| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
 |
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | It is imperative -- if you wish to stay on the right side of AE -- that adopting a belief in a Hollow Earth must not tempt you into believing anything else the Hollow Earth 'crank' wrote. |
Right. Completely concur.
| However I often have the reverse experience (most notably just this afternoon). Whenever I am talking to people who are admirers of THOBR they always ask what I am doing now. As soon as I tell them (in this case the thing about the Solar System) they immediately switch into, "I am talking to a crank" mode. |
Yes. Well...remember...I had read THOBR when we began corresponding. That's when you mentioned....Atlantis....and I immediately switched into "I am talking to a crank" mode.
It took a while before I lost that prejudice. Just the week before last I think it was.
Actually, I lost it much sooner and, as soon as I did, I realized there was a lot you could teach me and I resolved to learn as much as I could. There's no denying you've earned a great deal of credibility with me such that, if I hear something odd from you, I'm prepared to hear it out. Not sure what that means in light of the above.
Ahhh yes...well...back to Beaker people now.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
| Ahhh yes...well...back to Beaker people now. |
Asap Ishmael but Mick's lack of recognition of direct religious experience does make things difficult. This discussion began, I remember, with an exploration of the Druids. Caesar tells us they were the celtic priesthood. I see their status as essentially a specialisation and development of the role of the primitive shaman. We might call them magicians in the Chaldean sense of the term and classical sources, Strabo I think, do make this comparison.
Mick's view, and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that religious belief is essentially irrational. As the Druids were not irrational they must have been scientists masquerading behind a religious mask. There is another explanation though. This is the viewpoint that the Druids had access to the divine state of consciousness with the ability to see farther and wider than their contemporaries. For people who claim to have experienced this state of consciousness, and of course it is not scientifically testable, it may be a one off. Shamans, supposedly, have the ability to enter higher states of consciousness at will.
This kind of religious experience is the source of the revealed religions of the world, Moses coming back from the top of Mount Sinai, Jesus from 40 days in the wilderness, Siddhartha from underneath the bodhi tree. Those who cannot share the direct experience adopt the revelations as gospel and this 'gospel' inevitably degenerates into a poor reflection of the original message.
I think it is just possible to see the Druids as the bearers of the technology of the sacred, the techniques that give access to the states of consciousness where they can significantly shape the reality around them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| I see their status as essentially a specialisation and development of the role of the primitive shaman. We might call them magicians in the Chaldean sense of the term and classical sources, Strabo I think, do make this comparison. |
This is an unacceptable juxtaposition. Shamans are folk practitioners, Chaldean magis are proper...er...scientists. Of course originally the one might have grown out of the other and/or they fulfil some of the same functions in society but otherwise I don't see any direct connections.
| Mick's view, and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that religious belief is essentially irrational. |
All I have said is that those received religions of which I am familiar contain extravagant statements of alleged fact that are completely unevidenced. Are you saying it's rational to believe in impregnating angels and stuff? 'Course the poeple who believe such things are entirely rational...that's the puzzle AE has come into existence to explore.
| As the Druids were not irrational they must have been scientists masquerading behind a religious mask. |
Before the hyper modern era, this was a convenient connection. Sometimes acknowledged, sometimes not. Remember, before the modern era, societies didn't allow too many people to just hang around thinking or researching or experimenting or even reading. Clergymen often had those rights.
| There is another explanation though. This is the viewpoint that the Druids had access to the divine state of consciousness with the ability to see farther and wider than their contemporaries. For people who claim to have experienced this state of consciousness, and of course it is not scientifically testable, it may be a one off. Shamans, supposedly, have the ability to enter higher states of consciousness at will. |
Of course this may be true...I am happy to hear if you have any reasons why I should go along with it. But the twenty-years-of-memorising suggests that this hit-and-miss technique wasn't in fact the actual route-to-enlightenment used by the Druids.
| This kind of religious experience is the source of the revealed religions of the world, Moses coming back from the top of Mount Sinai, Jesus from 40 days in the wilderness, Siddhartha from underneath the bodhi tree. Those who cannot share the direct experience adopt the revelations as gospel and this 'gospel' inevitably degenerates into a poor reflection of the original message. |
Couldn't agree with you more. It's their followers I have been dealing with hitherto. Jesuits and Dervishes use these techniques to inspire the professional practitioners and a few of the laity but most religions just rely on common-or-garden techniques of bloke reads from a text, everybody else listens passively, with a bit of incense and hymn-singing to heighten the atmosphere. Revelation is generally held (and not surprisingly either!) to be heretical in received religions.
