| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Martin
|
|
 |
|
| what on earth did you mean by "Agriculturally-based societies are an advance on hunter-gatherer societies"? |
It depends which way you look at it. The first farmers were less well nourished than their hunter gatherer counterparts.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| DPCrisp wrote: | | Did you follow the Jane Jacobs stuff? |
Of course (but Duncan has not seen that material of yours).
I was a follower of Jacobs before I'd ever heard of her.
Did you ever read my God's Garden piece?
I have always been an advocate of cities-first (I mean, an advocate in so far as it is rational to advocate anything so speculative).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Duncan wrote: | | I find it fascinating that much of modern science, particularly in the realms of quantum physics and consciousness research, is moving beyond a Newtonian-Cartesian view of reality. |
I find it fascinating as well, if true. For we are moving in the opposite direction.
It is apparent that Newton was dismissed before he was understood. I wonder if we might also find in Decartes a similar wealth of untapped gold.
Remember. What is, is what was is simply Newton First law (the principle of inertia) applied to the study of History. That's not all the treasure Newton has given us. We have a lot more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Duncan wrote: | | I remember Bruce Parry spending time with the Matis in the Amazon who were fighting a losing battle trying to stop their young men from leaving for better lives in the city. |
What does life in the city have to do with your argument about agriculture?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Duncan, you claimed that "Native America, Australia, Siberia, Africa" had shamans and when I asked which of these developed Druid-types (in order to support your case that the one follows the other) you claimed that "India developed its Brahmins, Sumeria its Magi, Egypt and the Aztecs their priesthood". So...are you admitting you don't know of a single example where your thesis is known to have happened?
| Now might be the time to tell me if you think the Druids were anything more than a sophisticated priesthood and I really would be keen to see your evidence. |
I honestly don't think it amounts to evidence. It's just something that's come out of our general theme that non-Classical Europe was miles ahead of where orthodoxy usually puts it. To employ your own methods, I would say that pre-historic Europe was sufficiently advanced that if it didn't have an intellectual Druid-class then a Druid-type organisation would have had to have been invented.
A later and equally evanescent bit of evidence would be
1. Romans chase Druids out of Britain and into Ireland
2. Dead hand of Rome (empire, then Church) descends on Europe.
3. Intellectual priestly class (the Celtic Renaissance monks) pops out of Ireland.
| In modern parlance the human unconscious is open to the eyes of the therapist and deterministic behavioural patterns suddenly become present to consciousness and therefore open to change |
I rest my case.
| Can I take it from this that you see the Druids and Shamans as inferior to the modern scientist? |
Well, there are three not two things to compare and contrast here.
Shamans: inspirational people who act as the intellectuals of their communities. Not much use for societal development.
Druids: esoteric people who learn by rote and act as the intellectuals of their communities. Useful repositories of knowledge when societal development is going backwards.
Scientists: educated people who are not intellectuals. Wonderful for societal advance.
| I find it fascinating that much of modern science, particularly in the realms of quantum physics and consciousness research, is moving beyond a Newtonian-Cartesian view of reality. |
This is utter horse-shit. It is put about by quantum physicists to get women to sleep with them and dutifully repeated by everybody else to get people to believe they know something about quantum physics..
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
| Duncan, you claimed that "Native America, Australia, Siberia, Africa" had shamans and when I asked which of these developed Druid-types (in order to support your case that the one follows the other) you claimed that "India developed its Brahmins, Sumeria its Magi, Egypt and the Aztecs their priesthood". So...are you admitting you don't know of a single example where your thesis is known to have happened? |
Mick, you're being unbelievably obtuse. Native America etc. all still have their shamans. The agriculturalist societies that I mentioned had their priesthoods. My point, as you well know, is that shamans in Egypt etc. would be superceded by priests as society became more complex. Tibet still has its shamans and they are very similar to Indian holy men, yogis and the like. I think it might be useful to clarify what we mean by the word 'shaman' just in case we're getting crossed wires. Shamans are to be distinguished from mediums because the latter are believed to be possessed by spirits whereas the former have control over their helping spirits. Shamanism involves the descent to the underworld to bring back arcane knowledge or boons for the tribe. This takes place using the metaphor of the world tree. The theme is almost identical to the pervasive hero journey of world mythology. One example from Norse mythology is Odin's quest for the runes.
