Because I can measure his inside leg dimension and it will tell me how tall he was, perhaps how much he weighed, how muscular he was and how old he was at his death.
His thoughts can be of no use because we do not have any idea at all about his thought processes, and personally I doubt we ever will. I can not even fathom the thought processes of Josef Fritzl, nor does studying his actions give much insight into his mind, so what chance HSN?
Scientific or Shamanic perspectives.
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
Rich! I have spent 60 yrs attempting to understand the mental process of women!
I confess, in public, in writing, that I still haven't got the slightest idea as to what makes them tick, have you?
Experts have for many years studied the Pyramids and Stonehenge, and yet we still have no comprehensive explanation as to the mind set of the people that constucted them, and you want to go back 50 times as far? Give it up boy, you're beating you head against a brick wall!
I confess, in public, in writing, that I still haven't got the slightest idea as to what makes them tick, have you?
Experts have for many years studied the Pyramids and Stonehenge, and yet we still have no comprehensive explanation as to the mind set of the people that constucted them, and you want to go back 50 times as far? Give it up boy, you're beating you head against a brick wall!
Well, Dig, some people might find that boring. Doesn't mean, though, that they can't contribute to an archaeology board on the aspects of Neolithic man that interest them - especially when the archaeologists who are excavating the Near East sites like Gobekli Tepe and Catalhoyuk are saying that the drivers behind the art and the structure of the buildings were most likely mystic or shamanic.Digit wrote:Because I can measure his inside leg dimension and it will tell me how tall he was, perhaps how much he weighed, how muscular he was and how old he was at his death.
In fact, it seems to me that there might be openings for good shamanic consultants in archaeology right now. Perhaps me, John and woodrabbit should apply?
One answer to two threads, this and the Pope one.
Please explain the thoughts of those who produced the cave paintings at Lascaux and the 'Venuses'.
I'm not trying to be awkward, believe it or not, understanding our antecedents would be marvelous, I simply cannot see how it can be accomplished.
I have now given examples of several structures, artifacts etc and we are no nearer understanding anything about them or the why! Whether we be male or female Ish.
And what does your boss think you are doing today?
Please explain the thoughts of those who produced the cave paintings at Lascaux and the 'Venuses'.
I'm not trying to be awkward, believe it or not, understanding our antecedents would be marvelous, I simply cannot see how it can be accomplished.
I have now given examples of several structures, artifacts etc and we are no nearer understanding anything about them or the why! Whether we be male or female Ish.
And what does your boss think you are doing today?
Dig -
I've spent 40 years with my wife and found respecting them definitely gives you an edge in understanding them. Of course you're not going to fully understand them - but that's the fun of it and without fun - what good is it? It makes all of us who and what we are - not just the geography around us or the age or the tools. Those are the dryer things - and unfortunately the only things that appear to survive us all - past, present, and future.
I've spent 40 years with my wife and found respecting them definitely gives you an edge in understanding them. Of course you're not going to fully understand them - but that's the fun of it and without fun - what good is it? It makes all of us who and what we are - not just the geography around us or the age or the tools. Those are the dryer things - and unfortunately the only things that appear to survive us all - past, present, and future.
i'm not lookin' for who or what made the earth - just who got me dizzy by makin it spin
Digit wrote:One answer to two threads, this and the Pope one.
Please explain the thoughts of those who produced the cave paintings at Lascaux and the 'Venuses'.
I'm not trying to be awkward, believe it or not, understanding our antecedents would be marvelous, I simply cannot see how it can be accomplished.
I have now given examples of several structures, artifacts etc and we are no nearer understanding anything about them or the why! Whether we be male or female Ish.
And what does your boss think you are doing today?
I've got the day off, Dig. I've just come back from three days in ...guess where? ... Glastonbury. So don't expect any improvement in my views!
Can I venture an explanation at to the reason 'we' may be no nearer to understanding these artifacts? Could it possibly be because 'our' minds are a tinsy winsy bit closed to trying a new method of understanding which ...shock, horror! may not be deemed 'scientific'?
I disagree ish in my own case, I can speak for no other, I wouldn't be a member of this forum if I did not have an open mind, I would simply accept what I was told about 'Clovis First', that Stonhenge was a calender to tell people when to plant, that Diplodicus spent its time under water to support its weight and I would subscribe to OOA!
My objections are as I said, you are facing an impossible task. If you can't explain the thoughts behind the examples I have given when do you expect to be able to do so?
What makes you think that they actually thought as we do? It has been said about the universe that it is not only stranger than we imagine, it also stranger than we can imagine. The same might apply to HSN.
My objections are as I said, you are facing an impossible task. If you can't explain the thoughts behind the examples I have given when do you expect to be able to do so?
What makes you think that they actually thought as we do? It has been said about the universe that it is not only stranger than we imagine, it also stranger than we can imagine. The same might apply to HSN.
