Do we want real history or lucid dreams?
Posted by Jay Kinney at 18:44, 05 Jun 2010Ever since the publication of Pauwels and Bergier’s Morning of the Magicians in the ’60s, there has been an ever-growing fascination with opposing accepted history with the much more interesting possibilities of speculative “alternative history” (which I’ll abbreviate as “alt.history” in honor of the now fading Usenet newsgroups with the “alt.” designation).
Of course, Pauwels and Bergier were hardly the originators of this approach. Madame Blavatsky’s Isis Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine proposed an esoteric understanding of history that alluded to whole other layers of actors and forces at work behind the scenes. Karl Marx’s historical materialism proposed to toss previous historical interpretations into the “dustbins of history,” while various antiquarians of the 18th and early 19th centuries, such as Dupuis and Higgins, accumulated evidence in favor of their alternative theories of religious and cultural origins.
But it is only in the past forty years or so that this fascination with overturning conventional history has grown from a niche preoccupation into a facet of mainstream pop culture. The popularity of the Daily Grail itself owes much to this enthusiasm, and I assume that if you are reading this you probably enjoy a good dose of alternative thinking yourself.
That’s perfectly fine with me. Consensus Reality is not all it’s cracked up to be and I’ve long been an advocate of following the truth wherever it leads.
What gives me pause, however, are the results when we mistake speculative theories for proven facts and then build upon those theories with further speculative theories also mistaken for facts. All too soon it is possible to find oneself in a dogmatic belief system where we’re convinced that we’ve uncovered the “real history” and any other version of history is, ipso facto, bunk.
I am not a professional historian - and let me be clear about that - but in some forty years of reading and studying history (accepted history, alternative history, esoteric history, and otherwise), I’ve come to appreciate the wisdom of the conservative approach to history that most historians take. (By “conservative” I don’t mean the politically ideological stance commonly associated with that term these days, but rather a cautious approach to what one accepts as a “proven fact.”)
Professional journalists are taught to seek out at least two separate and credible sources for any purported fact before giving it the time of day. We, as readers - and even more importantly as researchers - should be just as rigorous and selective, and possibly even more so.
This was the approach that we upheld at Gnosis Magazine during the 15 years of its existence (1985-1999). We were dealing with esoteric spiritual traditions as our focus, but that didn’t mean that we had to accept every outlandish claim that clothed itself in esoteric garb. Sure, anything might be possible, but that was not the same as accepting that anything was probable. Common sense and Occam’s Razor were our two steady guides and a preference for reputable published sources for citations was our editorial policy.
More recently, I’ve spent the last decade delving into the history of Freemasonry, (see my book The Masonic Myth), and if there was ever a field burdened with alt.history speculations upon speculations, Masonic history is it.
The fraternal brotherhood’s penchant for secrecy, (which once served as a safeguard against reactionary forces and facile misinterpretations), has guaranteed that it is quite difficult for “outsiders” to get a handle on what Masonry is truly about. By the same token, scant historical sources and the propagation of romantic myths within the fraternity itself have guaranteed that many Masons’ beliefs about their own history are dubious at best.
Into this void have leapt the alt.historians (many of them Masons themselves) with their dramatic speculations, with the result that recent decades have blessed us with far too many half-baked books about the Freemasons, the Knights Templar, Rosslyn Chapel, and all points in between. When you have an essentially blank canvas, it is possible to paint nearly anything upon it.
I can well understand the pleasure and rewards that alt.history provides. Authors’ books sell better if they provide intriguing and suggestive “discoveries” and readers have the thrill of gaining access to the “inside story.” I can still recall the excitement generated by Trevor Ravenscroft’s The Spear of Destiny, which purported to reveal an occult connection between the Spear of Longinus and the rise of Hitler. What wasn’t revealed at the time, however, was that much of the book’s historical account drew upon the clairvoyance of Walter Stein, a follower of Rudolf Steiner.
Call me old fashioned, but clairvoyance (or channeling) has never topped my list of reliable methods of historical research. It is at best a kind of self-generated hearsay - at worst an invitation to a delusional subjectivity puffed up with the authority of the Unconscious.
I remain a firm believer in the capacity of intuition to incisively grasp a situation or size-up a new acquaintance, but that is a far cry from putting one’s intuition in over-drive and “discovering” facts of history. (Yes, I’ve had my share of flashes about this or that historical episode, but I try mightily to distinguish those hunches from proven facts.)
Admittedly, most alt.history doesn’t derive from clairvoyance, but too often it might as well. Many alt.historians will have a numinous hunch (“Rosslyn Chapel is encoded with Templar symbols!”) and pursue whatever clues may bolster that hunch. Thread together enough such clues and you’ve got a saleable book proposal. It’s a respectable living, but its actual relationship to accurate history is questionable.
Most alt.history books, while nominally non-fiction, actually compose a sub-genre of fiction that we might call reality-generating fantasy. By purporting to be factual, they gain the prestige of truth, but what is really at work is the creative imagination. Readers get to savor fantasy as if it were actual reality, a process that renders history into a kind of lucid dream.
But in case you are one of those who resist falling for that dodge - who wish to discover reality for what it really is (Bad News and all) - I encourage you to keep your skepticism just as sharp regarding alt.history as regarding orthodox history. My hunch, clairvoyant or not, is that actual history falls somewhere in between.
Bookmark/Search this post with
- Jay Kinney's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
1 May 2004
12 hours 9 min
I have had this reaction on more than one occasion after viewing the "finds" of some alternative researchers. Similar reactions can be obtained while perusing written material on many esoteric theories.
There are a multiplicity of reasons that people seek out alternative history, including quite a few irrational motives. However, personally, I have detected distinct strains of intellectual bias in several fields among the orthodoxy. They have settled on a story or theory and seem unable or unwilling to re-examine their assumptions. Sometimes to get at the underlying truth it takes an unconventional approach and a willingness to get your hands dirty investigating.
The balance truly seems difficult to find these days. More people than ever appear ready to embrace delusion with open arms while insane theories proliferate. We could certainly use more of those professional journalists that you speak of in your post. Too often, sensationalism, laziness and ulterior motive permeate the press of today. I think here at TDG that you will find a reasonable level of skepticism in combination with an attitude of exploration.