| I honestly don't think it amounts to evidence. It's just something that's come out of our general theme that non-Classical Europe was miles ahead of where orthodoxy usually puts it. To employ your own methods, I would say that pre-historic Europe was sufficiently advanced that if it didn't have an intellectual Druid-class then a Druid-type organisation would have had to have been invented. |
I'm certainly tempted to agree with you here. If you remember this is the whole point of our discussion. I just want to establish the meaning of your phrase 'miles ahead'. In which areas and what would you offer as evidence? I'm getting the feeling that you see megalithia and Druidry as intimately linked, notwithstanding classical sources which tell us the Druids worshipped in secluded groves. Quite how we square this one I don't know but I still see a connection. Even academics like Francis Pryor see a continuity in pre-Roman British religious beliefs.
I find it fascinating that much of modern science, particularly in the realms of quantum physics and consciousness research, is moving beyond a Newtonian-Cartesian view of reality.
|
This is utter horse-shit. It is put about by quantum physicists to get women to sleep with them and dutifully repeated by everybody else to get people to believe they know something about quantum physics.. |
Then we're miles out on this one. I'm not a physicist but then neither are you. In an area like this I try to understand the new physics by reading the popularisers like Paul Davies. Unfortunately for deterministic science the observer does effect the observed, that's what I mean by putting consciousness centre stage. If everything in the universe somehow effects everything else, then we have to dispense with the idea of distinct 'units' or 'particles' of matter. Light has both a particle and a wave function. Einstein also showed that time and space are not two distinct entities but two aspects of the same thing which he called space-time. Physicists such as Stephen Blaha are now talking about the 'word' as the fundamental reality not solid matter. Come on Mick.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Duncan wrote: | | Mick, you're being unbelievably obtuse. |
No. He is being an applied epistemologist.
What we do is not the type of reasoning you are used to. Were it so, we'd just be a bunch of amateur science and history enthusiasts awarding ourselves a fancy name. We actually do things differently.
We are very very strict in what we allow as evidence (at least we are so in principle). We demand direct, observable instantiation of every alleged process. If you want to argue that Shamans develop into Druids, you must find at least one case where the transformation of a Shaman into a Druid has been observed. Barring that, the connection is not allowed.
This doesn't mean we say it didn't happen. It means we don't allow its allegation to play any part in any theorizing. Theories can be constructed only from empirical data, connected by principles derived from empirical observation.
You will think at first this inhibits your ability to "get to the truth" but, we promise, strict adherence to these principles will empower you to find new and more reliable answers to old questions and these new answers will themselves spur even bigger discoveries. When you see that happening, you'll forget your old allegiances to this or that model or hypothesis. You will have new ideas of your own that no one else has ever thunk of!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
| We are very very strict in what we allow as evidence (at least we are so in principle). We demand direct, observable instantiation of every alleged process. If you want to argue that Shamans develop into Druids, you must find at least one case where the transformation of a Shaman into a Druid has been observed. Barring that, the connection is not allowed. |
Much of this I accept Ish and your ideas are refreshing and challenging BUT I don't think we can find direct evidence of shamans changing into Druids like men into wolves at the full moon. I understand why you demand this degree of rigour but surely you must see that my view is highly likely to be true; even Mick seems to be acknowledging its validity. Sometimes, short of the certain truth, we must go with that which is most likely. Is this not Popper's idea of falsifiability? All truths are provisional.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Duncan wrote: | | I don't think we can find direct evidence of shamans changing into Druids like men into wolves at the full moon. |
LOL! :-)
| I understand why you demand this degree of rigour but surely you must see that my view is highly likely to be true;.... |
While we often rule stuff out on the basis of probability, nothing's ever ruled in on the basis of plausibility. Stuff gets ruled in only for demonstrability (again, in principle. I'm sure all of us commit errors but we try to catch each other out when we do).
When we allow ourselves to explain the world on the basis of what seems likely, we end up missing the simple but less obvious (or less interesting!) explanations that are demonstrable. You will see this for yourself in short order in some Treasure Hunts and, believe me, nothing is so convincing as experience. I can tell you why our method is superior but, until you see it and use it, my words just won't do the trick.
(In treasure hunts, we take certain popular scientific mysteries and ask you to solve them, using AE principles.)
You and I both know that there may be an empirically-evidenced explanation for the rise of Druidism in Britain that has yet to be found. But so long as you presuppose your proposal on the basis of probability, though it lacks any evidence, you've no hope of finding that better, evidence-based solution.