Dig, I've been explaining the ideas of Lewis Williams from his book Inside the Neolithic Mind, that gives possible explanations to some of the artifacts you mention. However, my posts on this have been deemed to be 'boring' ...and now you say that you doubt that the answer lies in 'fun' -... and you think women are difficult to understand!
Dig, I don't think they thought as we do. You've obviously not been reading my boring posts - the whole point of which is that they thought completely differently to us.Digit wrote: My objections are as I said, you are facing an impossible task. If you can't explain the thoughts behind the examples I have given when do you expect to be able to do so?
What makes you think that they actually thought as we do? It has been said about the universe that it is not only stranger than we imagine, it also stranger than we can imagine. The same might apply to HSN.
Go back and read my posts - then you can complain about them!
Oh yes I have! But how do you understand a mindset different to your own I keep asking. Like I asked, can you explain Frtzl's mind set? I don't doubt that experts will be climbing all over him before coming up with a long winded non-explanation as to why it was all down to Hitler.
If you, or any body else wants to pursue that line of investigation that's up to you and them, my point, as I made to Rich is that you are beating your head against a brick wall! Your failure to explain, and not just you Ish, to explain the items I have mentioned shows the impossibility of the task.
To claim that if you don't try you cannot succeed is valid, but as applicable in logic as counting grains of sand on a beach and as impossible to accomplish.
If you, or any body else wants to pursue that line of investigation that's up to you and them, my point, as I made to Rich is that you are beating your head against a brick wall! Your failure to explain, and not just you Ish, to explain the items I have mentioned shows the impossibility of the task.
To claim that if you don't try you cannot succeed is valid, but as applicable in logic as counting grains of sand on a beach and as impossible to accomplish.
Dig, it's a massive subject and seeing as I'm accused of long, boring posts anyway...there's only so much I can say, particularly as some of this audience is so resistant. But also, I am not here to give a lecture. It's a discussion board.
You could try taking a shamanic journey and seeing for yourself the visual effects and then comparing them to ancient rock art. If you did that, you'd be one up on most of those scientists pontificating that 'it's not shamanic', including Manystones' pal, Mr Hodgson and also quite probably Mr Bednarik.
If you are truly interested in this subject, there are plenty of books on it (one I mentioned earlier, Inside the Neolithic Mind) and not least, the writings of the archaeologists who are excavating the Near East sites.
There are also tons of books on shamanism, the shamanic journey - both first hand accounts as well as more scholarly works like the late professor of religion at Harvard, Mircea Eliade's Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy.
The reasons why so many people think that Neolithic man did think differently to us is well documented with good, well thought out reasons based on the art and the architecture of what he has left behind.
If you were really interested, you'd be reading these books by now, as I've mentioned them enough times. But you're not really interested, Dig, and no-one can persuade anyone of anything that they don't want to know about.
It's OK that you're not interested....it's just not OK to try to stop someone else talking about it. I don't try to make you justify which parts of this work interest you.
And I shouldn' t have to justify wanting to talk about these things on an archaeology discussion board when archaeologists themselves believe that some of what they are exacavating, to some extent, was driven by the mystical beliefs of Palaeo man.
You could try taking a shamanic journey and seeing for yourself the visual effects and then comparing them to ancient rock art. If you did that, you'd be one up on most of those scientists pontificating that 'it's not shamanic', including Manystones' pal, Mr Hodgson and also quite probably Mr Bednarik.
If you are truly interested in this subject, there are plenty of books on it (one I mentioned earlier, Inside the Neolithic Mind) and not least, the writings of the archaeologists who are excavating the Near East sites.
There are also tons of books on shamanism, the shamanic journey - both first hand accounts as well as more scholarly works like the late professor of religion at Harvard, Mircea Eliade's Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy.
The reasons why so many people think that Neolithic man did think differently to us is well documented with good, well thought out reasons based on the art and the architecture of what he has left behind.
If you were really interested, you'd be reading these books by now, as I've mentioned them enough times. But you're not really interested, Dig, and no-one can persuade anyone of anything that they don't want to know about.
It's OK that you're not interested....it's just not OK to try to stop someone else talking about it. I don't try to make you justify which parts of this work interest you.
And I shouldn' t have to justify wanting to talk about these things on an archaeology discussion board when archaeologists themselves believe that some of what they are exacavating, to some extent, was driven by the mystical beliefs of Palaeo man.
Last edited by Ishtar on Tue May 06, 2008 8:20 am, edited 2 times in total.
Dig - don't get me wrong. I'm not saying drawings and such were just related to shamanic stuff. Some could be hunting plans, some just art "doodling", some relating the past.
But two things are sure - a lot of it was communication of some sort - and it wasn't only men involved. As such it is an archaeological treasure trove worthy of all aspects of investigation. Why limit your resources?
But two things are sure - a lot of it was communication of some sort - and it wasn't only men involved. As such it is an archaeological treasure trove worthy of all aspects of investigation. Why limit your resources?
i'm not lookin' for who or what made the earth - just who got me dizzy by makin it spin