| I think it is just possible to see the Druids as the bearers of the technology of the sacred, the techniques that give access to the states of consciousness where they can significantly shape the reality around them. |
Possibly...can't rule it out...fairly modish...etc etc
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | All I have said is that those received religions of which I am familiar contain extravagant statements of alleged fact that are completely unevidenced. Are you saying it's rational to believe in impregnating angels and stuff? 'Course the poeple who believe such things are entirely rational...that's the puzzle AE has come into existence to explore. |
David Hume, the founder of the modern empirical method (and therefore, the first applied epistemologist) allowed for three categories of thought. You consistently acknowledge but two. The two you acknowledge are rational and irrational. Hume allowed for rational and irrational thought but also non-rational thought. Religion is clearly a child of the third type.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Oh I see, and I have to follow this elderly fuckwit, do I? Just because he's a genius and an AE-ist and so forth. Give me an example of an irrational thought and I will say whether it is different from a non-rational thought.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
| I see their status as essentially a specialisation and development of the role of the primitive shaman. |
This is an unacceptable juxtaposition. Shamans are folk practitioners, Chaldean magis are proper...er...scientists. Of course originally the one might have grown out of the other and/or they fulfil some of the same functions in society but otherwise I don't see any direct connections. |
If you read again what I said you will see that my claim is precisely this: British shamans of the Stone Age developed into a priestly caste by the Bronze Age, if not before. The juxtaposition cannot be unacceptable. It is perfectly logical.
| Remember, before the modern era, societies didn't allow too many people to just hang around thinking or researching or experimenting or even reading. Clergymen often had those rights. |
I totally agree and this is why the handing down of shamanic knowledge, from master to apprentice, just became more formalised as societies grew in size and complexity. It is also probable that schools of Druidry, perhaps in places like Anglesey, refined and developed the shamanic 'toolkit' further.
| Of course this may be true...I am happy to hear if you have any reasons why I should go along with it. But the twenty-years-of-memorising suggests that this hit-and-miss technique wasn't in fact the actual route-to-enlightenment used by the Druids. |
Okay, I think we might be getting somewhere. If we agree that there is a state of enlightenment to which Druid techniques gain access then we only need to explore 'the actual route'. I would be very interested to hear your alternative methodology but the shamanic version is not hit-and-miss. It is tried and tested. The existing practice of shamanism in many parts of the world, particularly in the Americas, allows westerners to experience these states of consciousness right now. The range of trance-inducing techniques is varied and can involve dancing, breathing-techniques, drumming and the use of psychedelics. Once 'in there' shamans have a cartography of the inner world which enables them to recognise the appropriate landmarks and how to interact with the beings they encounter. If this form of primitive magic was once practised by our ancestors, as it almost certainly was, then it is perfectly logical to see it as the precursor of Druidry.
The twenty year education is intiguing. Master shamans take many years to perfect their craft but there are no shamnic training schools with a twenty year syllabus. I can only imagine that the difference is a reflection of the spiritual power available to the Druid or, probably more likely, a generalised knowledge necessary for the diverse roles they may be called upon to play. The neophytes would probably be educated from a young age in tribal history, religion, medicine, law, astronomy, psychology, political strategy and economics. As advisors to Kings they would presumably be expected to be 'Merlin' like figures.
When you compare this to the education of a western member of the professional class, thirteen years at school and five or six at University, then the time spent isn't so surprising. As a top Druid you would just want to make sure that you select the right candidates. There must have been many wanabees who fell by the wayside en route.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Oh I see, and I have to follow this elderly fuckwit, do I? Just because he's a genius and an AE-ist and so forth. Give me an example of an irrational thought and I will say whether it is different from a non-rational thought. |
The appreciation of beauty is an example of non-rational thought. Neither rational nor irrational.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Duncan wrote: | | ....The neophytes would probably be educated from a young age in tribal history, religion, medicine, law, astronomy, psychology, political strategy and economics. As advisors to Kings they would presumably be expected to be 'Merlin' like figures.... |
This is all far too speculative for me.
Valid theories rely exclusively on knowns. If you have to use the word "probably," you've left the realm of knowledge.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
| This is all far too speculative for me. Valid theories rely exclusively on knowns. If you have to use the word "probably," you've left the realm of knowledge. |
That's fair enough Ishmael. What we know about the Druids is really limited. I'm simply trying to get a feel for what this twenty year training that Julius Caesar mentions could have involved. The twenty years is assuming significance because my view is that the Druids are simply British shamans, albeit with a much more 'formal' education. Mick sees few parallels between the shaman and the Druid. I think it is pretty crucial that we at least try to explore the issue.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| If you read again what I said you will see that my claim is precisely this: British shamans of the Stone Age developed into a priestly caste by the Bronze Age, if not before. The juxtaposition cannot be unacceptable. It is perfectly logical. |
This is precisely the kind of thing AE rejects. It's perfectly reasonable in a juxtapositional sort of way (which is what makes it so modish) but there's just no evidence for it. Now you could by all means look for indirect evidence. For instance, we have good evidence of societies where shamans operate or have operated (something we lack so far as Ancient Britain is concerned of course) so if you could show that these shamans developed into crypto-scientists of the Druidic or Chaldean type then...terrific. Even once would help. But you can't. So AE pulls the plug on that theory. (True though perhaps it be.)