Do I believe some things that you might perceive as crazy? Oh, I'm sure that I do. I can still tell the difference between what I believe and what I can prove, though. As long as I know a rock when I see one, I figure I'm safe.
12 April 2007
5 hours 14 min
This post is rather sobering in its cautious counsel. Any more suggestions you wish to give to those of us who have had traveled less than you? (even though many often fall into the folly of disregarding tradition, out of a fool-hardy rebel stance)
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
7 May 2010
1 year 34 weeks
I appreciate the reasoned tone of everyone commenting on my post so far. Indeed, let us reason together.
Regarding any more suggestions I might have to give, stay tuned for further blog postings. I've generally found that deep immersion in a subject area or subculture ultimately brings one into contact with the underside of that niche. Idealized images fall or shatter and reality begins to dawn.
Thus, gnosis and agnosis always walk hand in hand.
22 November 2004
1 week 5 days
I enjoy alternate history as done by some science fiction and fantasy authors. Usually this involves moving a well known character to a different time period, or other time travel, or arrivals of aliens at some interesting (and therefore well studied) period of history.
They can be very entertaining, but of course they are advertised as fiction. Usually they end up being character studies of the well known personae, putting the age in perspective of our times. Quite enjoyable when its done right.
What also typically happens with these is that we get a history lesson from the author, presenting his/her point of view, in the guise of entertainment.
----
We are the cat.
2 May 2004
34 sec
I've always found it's the questions some alt-historians ask that are more important than their theories/answers. Particularly concerning Graham Hancock & Robert Bauval -- if it weren't for Bauval, Rudolf Gantenbrink, et al, Zahi Hawass wouldn't be exploring the shafts of the Khufu's Pyramid... oh wait, he isn't exploring them at all. Damn, so much for that example! ;-)
Orthodox experts ridiculed Charles Hapgood for daring to suggest ancient civilisations sailed the world; despite evidence prehistoric people were quite capable of seafaring.
It's this stick-in-the-mud attitude of orthodox experts that makes some alt-historians appealing to me. Most orthodox experts think they have all the answers so there's no point looking; and that's not the spirit of scientific enquiry at all.
Yes, there's a lot of alt-history rubbish, but on the other side of the coin, there's a lot of bullsh*t from the orthodox status quo too. For example, how the experts ignored the pyramid shafts because, in their words, "they're just air shafts", is beyond me.
As Harvard psychiatrist Dr Roger Pitman pointed out, "If we're not open to the possibility that things we regard as preposterous might be true, then we're going to miss the discoveries."
Although I get the feeling that Zahi won't be missing any discoveries in the pyramid shafts. ;-)
~ * ~
@levitatingcat
12 April 2007
5 hours 14 min
Scientific inquiry seems to be rather against Academic tenure. Big paradox there.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
25 November 2004
3 weeks 3 days
Jay, I was just reading the introductory chapter of Jeffrey Kripal's Authors of the Impossible in which he mentions Ioan Couliano's historical method of 'morphodynamics' - an essentially Jungian idea of archetypal forms existing outside of space-time which interact with history in meaningful ways (hence the 'acausality' of synchronicity). Couliano also drew upon Edwin Abbot's Flatland analogy, in which a 2-dimensional world is pierced by 3-dimensional objects causing events perceived as 'miraculous' by the 2-D observer, to explain this.
The perception of 'ahistorical' connections is a kind of apophenia, which the sceptic might define as 'seeing connections that do not exist', but others might define as 'seeing connections that others don't' or 'seeing connections that didn't previously exist (making connections)'.
At the very least, this shows that our interpretation of the past has an influence on the present/future comparable to the direct influence of the past itself. At most, it suggests a mechanism by which processes outside of history itself (archetypal forces) might have a bearing upon past, present and future alike.
I think there is some value to this idea (to the extent that it helps to explain some personal experiences which form the basis of a book I am in the process of writing), and I suggest that alt.history is very much a part of this 'mythmaking' process.
I don't believe in belief!
Perceval
@grailseeker
7 May 2010
1 year 34 weeks
I wasn't aware of Kripal's book, though it sounds very interesting. I've long been a fan of Fort and Vallee, who Kripal apparently discusses.
I guess I'd distinguish between the alt.history authors of the sort I was referring to in my post and authors like Fort, Vallee, Robert Anton Wilson (especially in Cosmic Trigger), and John Keel. The latter, to my mind, wear their speculations on their sleeves and don't posture as crypto-historians. They are more like voyagers into the inexplicable.
Your point is well taken that there may be 3D forces or objects affecting our 2D reality, so to speak. And certainly there is no single objective history, but an amalgam of histories, some more subjective than others.
What bothers me are speculations that start out as "maybe" or "perhaps" or "this suggests" and then rapidly evolve into "given facts" that other alt.history writers take up and use as the foundations for their own toothpick structures.
12 April 2007
5 hours 14 min
That is a clear display of intellectual laziness. the kind often encountered among skeptics like the BAD-AStronomer, who can easily dismiss Kenneth Arnold's sighting as 'reflections', only because one of his skeptic mentors came up with that explanation, and it suits to his particular belief system.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
25 November 2004
3 weeks 3 days
Perhaps the problem arises when people mistake the 'symbolic' connections they make for literal historic connections, and archetypal dynamics are taken for human conspiracies.
I don't believe in belief!
Perceval
@grailseeker
7 August 2004
24 weeks 5 days
First let me make a very important distinction here. There is no "true account of history", there is only commentary. Even if you were there, during the event, you do not have a "true account of the event" or even a "close approximation of the reality of the event". You only have your personal interpretation of your experience of that event.
The question should be, "what do we hope to get out of historical commentary?" My answer is simple: personal revelation. Of course, "personal revelation" is what I hope to get out of all experiences in life, so it is not surprising that the history section is no different for me.
What is the fear of accepting a commentary on certain historical accounts from a clairvoyant rather than an academic? Are you afraid of "getting something wrong"? Are you afraid of "not getting the entire truth"? Are you afraid of going down Alice's rabbit hole instead of "getting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"? The underlying theme there is "fear".
