902 replies to this topic

[Abramelin]

questionmark, on 05 January 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

How was that signature of Jaylemurph again: history is not for sissies? Wonder what became of him.

I am starting to get afraid of his health.

I really DO hope Jaylemurph is ok.


.

Edited by Abramelin, 05 January 2013 - 08:17 PM.

[TheSearcher]

Wow I came back to see the thread and low and behold one person banned and another wanting to leave. The former correctly so and the other a shame because I didn't see anybody attacking her. I know discussion can be rather lively, but it wasn't THAT bad.

And Abe, if I'm any example, he could just have taken some time off. Having said this I do hope he is ok.

Edited by TheSearcher, 05 January 2013 - 10:23 PM.

[the L]

me-wonders, on 05 January 2013 - 06:40 PM, said:

Being as dogmatic as the church, is not being scientific.  It is being foolish.   Science is not limited to what we know, but a process for discovering what we do not know.  

True. We have dogma in science too. Sad but true.

[TheSearcher]

the L, on 05 January 2013 - 10:25 PM, said:

True. We have dogma in science too. Sad but true.

Nooo not dogma, scientific method. Also rigorous research and examination, those are the cornerstones of science. There are definitions and facts and then there are suppositions and assumptions, sorry if some of us prefer the former to the latter.

[cladking]

me-wonders, on 05 January 2013 - 06:40 PM, said:

  Science is not limited to what we know, but a process for discovering what we do not know.  

I left this bolded because it's a concept few comprehend because few ever study metaphysics.

Science is a striving toward ignorance but people get comfortable with mass production and an
easy chair and think of science as the font of all good so it must be the source of all knowledge.
This is wrong.  Everything learned by science always creates two new questions as it solves at
least one old mystery.

If it weren't for this simple metaphysic we wouldn't know orthodox Egyptology is wrong about ev-
ery single thing and there are caves under the pyramids.

If it weren't for ignorance we'd know nothing at all.  If it weren't for the stupendous ignorance of
those who were not barefoot bumpkins, there would be no pyramids and no mysteries associated
with them.  If it weren't for experiential knowledge there'd be no pyramids.

How appropriate we don't know how they were made yet we have all the answers.  Sometimes the
world just makes perfect sense.

[cladking]

I'm sorry to see LRW got the boot.

I keep seeing a theme running through the thread today that peo[ple expect "science" to give
them answers but this is an absurdity because science never really provides answers.  One might
say it provides understanding, but this understanding is necessarily predicated on understanding
both the metaphysics and the details of the experiment that led to the new knowledge.  Even our
best trained scientists normally don't have this sort of experience in undersytanding science and
its results unless they taught themselves.  Sure the books you need to understand are on the sylabus
but few students read all the books and fewer understand  such things thoroughly.

This isn't to say all our scientists are superstitious bumpkins but when you read some of their pro-
nouncements it's obvious most of them at least tend that way.

While I don't understand LRW's vehemence concerning the dating system, his point is still valid that
all people are colored by their place and time and this coloring includes  numerous religious overtones.
One trie to step out of his place and time to see other realities or perspctives but no matter how good
you are at this you always take at least some baggage with you.  One thinks in "language" or at the
very least language like concepts and takes this with them everywhere the mind goes.  I never liked
BC/ AD either because I never was a fan of religion but people need words to communicate and in
order to talk about anything more than 2012 PB one needs a term.  I was brought up in a parochial
school with 1890's ideas and my own personal concept that changing language for trivial reasons is
evil.  Hence I don't intend to change something that has always worked.  To each his own is the prin-
ciple by which I interact with people.

I know I've said more than enough but I believe it warranted saying.

[TheSearcher]

I think LRW got booted because of his incessant Christian bashing and his linking everything and everyone to what he called Christendom even if this wasn't in the slightest correct.

Edited by TheSearcher, 05 January 2013 - 11:15 PM.

[kmt_sesh]

Let's avoid commenting on why or how a poster was banned from the forum. Trust that it was earned and was for the betterment of the forum in general. I should think that is obvious. Now that we can return to a calmer and more level-headed discussion, let's return to the proper spirit of debate.

Thanks.

[Abramelin]

TheSearcher, on 05 January 2013 - 10:21 PM, said:

Wow I came back to see the thread and low and behold one person banned and another wanting to leave. The former correctly so and the other a shame because I didn't see anybody attacking her. I know discussion can be rather lively, but it wasn't THAT bad.

And Abe, if I'm any example, he could just have taken some time off. Having said this I do hope he is ok.

I remember him saying, a long time ago, that there was something the matter with his health.

I even remember I asked him something like, 'What do you mean? Cardiovascular??'

[Abramelin]

TheSearcher, on 05 January 2013 - 11:12 PM, said:

I think LRW got booted because of his incessant Christian bashing and his linking everything and everyone to what he called Christendom even if this wasn't in the slightest correct.