| I totally agree and this is why the handing down of shamanic knowledge, from master to apprentice, just became more formalised as societies grew in size and complexity. |
When did this happen? Tell us about these shamanic societies that were growing in size and complexity. Don't know of any myself. Shamans seem to flourish in societies which are rather spectacularly non-developmental.
| It is also probable that schools of Druidry, perhaps in places like Anglesey, refined and developed the shamanic 'toolkit' further. |
Is it? Did they? Remarkable. THOBR sort of started life in Anglesey so I'm not gonna knock it as a cradle of genius.
| Okay, I think we might be getting somewhere. If we agree that there is a state of enlightenment to which Druid techniques gain access then we only need to explore 'the actual route'. |
No, sorry, I was using enlightenment ironically. I meant that twenty years before the mast tends not to induce enlightenment.
| I would be very interested to hear your alternative methodology but the shamanic version is not hit-and-miss. It is tried and tested. |
No, this isn't quite right. It's traditional, culture-bound, certain drugs and techniques work better than others but "tried and tested" is a phrase better reserved for science.
| The existing practice of shamanism in many parts of the world, particularly in the Americas, allows westerners to experience these states of consciousness right now. The range of trance-inducing techniques is varied and can involve dancing, breathing-techniques, drumming and the use of psychedelics. |
This isn't quite true either (and as someone who has tried peyote to get this effect I speak from small experience). Apart from the obviously fictional characters like Carlos Castenada there are remarkably few accounts of 'western' shamans. A few hippies and the odd intrepid anthropologist is about yer lot. A few of the techniques have allegedly been imported into Western practices but it's all left a remarkably small hoofprint. It looms large in our collective psyche though. I will grant that.
| Once 'in there' shamans have a cartography of the inner world which enables them to recognise the appropriate landmarks and how to interact with the beings they encounter. |
Yes...this cartography...I think a good bit of romanticism is going on here (from both sides). But the most interesting thing about all these 'maps of altered consciousness' is how remarkably little is brought back that is of actual use in the real world.
| If this form of primitive magic was once practised by our ancestors, as it almost certainly was, then it is perfectly logical to see it as the precursor of Druidry. |
If it was...and maybe it did...but perfectly logical is not the phrase I would use here. "Not a bad wheeze" is how I'd put it.
| The twenty year education is intriguing. Master shamans take many years to perfect their craft but there are no shamanic training schools with a twenty year syllabus. |
Absolutely right and it's what puts the kybosh on the whole thesis.
| I can only imagine that the difference is a reflection of the spiritual power available to the Druid or, probably more likely, a generalised knowledge necessary for the diverse roles they may be called upon to play. The neophytes would probably be educated from a young age in tribal history, religion, medicine, law, astronomy, psychology, political strategy and economics. As advisors to Kings they would presumably be expected to be 'Merlin' like figures. |
Sounds like you have your doubts too.
| When you compare this to the education of a western member of the professional class, thirteen years at school and five or six at University, then the time spent isn't so surprising. |
Ah so! Therefore is it correct then that Eton and Trinity is a perfectly logical extension of ancient shamanism.
| As a top Druid you would just want to make sure that you select the right candidates. There must have been many wanabees who fell by the wayside en route. |
Funnily enough, as with Eton and Trinity, once the powerful set up a system for their kids there is a remarkably small failure rate. Just a thought.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| The appreciation of beauty is an example of non-rational thought. Neither rational nor irrational. |
The appreciation of beauty is not thought at all. It is a sensory experience. I daresay that after appreciating it you can go on to think about it but then presumably these thoughts will be either rational or irrational (though in the fullness of time I will be pointing out that human beings are incapable of irrational thought too). It's only other people who claim these thoughts are irrational. We can't achieve this effect for ourselves. Go on, try it.
Next!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | The appreciation of beauty is an example of non-rational thought. Neither rational nor irrational. |
The appreciation of beauty is not thought at all. |
Well..let's leave the semantics. The real question we're trying to settle is this...
Is it irrational to believe an idea purely on the basis of its emotive or inspirational power?
Is such a belief irrational when there is...
1) No evidence for or against?
2) Some quantity of statistical evidence against?
3) Some quantity of empirical evidence against?
Is it irrational to live in accordance with the supposition of a truth, based purely on its emotive or inspirational power?
Is such an action irrational when there is...