It is this mainstream pop culture that sets the bar for what is accepted and what is not. Do not believe otherwise. I've been on college campuses and served my undergrad time. I know how it works. The pop culture junkies read what the academics wrote, disagree with them, get their own degrees, and re-write the text books which are read by the new pop culture junkies who get their own college degrees and write new textbooks...ad infinitum.
First let me emphasize not only passionately but emphatically, there is no solid unchangeable historical "truth" to be known. Ask a dozen witnesses at a crime scene about what happened and regardless of how similar some may sound, you will get a dozen different responses. Similarity does NOT equal truth. What if 9 of the twelve witnesses were Mormon? What if the crime was a domestic dispute and 10 of the twelve witnesses were previously battered wives? Regardless of how many "verifiable" sources one may be able to produce, as Heisenberg so profoundly noticed, "you" are always going to influence the outcomes of your endeavors and theories.
*interlude*
...and speaking of Robert Anton Wilson(he was mentioned in this thread), he once did an experiment in which before each conference he spoke for, he would ask the audience to describe the hall out side of the lecture hall. If he had 100 participants, he would invariably have 100 different descriptions. Nobody EVER sees exactly the same thing as another.
*end interlude*
Academics are hell bent on getting to the "truth" of something, or being able to discern the "reality" of a specific historical event. The only "real" reality is the one of being there experiencing the event, and such a reality would be solipsistically only YOUR reality. If the event has already happened, even if you have a digitally remastered video and audio recording of the actual event from five different perspectives with 20 acoustically tuned boom mikes, you will never...and I repeat, NEVER...have a full understanding of the entire event.
History books only recount one particular version of an event based on a few witnesses who were either there or were once or twice removed from someone who was there to recount it and were somehow important to the paradigm of the writer of the particular historical commentary being recounted.
The only reason to accept one version over any other is whether it contributes to you-the-reader's over all understanding of yourself in this universe. Just because some academic boffin waved the wand of approval over one particular version of history stating that, "this version is verifiable from more than three sources" does not mean in any way that the particular version in question is more valid than any other. The only version that matters is the one that fits into YOUR(for me the one that fits into my) paradigm.
You said to "call you old fashioned", so, "Dude, you're old fashioned". If a particular commentary seems crazy by the norms and standards of the day, then so be it. It will either be forgotten through time, or picked up later and used. It is EXACTLY this self-generated hearsay and "delusional" subjectivity puffed up with the authority of the Unconscious, that is needed to add life to the current historical paradigm. It worked just fine for Copernicus, Galileo, Dee, Tesla, Einstein, and on and on and on. If one version is "wrong", then show us why YOURS is better. If you can not do so reasonably for me, then why should I buy your accepted version over mine?
I disagree whole heartedly that historical accounts which are based on wild speculation and intuitive imaginings are any less important than historical accounts of an academic nature, since in my opinion they are the same...intuitive imaginings of a past event.
It is truly a shame that you had your share of flashes about this or that historical episode, but tried mightily to distinguish those hunches from proven facts. It is in exactly those hunches(see Dr. Seuss Hunches in Bunches) where we can find true genius. You should "distinguish" them from "proven fact" in order to find a more valuable understanding for YOU, not to say that they are somehow less-than-worthy because they differ from the currently accepted norm.
If it doesn't fit your paradigm, then don't accept it, but JUST BECAUSE it doesn't fit your paradigm with your personally accepted way of retrieval and verification, doesn't mean it is any more wrong than your own accepted version regardless of your reasons for rejecting it.
History has become a boring, dry, bullet point recollection of general themes and circumstantial accounts. It will remain so unless we collectively use our imagination, intuition, knowledge-of-events, and gut speculations to infuse those events with life. Why is it so frightening for you to compare the reality of history with the reality of a lucid dream? Are we all not participants in the grand drama of life? Are we not all to be held accountable for interpreting the past in a way that benefits our future?
History is written and re-written by those who make the strongest and most interesting case, NOT by those who "actually know what really happened"...hmmm, profound that, you can quote me if you like.
Dustin
12 April 2007
5 hours 14 min
I have pondered many a time on whether Truth (with capital letters) can be attained by the intellect of Man. It's a discussion that could take us an entire lifetime to reflect upon.
And yet, I disagree that this should be the way in which we should approach History. True, men are biased and subjective; but the way in which we should measure the validity of an historic record is if said account managed to cover all of the known facts available. Facts matter.
An Archaeologist is not seeking historic 'truth'. Rather, he is seeking to throw light on historic facts —concrete things supported by evidence: a piece of pottery, a skull, a temple. With that the archaeologist might be able to make a legitimate guess of what ancient people did or didn't do.
Things get a lot tougher when the same archaeologists try to discern the motives of the ancients: what drove them to do what they did? in this I agree that they may formulate educated guesses, but nothing more. In the end, all men can only be fairly judged by our actions, *not* our intentions, which are more inscrutable.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
7 August 2004
24 weeks 5 days
...but intentions and motives, my friend, are so much more important than the actions, just ask Kant...yes, yes, Mill would disagree, but I'm not utilitarian in that respect. It matters GREATLY whether I kill a man because I want his wallet or because he threatened the life of my family...and it is in the interpretation of these intentions that history gains it's importance. Otherwise it is simply a check off list of actions and occurrences. If that is what "history" and historical accounts are meant to be, simply a grocery list of what happened, then I agree. BUT, if history and historical recollections are there(and here) for us to use to improve ourselves as a species, to right the wrongs of the past, to learn how to release ourselves from the cycle of war, hatred, and ignorance, then those wild speculations and intuitive assumptions MUST be included...if, in the very least, to argue and debate over...
12 April 2007
5 hours 14 min
Certainly, assumptions must be included. But, we should be always mindful that there are *only* that: assumptions.
For you yourself suggested out that History is too blunt of a tool to reach the Truth; perhaps because it lacks the sharpness to dissect the minds of men and probe into their very fears and dreams. An Archaeologist may be capable of measuring an ancient man's skull; but is he also capable of weighing that ancient's soul?
