something that is Frequently Asked,
>as it is fairly and screechingly obvious. Ergo, no FAQ article.
Thank you. I guess my range of hearing was not broad enough to hear
the screeching.
Max
Max
--
"Jane, you ignorant slut." - SNL
Duncan J Macdonald
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 11:29:12 -0400, Duncan J Macdonald
> <macdo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 07:09:13 GMT, MaxWilder said...
> >> <snip everybody arguing the veracity of a concept instead of it's
> >> relevancy>
> >
> >You do know that you've got that backwards right? If a concept wishes
> >for relevancy, it is a necessary condition for it to be verifiable, or
> >at least, not trivially falsifiable.
> >
>
> <pounding head against wall>
That tends to hurt.
> Please refer to the WoT FAQ, Section 3. Please cite examples of the
> veracity of the concepts therein.
OK.
3.01 Judeo-Christian and Biblical Parallels
The Bible is a widely known and accepted text, religious sub-text
aside. None of the sub-sections are based on non-existent events.
3.02 Norse Mythology
Norse mythology is widespread, especially in SF. Parallels between a
well established base and current works is inevitable.
3.03 Greek and Roman Mythology
See above.
3.04 Celtic Myths
See above.
3.05 Arthurian Legend
See above.
3.06 The Fisher King
More religious in nature, but still well established in the genre.
3.07 Dragon Legends
The Chinese Book of Rites exists.
3.08 Asian Influences
All taken from verifiable sources.
3.09 Shadowspawn
Again, verifiable sources.
3.10 Miscellaneous References
While some are shaky, none are spurious.
3.11 Similarities between The Wheel of Time and other SF (including
Dune)
Similarities to published works - while possibly opinion only - are
verifiable.
3.12 Is the world of Randland a future Earth?
RJ has said so.
3.13 The Aiel, Native Americans, and the Zulu
All verifiable.
3.14 Real Nations' Influence on Randland
Possibly spurious, but based on real nations.
> Or more simply, look up the
> definition of the word 'relevance'.
OK. <paste> "A measure of how closely a given object
matches a user's search for information."
If an object is false, it cannot match the information being sought;
or, its relevance is zero.
> I dare say Thor, Odin, and the Fisher King have little or no
> scientific evidence supporting their existence, yet they warrant
> mentions in the FAQ.
Thor, Odin, and the Fisher King are religious myths. Are you claiming
that the Great Year has a similar pedigree?
> It is the _truth_ that theories of cyclical history, like the Great
> Year, have been around for a long time. In this way, some of them
> might have been used as source material for RJ's books.
Possibly.
> Since the bloody _name_ of the bloody _series_ is "Wheel of Time", and
> is obviously all about cyclical history, does anybody think it might
> be worth mentioning in the FAQ some of the more well known cyclical
> history theories? EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE _CLEARLY_ WRONG.
If they are Frequently Asked About, yes. If they are clearly wrong,
then no.
> The only argument I can see against my suggestion is that nobody else
> ever questions the source of the series title and overall concept, and
> therefore it does not qualify as a Frequently Asked Question.
I (specifically) was questioning the basis of the Great Year theory in
particular, before even attempting to determine its possible relevance
to the work at hand.
Leigh Butler
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 20:37:55 -0400, Richard Boye' <wa...@webspan.net>
wrote:
>MaxWilder wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 11:29:12 -0400, Duncan J Macdonald
>> <macdo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 07:09:13 GMT, MaxWilder said...
>> >> <snip everybody arguing the veracity of a concept instead of it's
>> >> relevancy>
>> >
>> >You do know that you've got that backwards right? If a concept wishes
>> >for relevancy, it is a necessary condition for it to be verifiable, or
>> >at least, not trivially falsifiable.
>>
>> <pounding head against wall>
>>
>> Please refer to the WoT FAQ, Section 3. Please cite examples of the
>> veracity of the concepts therein. Or more simply, look up the
>> definition of the word 'relevance'.