1) No evidence for or against?
2) Some quantity of statistical evidence against?
3) Some quantity of empirical evidence against?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
My position is this: the brain either believes or it doesn't believe. It doesn't have a special compartment for 'faith'. It doesn't even have a 'maybe' compartment, or a pending department. It's just straightforward binary.
As you saw on the Time Team thingy it is impossible for people to move from belief to maybe just because a whole string of cogent arguments is mounted against one's beliefs. And to hold this position rationally (as it were) you have to make sure that careful ignoral in all its various forms is used against these cogent arguments. Now clearly, these Time Team beliefs are articles of faith. However they are articles of faith that were acquired initially in a properly rational setting ie by the use of evidence-based arguments from properly constituted rationally-based authorities. Religious articles-of-faith were not acquired in this way. And that is the only difference in their status so far as the believer is concerned.
This is why I lay such emphasis on technical questions of the "Do you believe that the angel impregnating Mary was a historical event?" type because proper Christians have to believe that it was (otherwise Jesus is just a social commentator) but these are people whose heads are filled with other historical events for which there is evidence. In order to make sense of this situation they have to apply careful ignoral, "You don't understand, we distinguish between faith and experience," but of course actually they don't. They sort of know they have ended up believing a historical event for which there is no evidence and if you hammer away long enough and cutely enough the anomalous fissure ought finally to make their heads explode into a million pieces. At least.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | My position is this: the brain either believes or it doesn't believe. It doesn't have a special compartment for 'faith'. It doesn't even have a 'maybe' compartment, or a pending department. It's just straightforward binary. |
I can't agree.
| As you saw on the Time Team thingy it is impossible for people to move from belief to maybe just because a whole string of cogent arguments is mounted against one's beliefs. |
I know from personal experience that it is possible.
| And to hold this position rationally (as it were) you have to make sure that careful ignoral in all its various forms is used against these cogent arguments. Now clearly, these Time Team beliefs are articles of faith. However they are articles of faith that were acquired initially in a properly rational setting ie by the use of evidence-based arguments from properly constituted rationally-based authorities. Religious articles-of-faith were not acquired in this way. And that is the only difference in their status so far as the believer is concerned. |
More 'cogent' writing like this and you may yet earn publication in an academic journal.
| They sort of know they have ended up believing a historical event for which there is no evidence and if you hammer away long enough and cutely enough the anomalous fissure ought finally to make their heads explode into a million pieces. At least. |
No. That occurs only if they sufficiently value rational thought and you just can't wrap your head around the idea that some people don't value reason so highly as do you.
But all rational thought serves baser, non-rational impulses. Even for you. These are value judgements and they are non-rational.
So some people apply reason to all of human history but, when it comes to the babe-in-bethlehem, it's reason be damned. No argument will snuff their belief. They believe because they love believing.
Unfortunately, people form these same sorts of non-rational attachements to ideas and disciplines that were once, for someone else or for themselves, the offspring of reason. The original theoretical basis gives a cloak of rationality to what has become for them a heart-wish. We are not immune to this either. Only disciplined (even stoic) application of epistemological principles can prevent it.
It is not irrational to believe a notion disfavoured by the available evidence, so long as one acknoweldges that the evidence is against it. One can still practise science so long as one draws a clear distinction between rational conclusions and non-rational suppositions: "Rational enquiry supports evolution by natural selection; nevertheless, I believe in Adam and Eve". This is a conscious decsion to ignore the acknowledged dictate of epistemological critique. This is not rational of course...but it's not irrational either.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
No, no, this is all wrong. It is true people believe that which makes them happy rather than that which is 'true'. But if they knew it was untrue, and they still believed, this would make them very unhappy indeed. So people make sure that what they believe is also, as far as they are concerned, true (or at the very least, not clearly untrue).
Now this does not normally present any difficulties. One can cross the road rationally (by looking both ways) or one can cross the road irrationally (by throwing a dice) but human beings just do not (cannot?) do the latter -- unless they have some even higher purpose (they happen to want to add a spice of danger to their lives). Similarly the Time Team crowd can just put authority's fingers in their ears and quite truly say, "Can't hear, can't hear."
Actually, a few of the real sophisticates do put this "higher purpose" argument forward: "Yes, I know intellectually that the angel didn't impregnate Mary, but I believe it anyway because..." and then some bit of sophistry is adduced. But generally people (fundamentalists, remember; real Christains not people who play at their faith like progressive Anglican bishops) actually say, "No, sorry, I really do believe the angel impregnated Mary."
Such people will certainly accept being burnt at the stake rather than recant but nevertheless it is still a weak point in their intellectual armoury. If the relentless drip-drip-drip of "Gawn, where's your evidence?" is applied with sufficient sophistication then they can be made unhappy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