It's precisely because the Historian feels entitled to appoint himself as judge, that the chronicles and interpretations of past events are in constant flux. The events remain still! what changes is the opinion of the people looking into the events from their future vantage point.
We humans have a strong tendency to search for the ultimate cause of events. It's in our story-teller nature. But there's a subtle line between History (what can be substantiated by scientific evidence) & Myth (the philosophical appropriation of past events in order to support a given doctrine).
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
7 August 2004
24 weeks 5 days
In that we are in agreement, sir...the problem with historians and archaeologists is that they actually try to chronical and interpret their own findings. Most of the lab coats who unearth the historical minutia aren't equipped with the proper psychological, spiritual, or philosophic backgrounds to make viable guesses as to the "why's" and "how's" of their findings. So what we get is the dry scientific tale that dinosaurs were simply big stupid lizards, and the bronze age humans were simply unintelligent grunts, barely capable of intelligent thought, banging pieces of rock and metal together with the haphazard futility of a monkey.
Using historical accounts only as a reference to how far we have advanced technologically is only utilizing it for a very small part of it's overall value. What good is a piece of pottery, if we cannot intuit the relative uses and values it held in the mind and hearts of the people who used it in their day to day lives?
I have to say again, that it seems to me, the value of historical meanderings is not solely based on a physical grocery list of who, what, where, and when something happened, but rather it's value also lies in WHY and HOW it happened. Jay's fear that "...we mistake speculative theories for proven facts and then build upon those theories with further speculative theories also mistaken for facts..." is a separation of the myth from the archaeological artifacts, which I have been given no evidence to justify.
It just seems to me that speculations of the why's and how's are as important as the actual physical findings, the written records, and the hand-me-down accounts of academia. Maybe what I'm saying is that our current "department of History" is too small. We need to expand it to encompass more than just "observable, empirical, facts". Just like physics, it's value cannot be measured only by its numeric, empirical, evidential, grocery list of ingredients and occurrences. It's value lies in how we can make use of it, how we integrate it into our personal lives, and how it shapes our view of the universe we live in. We need the "diggers" to unearth and catalog their findings, but we also need the "thinkers" to explain what the diggers find.
In that, I love the alt historians, they seem to be just as interested in getting at the why's and how's, as they are the who's, what's, where's and when's. When the who's, what's, where's, and when's, don't coincide with academically accepted how's and why's, they use their imaginations to fill in their own blanks. This, in my opinion, gives history it's value. We can now debate what the shards were used for, where they got the ideas to build them, and why they had them in the first place.
You said, "We humans have a strong tendency to search for the ultimate cause of events. It's in our story-teller nature. But there's a subtle line between History (what can be substantiated by scientific evidence) & Myth (the philosophical appropriation of past events in order to support a given doctrine)." Please take no offense, but I think this smells of bollocks, sir. First of all, the "given doctrine" that is being supported by mainstream historians is that there is nothing more to the story that meets the eye. What good is this historical grocery list, unless we can use it somehow to better ourselves? Are the artifacts of history only meant to be looked at through a hermetically sealed glass box called, "history 101", or are they left behind for us as pieces of a puzzle which we can use to get a better understanding of the bigger picture of "life, the universe, and everything" according to our own ongoing writing of the human myth we call "life"?
12 April 2007
5 hours 14 min
The justification lies in the inherent danger of mistaking myth for fact.
Grailers won't ever find in me an enemy of speculation :). I have no problem with thinkers concocting theories based on what diggers find; PROVIDED they do not fall in the folly of weeding out the uncomfortable pieces that don't agree with their masterful big scheme of things.
None taken ;)
The danger, like I wrote above, lies in trying to modify our behavior based on mythical accounts. That's not only dishonest, but can lead to great injustices.
Isn't it true that Hitler's great plan for his Third Reich was justified and sustained by pseudo-scientific delusions regarding the legendary past of the Aryan race? If myths are as good as facts for shaping our society --lest we repeat the mistakes of the past-- why not then replace history AND myths for works of pure fiction, say Tolkien's Trilogy of the Ring, for example?
Another interesting example was serendipitously given by Kat yesterday, with the mythification of Hypatia's death, and the destruction of the library of Alexandria. That event could be used by some to exemplify the intolerance of Christianity, and widen the gap between religion and science... but what if it's not based on reliable evidence? what of the moral judgments that were derived from it?
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
7 May 2010
1 year 34 weeks
The question should be, "what do we hope to get out of historical commentary?" My answer is simple: personal revelation. Of course, "personal revelation" is what I hope to get out of all experiences in life, so it is not surprising that the history section is no different for me.
I'm all for personal revelations. That's been my definition of so-called "gnosis" for the last 30+ years. But along with that I also contend that every individual's gnosis or personal revelation is mainly relevant to them alone.
Historians, by definition, strive for an evidence-based narrative that can sustain itself above and beyond individual personal revelations. This has a value for a society as a whole. Thus and such happened in this year, according to the accumulated evidence. Fine. We can work with this on a society-wide basis. If all history is reduced to individual/singular interpretations then subjectivity triumphs. I have a great respect for subjectivity, but I don't wish to entirely wipe out the possibility that there are some historical facts that can be agreed upon.
What is the fear of accepting a commentary on certain historical accounts from a clairvoyant rather than an academic? Are you afraid of "getting something wrong"? Are you afraid of "not getting the entire truth"? Are you afraid of going down Alice's rabbit hole instead of "getting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"? The underlying theme there is "fear".
As much as I appreciate the effectiveness of projecting "fear" as a motive onto one's rhetorical targets, I'd appreciate it if you would not attribute my perspectives to my supposed "fear".
Why should I prefer a historical account from a qualified scholarly historian over that of a "historical" account from someone whose account of events solely materializes in their mind? Cliches like "common sense" come to mind, but probably that is a questionable concept as well?
7 August 2004
24 weeks 5 days
Okay, so my rant went a tad overboard, it was past midnight after all...