>>
>> I dare say Thor, Odin, and the Fisher King have little or no
>> scientific evidence supporting their existence, yet they warrant
>> mentions in the FAQ.
I understand what you're getting at. Unfortunately, the reason why
people are being rather hostile toward you is not because you
presented a WOT parallel that isn't scientifically verifiable - as you
point out, most of them aren't - but because you presented the Great
Year idea as if you believed in it, which is the kind of thing that
sets off many folks' Net Kook Alarms. It didn't help that you then
proceeded to waffle back and forth from post to post over whether you
were advocating it as a real theory or not.
That said, though, the rest of you need to chill, IMAO.
>> Since the bloody _name_ of the bloody _series_ is "Wheel of Time", and
>> is obviously all about cyclical history, does anybody think it might
>> be worth mentioning in the FAQ some of the more well known cyclical
>> history theories? EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE _CLEARLY_ WRONG.
>
>Well, "Max," did it ever occur to you that people are cognizant of the
>"time as a cyclical wheel" concept and therefore it is one of those
>things so blatantly apodictic that it's really not necessary to add
>sections explaining one of the most eternal, global cultural theorems in
>the world?
>
>What, exactly, are you trying to discuss? That time as wheel is clearly
>lifted from eastern mythos?
>
>"Max," in my general experience in this group which, sad to say, is
>coming up on ten years, this is not something that is Frequently Asked,
>as it is fairly and screechingly obvious. Ergo, no FAQ article.
Oh, I don't know. Yes, it is really really obvious, but that doesn't
mean it's not relevant. The reason I asked if "Max" was his real name
wasn't just idle curiosity.
Little Black Bird
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 09:12:56 +0000, MaxWilder wrote:
>
> > "Ryan Reich" <ry...@uchicago.edu> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2004.04.09....@uchicago.edu...
> >> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 22:49:56 +0000, MaxWilder wrote:
> >> It's hard to fault someone who's actually keeping an open mind (yeah,
> >> yeah, unlike me. Find a real retort) but you should save your
> >> credulity for stuff that has a chance of being verifiable. All
> >> physical evidence contradicts the existence of such a civilization.
> >> It's a complete non-starter to claim that "myths often have a kernel of
> >> truth", since someone using that to justify their gullibility is
> >> probably gullible enough to have a low standard of truth by which to
> >> judge these kernels. Which myths and kernels were you thinking of?
Oh, I don't know ... maybe like Troy?
I, personally, don't belive in a continent-sized island civilization in the
mid-Atlantic that mysteriously sank and disappeared from the face of the
earth, but I *do* believe that there might have been a real world civilation
that is the source of the Atlantis Myth.
Troy was a myth, remember, until a farmer fell through his field and found
it.
Rachel
Aaron Davies
[lots of amusing things]
So, where will you be on December 21st, 2012?
BTW, if you haven't read any Graham Hancock yet, please don't. You're
clearly far too credulous to be trusted around him.
--
Aaron Davies
Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator.
"I don't know if it's real or not but it is a myth."
-Jami JoAnne of alt.folklore.urban, showing her grasp on reality.
Tasneem
> I just saw a fascinating PBS special called "The Great Year"
> (www.thegreatyear.com). It discusses a very old concept that is beginning to
> be revisited by scientists and other modern thinkers pertaining to a huge
> historical cycle of 24,000 years traditionally or 25,800 years by modern
> measurements (www.revealer.com/greatyear.htm). It apparently is a part of
> many ancient calendar systems and has some strong evidence in modern day
> astronomy.
>
> Plato broke the cycle down into Iron, Bronze, Silver and Golden Ages, each
> with it's own distinct characteristics. Iron was at the bottom, representing
> a "dark" age, ascending through a Bronze Age, then a slightly longer Silver
> Age, and finally a long Golden Age, before descending again through Silver
> and Bronze back to Iron to begin the cycle again. In India it is called the
> Yuga Cycle, with similar Age distinctions.
