67 replies to this topic

[psyche101]

Gone away, on 20 January 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

When I was younger she was my Queen!

Still mine

But then again, I have no plans to grow up anytime soon.

[psyche101]

orangepeaceful79, on 19 January 2012 - 03:06 AM, said:

Pretty much.  The fact that the bfro and other organizations can claim to be experts on something that there is no evidence for to the point where they start xplaining  the creatures in terms of their motives for their behavior goes a long way toward showing that they won't let a silly little thing like reality get in the way.  But then again when you are just making $h1+ up its easy enough to wrap up every little detail in a nice lil package.  no Bigfoot bodies? That's because they bury them.  No good trail cam pics? That's because Bigfoot can spot them and is smart enough to avoid them.  hard to find them? Well that's because they are solitary animals except for when they are tending to their pesky dead.  No Bigfoot poo?  That's because they eat it.

It us arrogant humans who keep making assumptions. I figure we keep setting the cams to high because of the bloody Patterson Film. Now everyone thinks Biff looks like that.

[Night Walker]

QuiteContrary, on 13 December 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

While we may learn societal truths from mythological stories themselves or learn about ourselves from the background that surrounds humans and their love/use of myths…
how is this to be accepted or embraced  or respected or worthy of anything when the myths come from the scientific realm and not the mythical/philosophical/spiritual one?

Myth study is never disinterested, objective; perhaps Freud's main contribution is this insight. The analysis of myths ...is always in part self-analysis, and self-analysis is also self-creation...

Myths convince the believer of their relevance and lead one to participate in them, when they are seen as part of oneself, when one recognises how the personal mythostory or narrative is fused with the cultural or archetypal - or perhaps more acutely, when one discovers the presence of mythemes within one's own story or within the lives of those around us.

We are what we myth, and we are always in the process of becoming another realisation of our potential selves, another enactment of the deities within.

http://www.allmyartp...ssertation.html

For myths to be effective (beyond mundane fiction) they have to be perceived as "real" or at least possible and in today's modern society the best way to do that is via the scientific realm. It is no coincidence that Bigfoot- and ghost-hunters strive to appear "sciency". That some scientists actively engage with certain mythologies and attempt to validate certain mythologies should be expected (science is a means of understanding and scientists are human just like the rest of us). Whether the processes of science will validate the "reality" behind those myths (like Bigfoot) is something else altogether and which we will soon discover. We are fortunate that a truly independent scientific study (ie Dr. Sykes - with no preconceived biases as to what the DNA will reveal) will be available to compare and contrast with that of Melba.  

QuiteContrary, on 13 December 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

I don’t find bigfoot as “enlightening” as even most mythology. In this day and age, I find it disturbing and damaging and nothing more than a con when it comes from science in the form of what we are used to seeing with bigfoot. (Dr. Melba Ketchum admits to witnessing habituated bigfoot!)

It is often easier to look back at some event in recent history and reflect upon what really happened than it is to be a part of something historic and understand what is going on while it is actually happening. What is scientific about talking up one's amazing claims without releasing any data for scrutiny? That pseudo-science strives to appear scientific is the whole point...

QuiteContrary, on 13 December 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

But even if social science truths may be there (in myths and philosophies and fiction) for all to see, to teach science through myth I find unacceptable. It is not just the myth of the creature but the mythical pseudo-science that is used as well. And that is what I so strongly object to from the scientists and the laymen in the field.

That used to bother me (and still does to some extent) but then I realised that if it has some effect on me (ie bothering me) then perhaps the problem is mine not theirs. After all, Bigfoot is not recognised as a species (undiscovered or otherwise), is not taught in schools or universities, has no evidence of its existence but has plenty of evidence of its true nature (ie fakes and misidentifications) so how else should Bigfoot be promoted other than pseudo-science and mythology (storytelling)?

That such mythology still has traction for a wide section of humanity is where the real mystery is and has great potential to reveal much about ourselves as an unique species. The Tolkien piece I posted above hints at a much older way of understanding, interacting with, and creating the world around us. It's not "wrong" (in fact, the processes of such magical thinking helped ensure our survival and growth as a species and even paved the way for science) just different with different emphases on what is "enlightenment" and "enchantment". Science and materialistic rationalism is really the new kid on the block in comparison and, as such, has much to learn about how myths and stories can affect and enhance our view of the world. To reach and benefit more people perhaps science needs to consciously develop its own myths and stories...

[keninsc]

If Bigfoots were all Blond and looked like Pam Anderson in her twenties then there would be no end to the pictures.

[QuiteContrary]

Excellent post, as usual, NW. I guess I get confused because I look at it all at a much more superficial level. I still can't "connect" in my mind the likes of: Greek "where did we come from, etc" myths and Tolkien or Jonathan Swift social commentary through myth,
with bigfoot.

I admit I find many other myths and use of myth fascinating and witty and purposeful... yet it is no secret I'm jaded when it comes to bigfoot specifically and science and bigfoot totally.

Night Walker, on 13 December 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:

To reach and benefit more people perhaps science needs to consciously develop its own myths and stories...

Could you explain your quote thx

I may be derailing orangepeaceful's thread though

This would make it's own interesting thread, but I don't know enough about it to run it.

I have not read your link yet, which I will do.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 14 December 2012 - 01:13 AM.

[Night Walker]

To reach and benefit more people perhaps science needs to consciously develop its own myths and stories...

The world is an amazing place and science provides the best means of understanding it but how to communicate it so that it appeals to more people? Folklore (people's beliefs, stories, and practices) has great appeal because it is casual (anyone can contribute) and traditional and being immersed in it all the time we hardly are aware of it's influence. How can the processes of science become more accessible and appealing so as to make it an everyday part of people's lives (moreso than it is)?

[R4z3rsPar4d0x]

I stopped watching the show after 2 episodes, It was always a let down them just yelling in the woods saying these are the noises bigfoot makes. I dont know its like watching a porno and not sticking around for the money shot. Its just a let down

[flareobox]

Cryptozoologists will need to record there expeditions better. Possibly by using the newly created GO PRO.