The study of religious or heroic legends and tales. One constant rule of mythology is that whatever happens amongst the gods or other mythical beings was in one sense or another a reflection of events on earth. Recorded myths and legends, perhaps preserved in literature or folklore, have an immediate interest to archaeology in trying to unravel the nature and meaning of ancient events and traditions.
I have given this some thought and trying my best to be open minded in the light of W/As recent softening and "group hug" invitation. I would like to wait for others to respond before commenting further.
I confess as well, I am not sure if I can adequately express my point of view and the reason for the position I claim. It's not because I think my position is unfounded or weak, I am not sure if I can verbalize it in a concise post.
John, don't you mean 'complementary apposites'? Otherwise, they would be apposites who enjoyed complimenting one another ...which is an interesting thought, actually ...
"I really enjoyed your scientific assessment of Picasso's Cubist era."
"Why thank you, and I was fascinated by your interpretation of Newton's theory. I'd never noticed such textures in it before."
I have given this some thought and trying my best to be open minded in the light of W/As recent softening and "group hug" invitation. I would like to wait for others to respond before commenting further.
I'm wondering who these others are that you are waiting to respond, as WA and Digit, I believe, have already stated their positions.
I confess as well, I am not sure if I can adequately express my point of view and the reason for the position I claim. It's not because I think my position is unfounded or weak, I am not sure if I can verbalize it in a concise post.
I really am sorry that our views are causing you some discomfort. If you could find a way to express yourself on this, I promise to deal with it sincerely and seriously - and to lay aside my usual flippancy and spinning words like plates on sticks routine. I mean that genuinely. I'd like to reach some common ground with you.
After giving this more thought today, I have decided to drop it.
You believe, science and shamanism are apposites, I believe they are mutually exclusive other than the fact the science can study the practice or art of shamanism.
In the end I have decided not to pursue the discussion because I have neither the time nor energy to discuss it in depth knowing it may possibly touch on a few "hot button" topics. I see shamanism as a religion sans savior and so subject to the same skepticism and scientific criticisms as any religion, but one of which I really have limited knowledge. Therefore, I have decided I'm not properly equipt to carry this forward in a meaningful way. Let's agree to let it go and I will keep my thoughts on the matter personal for now.
Ishtar wrote:Well, come to think of it, it's certainly evidence-based. The shaman has to go into the other dimensions and come back with the goods. It's no good just believing in it. He has to do it.
Also, to some extent, shamanism is testable, as Mircae Eliade proved by bringing together anthropologists' accounts of shamans worldwide, from India to Lapland, Siberia to Australia, Indonesia to South America, and found that even though they lived thousands of miles apart and had never met, they were reporting the same experiences of the same three worlds, ie. the shamanic flight to the upper world of spirits or descent into the lower world of animals and ancestors.
i can also see how various human evolution theories are testable. When new fossils, or to a lesser extent other artifacts, are found their features can be compared to the predictions of the theory. Is that not a manner of testing the theory?
If the features of the artifact are consistent with the theory then they become evidence supporting that theory. If not, well we know what happens then since it seems to happen more often. i see little difference between that sort of test and those that physicists perform on the small bits that make up matter.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
One problem with evolution of the "mind" though is that it is not forced to operate along the same physical laws as more mundane tools. An "oar" for instance needs to have a thin end to hold and a wide end to move the water. It can be decorated in any manner desired but at some basic level it has to do the job of an "oar."
Religion operates under no such restriction. Since it is imaginary to begin with the imagination is free to run wild. Hence we end up with multi-armed gods, jackal-headed gods, and so on. I'm not sure what there is to predict other than the fact that people invent gods and I don't know that there is much debate on that point.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Eh - science is just a more modern form of trying to describe everything that happens in the universe so it's nothing more than another form of religion. 1000 years from now they'll laugh at our scientists of today too because they'll find another doohickey to try to solve everything. For all the smarts we have we still end up depending on witchcraft meds for some stuff. I think the universe is just havin' it's fun with us. Darn - didn't anyone tell it not to play with it's food?
i'm not lookin' for who or what made the earth - just who got me dizzy by makin it spin
Ishtar wrote:John, don't you mean 'complementary apposites'? Otherwise, they would be apposites who enjoyed complimenting one another ...which is an interesting thought, actually ...
"I really enjoyed your scientific assessment of Picasso's Cubist era."
"Why thank you, and I was fascinated by your interpretation of Newton's theory. I'd never noticed such textures in it before."
Ishtar -
Sorry. Fumblefingers; yes I did mean complementary apposites. Although, like you, complimentary also has on intriguing set of potential associations.
john
"Man is a marvellous curiosity. When he is at his very, very best he is sort of a low-grade nickel-plated angel; at his worst he is unspeakable, unimaginable; and first and last and all the time he is a sarcasm."
rich wrote:Eh - science is just a more modern form of trying to describe everything that happens in the universe so it's nothing more than another form of religion.
In and of itself, science is not a religion. It is methodology for developing models which describe natural things.
Anything can be elevated to a form of worship, even science and technology. Many today, believe science and technology is a god of the modern age. But it what men have made it. Ontologically it is benign.
But that is the problem - none of it is natural - it only appears to be natural because that is the way we envision it. It's the only thing that seems to make sense to us - until something better comes along.
i'm not lookin' for who or what made the earth - just who got me dizzy by makin it spin
It's the only thing that seems to make sense to us - until something better comes along.
Religion refuses to admit that any better can come along. They insist that they have always been right.
Science at least looks, even if personalities sometimes get in the way temporarily.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
rich wrote:But that is the problem - none of it is natural - it only appears to be natural because that is the way we envision it. It's the only thing that seems to make sense to us - until something better comes along.
Rich, one can philosophically dismiss all reality as the figment of man's perception, but that kind of thinking has no absolutes.