>
> movement, called "The Precession of the Equinox". It was noted that every
> Spring Equinox, the constellations were slightly shifted from their position
> the previous year. They charted the Age by the constellation above during
> the Equinox, a path which moved through each of the Zodiac constellations.
> We are now near the end of the Age of Pisces, and near the Age of Aquarius.
>
> By the popularity of the song "The Age of Aquarius", I'm surprised that this
> Great Year is not more commonly known.
>
> I'm equally surprised that I can find no reference to this phenomenon in any
> of the Wheel of Time websites I've searched. Did I miss it? Or am I the
> first to bring it up (which seems unlikely).
>
> If the Wheel of Time has "seven spokes, each representing an Age", that
> would put each age at around 3500-3600 years, which is just about the length
> of time between the Breaking of the World and the current timeframe in the
> books.
>
> I think this concept needs to be added to the list of "Sources" RJ has drawn
> upon for this series, if it's not hidden in the FAQ somewhere already.
>
> Does anybody have more expertise in this area?
>
I just found this on the CNN website: its from the transcript of an
online chat with RJ.
Chat moderator: How did you develop the idea for the Wheel of Time
saga, and where did you get the name?
Robert Jordan: The name comes out of Hindu mythology, where there is a
belief that time is a wheel. Many older cultures believe that time is
cyclic, that it repeats. In fact, I believe the best thing the ancient
Greeks gave us was (the idea) that time was linear and change was
possible.
So yes, I guess it would be nice to have this in the FAQ...
Max Wilder
wrote:
>I just found this on the CNN website: its from the transcript of an
>online chat with RJ.
>
>Chat moderator: How did you develop the idea for the Wheel of Time
>saga, and where did you get the name?
>
>Robert Jordan: The name comes out of Hindu mythology, where there is a
>belief that time is a wheel. Many older cultures believe that time is
>cyclic, that it repeats. In fact, I believe the best thing the ancient
>Greeks gave us was (the idea) that time was linear and change was
>possible.
>
>So yes, I guess it would be nice to have this in the FAQ...
Cool find.
BTW, the link is
http://www.cnn.com/COMMUNITY/transcripts/2000/12/12/jordan/
And, umm... sorry for being the newb here, but RJ confirms who killed
Asmodean in this chat. I see no reference to this in the FAQ. Is this
considered a bogus interview or something?
Quinn
"Max Wilder" <sled...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:665n70tvupk1e9ftr...@4ax.com...
<snip sources of "time is a wheel">
> BTW, the link is
> http://www.cnn.com/COMMUNITY/transcripts/2000/12/12/jordan/
>
> And, umm... sorry for being the newb here, but RJ confirms who killed
> Asmodean in this chat. I see no reference to this in the FAQ.
From one newbie to another: keep looking. In Graendal's section of 1.1.6
The Death of Asmo.
-Q-
Dave Crisp
> And, umm... sorry for being the newb here, but RJ confirms who killed
> Asmodean in this chat. I see no reference to this in the FAQ. Is this
> considered a bogus interview or something?
Ah yes, the notorious CNN chat debate.
The consensus of opinion seems to be that although it seems at first
glance as though yon Jim Rigney is confirming the identity of Asmo's
killer, he really isn't
And yes, it is in the FAQ: see the "Graendal" section of 1.1.6:
http://www.steelypips.org/wotfaq/1_dark/1.1_forsaken1/1.1.6_asmo.html#grn
And scroll down to the section "the Great Chat Debate".
--
----- Dave Crisp ----- da...@goldeneyes.org.uk -----
'Most things make sense when you look at them right.
It's just sometimes you have to look really, really cockeyed.'
-- Florence Ambrose, circa 2270AD (http://freefall.purrsia.com)
Max Wilder
>
>And scroll down to the section "the Great Chat Debate".