Mr. Kinney, first I want to apologize, I did not mean to upset you with my comment. So for what it's worth, I'm sorry for that. Second, if your idea of "common sense" leads you to trust "historians" who say that the great pyramid was built as a tomb, there was only one gunman who shot Kennedy, there was no UFO at area 51, Adolf Hitler was not using occult techniques, and the protocols of the wise men of zion is a fake, then so be it, but my idea of common sense does not.
I'm only trying to say that the academians and "scholarly historians" are simply putting lip service to an already botched version of historical commentary, and it is high time we start re-writing the histories with less BS and more truth. Open up a history book and look at the footnotes and annotations, do you know what you will find? More hisorians who were educated at the same schools perpetuating the same tired old versions of history.
I don't completely distrust the educational systems today. The physical sciences are doing just fine(actually they need more scientists personally familiar with LSD, DMT, and ayahuasca, but we're getting closer), and the fine arts are bustling with creativity, but somebody needs to wage a holy jihad on the history departments.
What makes more sense, sir? That ancient Egyptians made up the gods and created stories of their exploits as some kind of on-going unconscious-driven sit-com for the masses, or that the gods really existed in the flesh, had technologies superior to the Egyptian layman, and the ancients simply recorded what they saw with their own eyes? To me it is obvious. What more evidence do you need? I've got a cliche too..the writing is actually on the wall in this case.
It seems to me that we will either need MORE clairvoyants to help us see through the bureaucratically indoctrinated bollocks that one finds in most scholarly versions of historical commentary or historians with much more open and modern minds. Three cheers for Zechariah Sitchen!
I am not trying to suggest we believe every so-called clairvoyant who shouts that they've had a revelation, but I AM saying that we need to take these accounts seriously, re-think what we thought we knew, and "modernize history" for the new millennium using new sources and new models.
21 January 2005
14 hours 35 min
Simply want to say how much I enjoyed this piece, Jay---and it's a delight to be reading your work again. Although I'm a bit surprised that the name of Heinrich Schliemann hasn't come up even once here (not that I've seen, anyway), considering how apropos it is to any discussion of dreams and history! Something to ponder...
BTW--If people aren't aware of Jay's former magazine Gnosis, they should definitely check it out--it was a great publication on esoteric topics which any student of this field should be familiar with.
-Ray
p.s. I remember fondly when you came to Wheaton and had lunch with Bill Metzger and I so many years ago--though as you may or may not know, Bill passed away last year, at too young an age. (Those were certainly the Halcyon days of alternative periodicals, were they not?)
p.p.s. As synchronicity would have it, I was in touch with Richard Smoley just this morning. A very small world.
30 April 2004
1 hour 7 min
This is a wonderful blog post - welcome Jay, and thanks for such a thoughtful first entry! And I encourage all readers interested in Freemasonry, esoteric traditions or similar to get a copy of The Masonic Myth - it's a great addition to my bookshelf.
I'm sorry I can't discuss the topics in more depth, being a bit short on time lately. The one thing I did want to go into though is how, over time, I'm becoming more interested in the *effects* of history, whether true or invented, and how it can be used for both good and evil. Perhaps a later time!
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
@DailyGrail
23 October 2006
7 weeks 3 days
I have always thought that history is more than the stories we tell about ourselves, and has other uses.
There is growing awareness of a previously unrecognized historical force, impact from space.
"Bad news and all" Impact events are bad news itself - random with lots of dead people. Just as the awareness of impact events has shifted the geological paradigm, it will shift the historical paradigm.
The only question is whether it will take another impact to do it. In the opinion of many who have worked in the field, that is the case. I myself can not accept their conclusion.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
23 October 2009
16 weeks 3 days
People in general don't want real history. A few "nut cases" that hang out at TDG want to dig a little deeper into mysteries, but that's about the extent of it.
People resist analyzing themselves and the societies they live in. There exists huge blind spots on an individual and collective basis. Science is supposed to overcome those impediments, but unfortunately scientists are people too. And scientists, above all people, have to conform to professional standards (written and unwritten) regarding what is acceptable and unacceptable research. Truth is for the most part off-limits! And does it really matter. Probably not. The ultimate goal seems to be acheiving a comfortable delusion (a.k.a. "stable existence") rather than being constantly troubled by uncomfortable truths.
I'm still one of those nut cases that think truth matters, but the truth deny-ers are winning me over (or at least wearing me down). Ignorance is bliss, they say!
21 January 2005
14 hours 35 min
I'm largely in agreement with you, but I also know we can't be *too* fixed in our viewpoints about such things, since every once in a while a Heinrich Schliemann will come along with his crazy "dreams" of history and turn out to be onto something big. (Not too often, though!)
12 April 2007
5 hours 14 min
IMHO Schliemann is both an exemplary & cautionary tale for any student of alternative history.
Exemplary, of course, because he did manage to find Troy, by daring to follow the guidelines of the Iliad saga.
But also cautionary, because he didn't really find THE Troy he was looking for; that is, the Troy depicted by Homer. He was so fixated with the story, that in his mind everything he unearthed corresponded perfectly to the passages of the book —if he had found a prominent tomb, no doubt he would have concluded it to be that of Hector himself!
So, it's not my intention to take away the credit Schliemann so rightly deserves; but that doesn't mean we shouldn't exercise more caution before jumping to premature conclusions, and before we embark in re-writing all the books of ancient history —like so many would like to do... me included ;)
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
23 October 2009
16 weeks 3 days
Well put. Schliemann ended up doing at least as much harm as good.
We can now discern that Homer's characters were based on well known figures from Archaeology/Egyptology who had far-reaching influence in the ancient world. However, the Iliad doesn't give up its secrets through a literalist interpretation. The Iliad was a poetic representation of a larger struggle for kingly dominance that occurred in the Near East upon the death of Ramses the Great. The battle over Troy, a single city in a strategic location, stands symbolically for the quest for control over a vast empire (much like Constantinople would in the Byzantine Period). The technique used by Homer is related to the literary device we call synecdoche: referring to the whole by one of its parts.