In the absence of empirical support, "the most probable of the plausible" is no longer acceptable as any measure of truth. Having commited to this principle, we usually find there's a great deal more empirical evidence out there than we had imagined -- and it often points in unexpected directions.
I don't know much about Druids and Shamans. In fact, I'm rather skeptical of the whole thing (it would shock you to learn how skeptical I am about just about everything). However, I'm not dismissive. So here's a tip from the peanut gallery...
You've spent some time defining Shamanism...and you can actually point to some observable examples of Shamen. Now ask yourself, "Why can't I point to real examples of Druids?"
Why are there Shamen to which you can appeal for evidence of their existence, but no Druids you can mention by name or travel to visit? Why is that so?
You've said that Shamen likely evolved into Brahmen. But you can find Brahmen now, can't you. You've even tenatively linked Shamen to Priests. And there are plenty of those (yes yes...you meant Aztec and Egyptian priests, which do not exist, though the same word is applied to them and Christian priests for a valid reason I think). Magi...now those are gone too. So...let's organize our dataset...
Still Exist:
Shamen
Priests
Brahmen
Extinct:
Magi
Druids
Is the list significant? Interesting? Hey...I'm not saying it is. But it's an unconventional starting point.
Consider also your definitions. Seems to me you've got excellent definitions for what constitutes a Shaman. As for Druids...not so much. Does that fact alone tell you anything?
Now consider that definition of Druid. What exactly is a Druid? What does a Druid do? Write down only what we know, not what we presume. Apply stricter and stricter filters to what constitutes "knowledge" and look for patterns in those facts that remain.
That's what I would do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
| Consider also your definitions. Seems to me you've got excellent definitions for what constitutes a Shaman. As for Druids...not so much. Does that fact alone tell you anything? |
Yes, it does. Sad as it may seem we know so little about the Druids. I think Mick knows much more but he's not playing yet. This has been my point throughout and I thank you for your forbearance, but my purpose here is to establish what the ancient British priesthood knew. Find the Druids and perhaps we will find the real purpose behind the megaliths.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Well, why not start by disposing of the idea that they were priests? No priesthood I ever heard of demands twenty years of learning rote formulae. No, what they were learning must have been of utility. Start off by trying to meld this principle with megalithia (which will also dispense with any need to give megalithia a sacred purpose).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Couple more questions:
1. Why, Duncan, did your list of shamanic societies so noticeably not overlap with your list of priestly societies (even though you were claiming continuity)?
2. We know the Romans were specifically trying to wipe out the Druids. Whoever heard of a campaign to wipe out shamans?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
|
I'm all ears. What do you think they learned in those twenty years and how did working at stone circles fit in? I am prepared to suspend my belief in any theory that I've heard so far, from Francis Prior to John Michell.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
| Why, Duncan, did your list of shamanic societies so noticeably not overlap with your list of priestly societies (even though you were claiming continuity)? |
I thought I'd covered this one. Hunter-gatherer societies have shamans and agricultural societies have priests. They won't overlap.
| We know the Romans were specifically trying to wipe out the Druids. Whoever heard of a campaign to wipe out shamans? |
The Romans were trying to wipe out the British intellectual/spiritual elite, yes. I don't suppose it matters what we call them, it's a simple matter of taking out the will to resist in an organized fashion. Suetonius Paulinus was willing to risk the Boudiccan revolt to crush the Druids on Anglesey so yes, they must have been truly wise guys.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
You were making the opposite argument, Duncan. That shamanic societies develop into priestly ones. I thought.
| The Romans were trying to wipe out the British intellectual/spiritual elite, yes. I don't suppose it matters what we call them, it's a simple matter of taking out the will to resist in an organized fashion. Suetonius Paulinus was willing to risk the Boudiccan revolt to crush the Druids on Anglesey so yes, they must have been truly wise guys. |
You must stop this habit of saying the most obvious ie orthodox thing that pops into your head. The whole basis of Roman statecraft is that you didn't wipe out the other chap's intellectual/spiritual elite. You knocked off his army and then co-opted his intellectual/spiritual elite. But actually it appears it wasn't the Britons' intellectual/spiritual elite the Romans were worried about, but that the Druids were the Gauls' intellectual/spiritual elite.
And as you say, the Romans appeared to regard killing a few long-haired blokes in a remote islet to be rather more pressing than keeping Britain. Makes you think. Should do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