Ahh, yes, I see it now. Thanks.
I think I'll choose to interpret it as confirmation for Graendal. It's
unlikely we'll ever get a better answer out of him.
I recall an annoying Simpsons character who used to say "It is
intuitively obvious to the casual observer".
What an ass.
But I can see why others may still prefer to debate the issue.
Max
Michelle J. Haines
@juno.com says...
>
> And, umm... sorry for being the newb here, but RJ confirms who killed
> Asmodean in this chat. I see no reference to this in the FAQ. Is this
> considered a bogus interview or something?
I don't think I would count that non-answer as a confirmation that
Graendal killed Asmodean.
Michelle
Flutist
--
Drift on a river, That flows through my arms
Drift as I'm singing to you
I see you smiling, So peaceful and calm
And holding you, I'm smiling, too
Here in my arms, Safe from all harm
Holding you, I'm smiling, too
-- For Xander [9/22/98 - 2/23/99]
Rodney McNally
"Little Black Bird" <nom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:J8Bec.120632$w54.841306@attbi_s01...
>
> "Ryan Reich" <ry...@uchicago.edu> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.04.09...@uchicago.edu...
> > On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 09:12:56 +0000, MaxWilder wrote:
> >
> > > "Ryan Reich" <ry...@uchicago.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:pan.2004.04.09....@uchicago.edu...
> > >> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 22:49:56 +0000, MaxWilder wrote:
>
> Oh, I don't know ... maybe like Troy?
>
> I, personally, don't belive in a continent-sized island civilization in
the
> mid-Atlantic that mysteriously sank and disappeared from the face of the
> earth, but I *do* believe that there might have been a real world
civilation
> that is the source of the Atlantis Myth.
>
> Troy was a myth, remember, until a farmer fell through his field and found
> it.
>
Folks that would be the Island of Crete, which to my recollection has been
found to have had running hot and cold water and forms of democracy making
them much advanced from there temperal peers and is considered to be a major
basis for the Atlantis legend. No I don't remember where I learnt/heard
this theory.
Aaron Davies
Yeah, one of the more rational-sounding interpretations of Atlantis I've
heard is that it's based on the problems that the volcanic eruption at
Thierry(sp?), a (former) island in the Mediterranean, caused the
Cretans. To oversimplify drastically, the weather and soil problems that
resulted from the ash caused the downfall of the Minoan civilization,
and incidentally led in large part to the founding of Greece, as people
left for more hospitable areas.
BTW, there was a story just a few days ago that they found evidence that
there were pet cats on Crete 9000 years ago, which is at least 4000
years earlier than their earliest previously known date of domestication
(in Egypt).
Amy Yost
> Rodney McNally <inanimate_...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> > "Little Black Bird" <nom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:J8Bec.120632$w54.841306@attbi_s01...
> >
> > > Oh, I don't know ... maybe like Troy?
> > >
> > > I, personally, don't belive in a continent-sized island civilization in
> > > the mid-Atlantic that mysteriously sank and disappeared from the face of
> > > the earth, but I *do* believe that there might have been a real world
> > > civilation that is the source of the Atlantis Myth.
> > >
> > > Troy was a myth, remember, until a farmer fell through his field and
> > > found it.
> >
> > Folks that would be the Island of Crete, which to my recollection has been
> > found to have had running hot and cold water and forms of democracy making
> > them much advanced from there temperal peers and is considered to be a
> > major basis for the Atlantis legend. No I don't remember where I
> > learnt/heard this theory.
>
> Yeah, one of the more rational-sounding interpretations of Atlantis I've
> heard is that it's based on the problems that the volcanic eruption at
> Thierry(sp?), a (former) island in the Mediterranean, caused the
> Cretans. To oversimplify drastically, the weather and soil problems that
> resulted from the ash caused the downfall of the Minoan civilization,
> and incidentally led in large part to the founding of Greece, as people
> left for more hospitable areas.