There could have been a siege and battle at Schliemann's Troy or somewhere in the vacinity. That is NOT the point though. The drama of the Iliad describes something very different and much more significant. It deals with the deadly succession battle between royal claimants that unfolded over the entire Near East shortly after the death of Ramses the Great. The true Ilios ("city of the gods") in those days was Thebes in Egypt. Priam stands for the beleaguered Meremptah. Achilles was a theatrical rendition of the brilliant but crippled (possibly from Polio) prince Siptah. Paris was Seti II, and so forth. These persons had power that extended far beyond the borders of Egypt. They had Hebrew names, Greek names, Assyrian names, Babylonian names, and many other regional and ethnic identities. They were part of an extended royal family that dominated the entire Near East.
The Iliad reflects the international nature of the ancient royal family. However, the powers-that-be in ancient studies do not recognize the true dynamics of ancient kingship. Nor are they particulary interested in knowing. They have a nice, neat compartmentalized view of the ancient world. Egyptologists study Egypt. Biblical archaeologists study Israel/Palestine. Assyriologists study Mesopotamia. Greek scholars study Greece. It's better than nothing, but it isn't ever going to provide insight into what really was going on in ancient times and how "La Familia" transcended national boundaries and language barriers. If we really want to know the truth, we are forced to enter the world of the esoteric, the world of indirection, the world of man's hidden nature (and natural instinct to hide things) - not necessarily the world of clairvoyance, but certainly the world of intuition.
But, again, very few really care to know how the world works (then or now). The majority prefer to "eat, drink, marry and give in marriage", right up until the day that the next catastrophe carries them away. Why worry about something you have no control over? Truth is for gods, delusions (and Deluges) are for earthlings.
22 November 2004
1 week 5 days
Are you not falling into the same trap as Schliemann?
You point out that Homer's tale probably is about something more general than a particular battle. Ok, let me go with that idea, it seems quite plausible. So the tale is about struggles for strategic concerns in general, and about the end of empires.
You are taking it differently - after saying that the tale is not about the specific battle for controlling the trade between the Agaean and the Black Sea, and not about the end of of specifically the empire of Troy, instead the tale is about different specific strategic concerns and a different specific empire.
That seems inconsistent. Of course Egypt was the major empire of the region for quite a long time. But it was not the only important empire. There were others before it, and along side it. And here I agree with your point that most scholars focus on too few of them.
There was a lot going on in Anatolia and along the Black Sea coasts at the time - otherwise there would have been no wars over Troy. Or more accurately, wars over the Hellespont and the Bospurus. These concerns and empires were significant, if not as important as Egypt. The Egyptians were bragging about their wars with them.
So it seems more likely that the Tojan war tale is about the Greeks' continuing strategic wars, and the fact that empires do fall.
----
We are the cat.
23 October 2009
16 weeks 3 days
Greek and Egyptian history was very much intertwined during the Egyptian New Kingdom. (Actually, it was always intertwined. The Greeks were teased for having no history of their own.) The so-called "Coming of the Sea Peoples" involved the mass immigration/invasion of Greeks across Anatolia, Palestine, and even into Egypt, starting in the reign of Merenptah and continuing through the reign of Ramses III. However, it is now clear that Greeks did not move spontaneously (due to drought or other factors), but were being directed by one faction/alliance in a greater succession battle that involved the entire Near East. The main rivals of Merenptah (and the later Ramses III) were trying to undermine his rule and establish dominance, not only in Egypt but over all regions claimed by the royal family as their traditional possessions. Greeks were pawns in that operation.
The royal family transcended national boundaries in those times, even as they did in more recent times in Europe. This is an example of ancient truth waiting to be "discovered", but it is not capable of being explored by Academia because of cultural taboos - and not because the theory lacks the potential to explain ancient history better than the current (universally accepted) theory.
Greece was never free from royal domination in ancient times, not even after repelling Persian forces. Even less so was the Israel of David and Solomon. The history of ancient Israel is merely a local rendition of Egyptian history. Ancient Israel was always a part of the Egyptian Empire, which at times spanned from the Nile to the Euphrates. There was never a kingdom/empire based in Israel that dominated that specific territory. It's a dead give-away to the real history of the region! However, we have a cultural mental block and are unable to recognize the "true situation". David and Solomon are based on historical kings, they just happen to have been Egyptian kings (who were in turn also members of the Near East ruling elite). Likewise, Greece had kings, but they were not "home grown". They were members of that single royal family of the Near East, and appointed ("elected") by the family Godfather. Democratic elections in Greece (and Rome for that matter) were a total farce. All candidates had to be pre-approved and came from a very narrow pool of candidates.
Schliemann fell into the trap of "finding exactly what he was looking for". I did not go looking for the structure of the ancient Matrix, but it found me! It's not easy researching The Matrix, now or then. There are huge psychological barriers to overcome. We learn from an early age not to challenge authority or even seek to understand it. We are taught that the only way is to "trust and obey". Academics should get a free pass to look at the world more objectively, but they choose not to exercise that freedom. It's up to the "lunatic fringe" to ask the hard questions and find real solutions. (And when they find answers nobody believes them, so was it really worth the effort? The Matrix always wins.)
22 November 2004
1 week 5 days
You are leaving out the Persians, the Hittites, other peoples in Anatolia, people forther east in Asia, further south in Aftrica, central Asian steppes tribes - none of which were dominated by the Egyptians.
There are other cultures, older than Egypt, in the surrounding areas.There were non-agricultural cultures earlier. People were crossing seas on purpose 50,000 years ago, when nobody even thought of Egypt.
I think your stance of "academics" is as narrow minded as those you accuse. Many academics explore new theories. Perhaps not in your area of expertise, and perhaps not with theories and conclusions that you agree with.
The impression I get, as an amateur in the field, of the Egyptians is that they were the most accomplished braggards in history at their time. Great marketing still today - people still believe their propaganda, just because it is written in stone :)
----
We are the cat.
23 October 2009
16 weeks 3 days
Earthling,
It isn't so much that the Egyptians did or didn't dominate this group or that group, but that a single royal family dominated all groups within the Near East. It's very much analogous to the situation in Europe in more modern times. Yet, somehow when people hear of such an idea it sounds totally ridiculous to them.