LRW was nothing but a pain in the rear, and his only goal was to get attention by p***ing people off.

He survived here much longer than he would have on my own site.

[the L]

TheSearcher, on 05 January 2013 - 10:31 PM, said:

Nooo not dogma, scientific method.

Never heard about term Scientific dogma?

There are many scientific dogma.

Edited by the L, 06 January 2013 - 02:27 AM.

[DieChecker]

pallidin, on 05 January 2013 - 06:52 AM, said:

Isn't the Great Pyramid massive enough to crush any "caves" close underneath?

Well since mountains don't crush the caves inside them, I'd generally go with no.

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 05 January 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

Hel is Norse goddess of underworld, our word Hell is from the Norse. Europeans did not have a hell as a place of eternal punishment. In Norse you went to Valhalla if a brave warrior, or the underworld for everybody else. Certainly there was punishment for some, usually in Greek mythology, but it did not take place in what we call Hell. This misuse of Hel is a proof of how early Christians warped and twisted the old religions in order to impose the new religion and make everything in the old religions seem evil. I thought this would be common knowledge.....

Depending on the Translation you are reading the Bible also speaks of Hades and Tartarus. Both Greek hells. It would seem a lot more likely to me, since English comes from Proto-Norse/German, that the Christians word "Hell" came from translating the work into English, which would have had a similar place/word in Hel, or Niflehel/Niflheim, one of the nine worlds of the Pagan Norse mythology. Thus, Hell is a pagan word, not a Christian word, in origin

Abramelin, on 05 January 2013 - 08:16 PM, said:

I really DO hope Jaylemurph is ok.

Din't he disappear (Off the forums) last summer? Maybe the Bassets finally got 'em?

[cladking]

Quote

"Isn't the Great Pyramid massive enough to crush any "caves" close underneath?"

Weight in a system is deflected away and around any voids in it.  Nature imposes very
strict rules about a distance that can be spanned by any material but very low limits on
the ability of a spanned area to be buried.  Huge voids can exist under the earth but if
they erode away too much the entire area/ region will collapse.  These are called "sink-
holes" and can be quite large.  

[cormac mac airt]

DieChecker, on 06 January 2013 - 02:32 AM, said:

Well since mountains don't crush the caves inside them, I'd generally go with no.


Depending on the Translation you are reading the Bible also speaks of Hades and Tartarus. Both Greek hells. It would seem a lot more likely to me, since English comes from Proto-Norse/German, that the Christians word "Hell" came from translating the work into English, which would have had a similar place/word in Hel, or Niflehel/Niflheim, one of the nine worlds of the Pagan Norse mythology. Thus, Hell is a pagan word, not a Christian word, in origin




Din't he disappear (Off the forums) last summer? Maybe the Bassets finally got 'em?

In Hebrew the name used was "Sheol", which was also NOT a place of eternal punishment like the Christian Hell.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

TheSearcher, on 05 January 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

Cranial deformation like you mention occurs since quite a long time and was practiced all over the world. For example, early examples of intentional human cranial deformation predate written history and date back to 45,000 BC in Neanderthal skulls, and to the Proto-Neolithic Homo sapiens. (ref. here)  The earliest written record of cranial deformation, that I am aware of, dates to 400 BC in Hippocrates' description of the Macrocephali or Long-heads, who were named for their practice of cranial modification (ref. : Hippocrates upon Air, Water, and Situation: upon Epidemical Diseases).

As to the why of Cranial deformation, well it was probably performed to signify group affiliation, or to demonstrate social status. It could also be aimed at creating a skull shape, which is aesthetically more pleasing or has more desirable attributes that way (ref. Gerszten and Gerszten, 1995)
For example, if memory serves, in the Nahai-speaking area of Tomman Island and the south south-western Malakulan (Australasia), a person with an elongated head is thought to be more intelligent, of higher status and closer to the world of the spirits. In Mayan society it was a matter of social status as well.

I like the description you've provided. One thing where we always must take care is using our own culture's beliefs and practices when we  attempt to evaluate the practices of a very different culture. In other words, avoid doing it. If we cannot try to see a different culture from its own perspective but must insist on forcing our ideas and beliefs onto it, then we fail from the get-go.

Deformation of body parts can indeed be reflective of one's social status within a group, and such deformation might well be considered attractive or beautiful by the people of that culture. This might well describe the cranial deformations conducted by ancient Peruvians and certain tribes in the central Sahara of Africa, the lip plugs of the Mursi and Tirma peoples of Africa, the neck rings of the Kayan people of Burma and Thailand, and the foot binding in China.

These are cultural practices of intrinsic beauty to such people, and it's little more than that. All of this deformation looks quite odd to me, as an American, but my perspective as an American is irrelevant to these cultures. It's more important that I (and others) try to understand how those cultures viewed such practices. Aliens need not be considered.