The island was Thera; the chronology is pretty questionable here, since
the Mycenaeans were doing their thing in Greece before the eruption at
Thera, and the Minoan civilization didn't really collapse until at least
100 years after the eruption.
There's a great online textbook on the ancient Aegean that covers this:
http://devlab.dartmouth.edu/history/bronze_age/lessons/17.html
The ashfall hypothesis is addressed about halfway down the page.
--
Amy Yost a...@darkfriends.net
My president is Tatsuya Ishida.
Jasper Janssen
wrote:
>Troy was a myth, remember, until a farmer fell through his field and found
>it.
Well, except that this hasn't happened yet. You may be thinking of some
other find, but Troy hasn't been found yet.
Jasper
Rodney McNally
"Amy Yost" <a...@darkfriends.net> wrote in message
news:amy-D8E345.2...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com.invalid (Aaron Davies) wrote:
>
> > Rodney McNally <inanimate_...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > "Little Black Bird" <nom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:J8Bec.120632$w54.841306@attbi_s01...
> > >
<Snip supporting evidence>
Thanks for verifing my rambling attempts to appear educated guys.
Ian Taylor
Troy most certainly HAS been found. Schliemann found it and began
excavations more than 125 years ago.
Maybe you are thinking of something else ...!
Ian
Richard Boye'
Oh, *thaaaaaaaaaaat* Troy.
Jasper Janssen
wrote:
>Jasper Janssen <jas...@jjanssen.org> wrote in message news:<ot12805mrrvctmfhg...@4ax.com>...
>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:23:37 GMT, "Little Black Bird" <nom...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Troy was a myth, remember, until a farmer fell through his field and found
>> >it.
>>
>> Well, except that this hasn't happened yet. You may be thinking of some
>> other find, but Troy hasn't been found yet.
>Troy most certainly HAS been found. Schliemann found it and began
>excavations more than 125 years ago.
Except that what Schliemann found almost certainly wasn't Troy, and there
definitely wasn't any supporting evidence. Even if Schliemann found the
*site* of Troy, which some people still think, he *definitely* didn't dig
up the actual city, he went a couple of thousand years too far down for
that.
Jasper
Jeroen Geilman
> Which myths and kernels were you thinking of?
MythTV, kernel 2.6.5-love4
I absolutely couldn't resist...
J.
Paul Wilkins
> sledge42 > @juno.com says...
>>And, umm... sorry for being the newb here, but RJ confirms who killed
>>Asmodean in this chat. I see no reference to this in the FAQ. Is this
>>considered a bogus interview or something?
>
> I don't think I would count that non-answer as a confirmation that
> Graendal killed Asmodean.
As nobody else can provide conclusive evidence, and these are the
closest words on the matter that we're ever likely to get from RJ, and
considering that there is stronger evidence for her than for many
others, I'm happy to let the Words from the Master stand as they are.
--
Paul Wilkins
Leigh Butler
ARGH.
Go and read the transcript again. He is *not* saying Graendal killed
Asmodean. "Vercintegorix" said Graendal did it, but RJ's answer is the
EXACT SAME sidestepping I-won't-tell-but-it's-so-EASY crap it's always
been.
And how can anyone believe that RJ had an apparent temporary brain
seizure four years ago and answered the question he's been refusing to
answer for all the years before AND AT EVERY OTHER TIME SINCE? How
does that even remotely make sense?
I don't understand how people can be so delusional about this. Give it
*up* already.
Paul Wilkins
>>As nobody else can provide conclusive evidence, and these are the
>>closest words on the matter that we're ever likely to get from RJ, and
>>considering that there is stronger evidence for her than for many
>>others, I'm happy to let the Words from the Master stand as they are.
>
> ARGH.
>
> Go and read the transcript again. He is *not* saying Graendal killed
> Asmodean.