In recent centuries a single extended family ruled Russia, England, Germany, Austria, and so forth. Should we not at least suspect that this was a continuation of more ancient practices? The only difference is that in more ancient times it was easier to conceal the game the royal family was playing. They did not have to reveal to commoners that they were supplying all the rulers to all the major population groups from Greece to Persia and beyond. Even so, they usually didn't try very hard to hide the truth. (Hint: Atilla the Hun was really a contemporary aristocratic Roman named Attalus.) In fact, the argument could be made that ancient rulers actually wanted posterity to recognize their greatness in being "all things to all people". But, too bad, we just don't get it. We're just too stupid or too brainwashed to perceive it.
22 November 2004
1 week 5 days
Here Homer's tale comes in handy again. We are talking about a seriously long time here, upwards of 2000 years. It is hard to believe that one family continuously dominates over that amount of time. The connected royal families in Europe went on for maybe 200 years or so, of dominance by one of them.
It is true that whoever ruled at any given time presented themselves as all-powerful, as descendants (not representatives) or the gods, as gods themselves. Some people who read their propaganda believe that today. I see them spreading the same type of bullshit as every propaganda and marketing campaign. They lied about their age, about their fathers and their mothers, their accomplishments, their history. Their lied about who their brothers and sisters were. They were ordinary mortal humans like you and me. They were very popular with their people, typically because they employed large numbers of armed henchmen.
My original point remains - your theory substitutes one myopic, self centered account (that of the Greeks) by another, that of the Egyptians. And that is after you criticize, in my view correctly, the Greek-centeredness of classical education. I am saying there were many groups that had influence, some more some less, and many sources of knowledge. The Egyptians didn't invent writing or agriculture. They were lousy seamen, other cultures easily surpassed them in this.
Again, I think it is correct to criticise traditional classical education and history telling to be too centered on Roman and Greek origins. But we cannot just substitute another culture for that, we are missing just as many sources of history if we do that.
Look at Chinese traditional views of history. They seem to consider nothing outside of China as relevant. That is the same mistake as focusing on Greeks too much, or on Egyptians.
Why is it so hard to believe that the world is not controlled by just one group, and never has been?
In fact, the argument could be made that ancient rulers actually wanted posterity to recognize their greatness in being "all things to all people".
Yes that is what I am saying, they wanted people to believe that. It is propaganda, a pack of lies. They were not great, they were ordinary people. Some really smart, some really stupid. Ordinary human beings.
----
We are the cat.
28 June 2006
4 min 4 sec
I think that lucid dreams are dangerous when people can't distinguish between them and reality. We need to be able to make very clear distinctions in our minds between what we know, our working hypothises, and what don't know.
What do you think?
cnnek
{You Can Teach People How To Think Critically Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think Critically!!!}
7 May 2010
1 year 34 weeks
I think that lucid dreams are dangerous when people can't distinguish between them and reality. We need to be able to make very clear distinctions in our minds between what we know, our working hypoth(e)ses, and what (we) don't know.
This is a fairly concise re-stating of the point I was originally making and I thank you for that cnnek.
I do hear and can appreciate the criticisms above directed at conventional or mainstream academic historians and archeologists. They don't always get things right and there are often gaping holes in accepted history at any given moment.
Nevertheless, I too often see alt theories cobbled together from a bright idea here, a single source there, an assumption of motives here, a novel interpretation of a literary passage there, and so on. This process can be fun and can even present a serious challenge to conventional assumptions and history, but most of the time I don't think that these alt theories really get us to The Truth. They just represent alternative narratives that may be as partially true and false as conventional narratives. (And far too often they are developed by people who are not up to speed on current historical research.)
I view all narratives and explanations as contingent, whether orthodox or alt. That means living with a whole lot of uncertainty, ambiguity, and an acknowledgment of insufficient knowledge to be able to make a final judgment in a black & white fashion.
YMMV, obviously, but I think that I'll put my attention towards composing my next post rather than hassling out the fine points of disagreement I may have with some folks here (or they may have with me). But I do appreciate the general intelligence displayed by commenting members here.
23 October 2009
16 weeks 3 days
Jay and Conservative Friends of Radical Ideas,
It can be a disaster to fixate on a pet personality from history or some other narrow aspect and then willy-nilly develop a grand theory. And, yes, we have seen this kind of thing before, time and time again! However, the "Eureka Moment" is often how new theories originate. A good example is Ahmed Osman's epiphany that 18th Dynasty Prime Minister Yuya must somehow be related to the Biblical Joseph. It turned out to be quite true, but in ways that could never have been imagined. The solution was both simpler and more complex than one would think. The Biblical pattern of "Jacob and his 12 sons" was actually derived from an original Egyptian model. Re was archetypal "troubled Jacob" and his "12 sons" were the other leading members of the Egyptian pantheon:
1) Geb/"Eldest Son" (Reuben); 2) Thoth/"Know-It-All" (Simeon); 3) Set/"Rehabilitated Hit Man" (Levi/Seth); 4) Horus the Elder/"Warrior" (Judah); 5) Osiris/Sokar/"Sacrificed" (Issachar); 6) Isis/Yzebel (Zebulun); 7) On/Anu (Gad); 8) Shu (Asher); 9) Atum/Tem (Dan) 10) Hathor (Naphtali); 11) Ptah (Joseph); 12) Horus the Younger (Benjamin).
These 13 gods and goddesses are further mapped to the pantheons of other regions.
So, Biblical history started emerging as a sanitized version of Egyptian history and also one that borrowed heavily from Egyptian and other Near Eastern mythologies. Suddenly, we knew a lot more about the ancient world than ever thought possible. We had just overlooked and mis-interpreted the single greatest source of knowledge about the ancient world - the Bible! The process of proving that did in fact go from the specific to the more general, but was validated nonetheless (after analyzing every successive generation of ancient royalty from Adam to Zedekiah and from Pharaoh Chephron to Prince Charles). I can't get into all the details here of course, but do bring it up as an example of the controversial nature of alternative history research.
I didn't intend to imply that Biblical/historical figures from the ancient world were any greater than modern "heroes", but we do have the ability now to better understand their multi-cultural context. I'm also not saying that kingship is the best form of government, but we need to better understand how it operated, how pervasive it became, and how it was able to persist for so long. People today just cannot appreciate how powerful mafia-style networks can grow, or how difficult it is to get rid of them once they have been fully institutionalized. It's hard enough to bust them up even when they are declared/legislated as illegal!