From http://www.cnn.com/COMMUNITY/transcripts/2000/12/12/jordan/
Question from Vercingetorix: Why do you think everyone has a hard
time figuring out who killed Asmodean? Graendal killed him.
Robert Jordan: I don't know why people have a hard time figuring
that out. To me it seems intuitively obvious even to the most casual
observer. The reason I won't tell people though is that I am
enjoying watching them squirm entirely too much. It's probably bad
for me.
In my own twisted mind where logic follows its own twisted path, I
consider that Jordan began writing an affirmative answer and then,
realising that he really should still be mean and evil about it, threw
in some more to throw us off track again. The first two sentences
confirm it, the next two throw doubt back once again on to the topic.
After all, that is the kind of man that Jordan is.
--
Paul (It was Graendal in the Pantry with the Balefire) Wilkins
Quinn
"Paul Wilkins" <di...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:M1bqc.2692$FN.2...@news02.tsnz.net...
> Leigh Butler wrote:
> >>As nobody else can provide conclusive evidence, and these are the
> >>closest words on the matter that we're ever likely to get from RJ, and
> >>considering that there is stronger evidence for her than for many
> >>others, I'm happy to let the Words from the Master stand as they are.
> >
> > ARGH.
> >
> > Go and read the transcript again. He is *not* saying Graendal killed
> > Asmodean.
>
> From http://www.cnn.com/COMMUNITY/transcripts/2000/12/12/jordan/
>
> Question from Vercingetorix: Why do you think everyone has a hard
> time figuring out who killed Asmodean? Graendal killed him.
>
> Robert Jordan: I don't know why people have a hard time figuring
> that out. To me it seems intuitively obvious even to the most casual
> observer. The reason I won't tell people though is that I am
> enjoying watching them squirm entirely too much. It's probably bad
> for me.
Your interpretation: "You're right, and I don't understand why people don't
get it. But I still don't tell them because <reasons>. And I'll continue
to not do so even though I actually just answered you."
The correct interpretation: "In answering your _question_, that being the
sentence ending with a question mark and not the sentence ending in a
period, I don't understand why people don't get it. But I still don't tell
them because <reasons>."
> In my own twisted mind where logic follows its own twisted path, I
> consider that Jordan began writing an affirmative answer and then,
> realising that he really should still be mean and evil about it, threw
> in some more to throw us off track again. The first two sentences
> confirm it, the next two throw doubt back once again on to the topic.
Why would he confirm it and _then_ cast doubt over it again? That doesn't
make sense even for Jordan.
-Q-
Michelle J. Haines
di...@paradise.net.nz says...
>
> In my own twisted mind where logic follows its own twisted path, I
> consider that Jordan began writing an affirmative answer and then,
> realising that he really should still be mean and evil about it, threw
> in some more to throw us off track again. The first two sentences
> confirm it, the next two throw doubt back once again on to the topic.
He's also said ONLY ONE PERSON has ever written him a letter with the
correct answer. Considering the amount of people who think Graendal
did it, he's undoubtedly received more than one letter naming her.
Frankly, I don't even care any more, and I'm not sure HE knows who
did it. He's just determined to be a prick about it.
sggaB
> In my own twisted mind where logic follows its own twisted path, I
> consider that Jordan began writing an affirmative answer and then,
> realising that he really should still be mean and evil about it, threw
> in some more to throw us off track again. The first two sentences
> confirm it, the next two throw doubt back once again on to the topic.
Sounds to me like he's written too much Aes Sedai dialogue for his own
good.
--
This post may be more literal, unemotional, or impersonal than
it looks. This FAQ has details: http://www.mugsy.org/asa_faq/
Mordecai
about Asmodean>
Mordecai's Law: Any WoT or Robert Jordan newsgroup or forum
discussion, no matter *what* it starts out as, will, -if the thread
becomes long enough-, *eventually* turn into a discussion about
Asmodean.