I would like to think that the ancient world was too big and people too primitive for a single extended family to effectively "rule the world". (Hint: If Attila the Hun was a true outsider to Rome/Byzantium, he would have been called "The Scourge of the Devil" and not "The Scourge of God". God is always on OUR side, not THEIR side.) Unfortunately, the more you dig, the more evidence there is to support the conclusion that the few dominated the many. An enormous monolithic temple-city complex dating from 9,000 BC is now being excavated in Turkey at a location called Göbekli Tepe. This site reflects a high degree of social organization and a form of technology. Kingship and the priesthood (possessing a "practical magic") were already firmly established by that date!
Alternative history is not purely an Academic matter. Collusion/corruption is once again the scourge of our planet. How do we maintain a fair playing field for all people and still live in harmony with the natural world? The balance has not been achieved lately in the Gulf of Mexico! As oppressive as kingship was to ordinary people, it did at least provide some protection to the environment against the ravages of human over-population and pollution. Kingship resulted in a largely static (anti-growth/anti-development) society other than devising new weapons to win succession battles. "Innovation" was a bad word in ancient times. The mandate of kings was not to pursue progress, but simply to "occupy" until the return of the gods. They believed that "kingship was lowered from heaven", or at least wanted their subjects/slaves to believe that.
And what are we supposed to believe today? Is mankind's reach for the heavens doomed to failure? Are we nothing more than an "escaped lab experiment"? Is this planet really the property of a more advanced race, or even worse, a place contested by multiple space-faring beings? Is our solar system just too unstable for intelligent life to exist permanently on Earth? Is all our striving in vain? I've spent my entire life pursuing science and technology, as well as historical studies. I don't want to learn that it was all just a waste of my life, but maybe it's time to face "the truth".
12 April 2007
5 hours 14 min
IMHO to rely too heavily on the veracity of biblical accounts, would be as dangerous as trying to dismiss everything that's related on its passages as pure fantasy.
I do not agree with this. The city-states ruled by Maya emperors were doomed to decline because they over-exploited the resources of the jungle lands near them. They eroded the land and suffered heavily after climate-induced droughts caused water shortages.
Other examples can be found in Europe, too. Spain over-exploited their trees due to an expansion in maritime trade. Portugal practically finished with all the wood to be found in the island of Madeira (which ironically means Wood in Portuguese).
The only reason why kings do not pursue expansion of their kingdoms, it's because they have to face powerful opponents looking to do exactly the same. Maybe that impasses is what we might see now as 'stability'? In that case, I don't understand why the UN doesn't permit every member nation to have a stockpile of nuclear weapons ;)
I don't know. I just find hard to buy this "united royal family" theory, because you then would assume there would have been less violent conflicts between these civilizations. Yes it was common to seal temporal alliances by bonding bloodlines with arranged marriages. But these alliances were, like I said, painfully temporary. And the princesses had to convert to the culture and religion of their new kingdom.
There are equal dangers in trying to devise a holistic view of history, with the incomplete data we currently have, than keeping the isolated/atomized view of history favored by specialists who can't bother themselves with researching things outside their own tiny field.
We have to keep remembering: What we know of the past is marginal. We only know the names of the people rich or important enough to afford having their names engraved in stone for posterity.
Could there be other ways to retrieve historic information, I ask? Obviously, to people like us the possibility of psychic methods comes first to mind. But IMHO we still have much to learn about the solidity of those methods, and how we might be able to 'filter out' the subjective psychological bias of the mediums employed to channel the info. It would be akin to sending a 4-year-old child to cover an IMF summit!
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
23 October 2009
16 weeks 3 days
RPJ:
I have to concede that it is a stretch to find any redeeming qualities in kingship. In theory the concept should have worked indefinitely. However, human nature and mother nature conspired against it. With every major cataclysm knowledge was lost. With every generation harmful recessive traits became dominant due to extreme inbreeding. Kings also would tend to favor sons over more competent relatives. Succession disputes between family members ultimately escalated into World Wars. Yes, the greed and pride of only a handful of people can plunge the entire world into war. And those who think that is impossible only guarantee it will happen again!
This isn't the place to defend a theory of ancient world-wide kingship. Anyway, I've pretty much concluded it doesn't matter if those who don't understand history are destined to repeat it. The future is either in the hands of legal aliens or will progress organically (sub-optimally) without intervention from the stars. On our own, we aren't capable of even agreeing on what happened in the past, much less how to go forward. Our race better be lucky, because it sure ain't good!
Ichabod Pope
12 April 2007
5 hours 14 min
I wasn't aware these aliens had proper papers to visit this planet. Do they have a gray card or something? ;)
Once I used to fantasize over the idea of superior beings coming down here to help us with our problems. As I grow older I become ever more disenchanted with this proposition.
No. I don't want higher beings coming down here to treat us all like evolutionary drawbacks in desperate need of herding towards the light. I think there's great danger in such ideas, because it subliminally promotes a totalitarian regime where the destiny of the masses will be controlled by a few enlightened ones; leaders who once again will claim to receive their command from on high —NO thank you!
As individualist iconoclasts, I think most here at TDG will share the sentiment :)
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 November 2004
1 week 5 days
Indeed the royal types have done enough damage. The enlightened ones always discover that it's easy to live well, as long as you are not spreading the wellness among too many people.
----
We are the cat.
14 April 2009
36 min 14 sec
Charles,
Mayhap your model is true.
And a few more Models:
Who says that civilizations have to keep on improving? Perhaps them 'dying out' is an unsolvable issue?
Mayhap our optimal strategy is to spread to as many different states of existing as possible, so that when the disasters happen (which they will), our civilization won't get wiped out?
Perhaps the Hindi are right, and that this is all just a vast Play and when we pass away, we get into the Celestial Green Room where we take off our masks and actress roles and get to laughing?
Mayhap these 'fundamental laws of Nature' also change over time?
Mayhap this is all a computer simulation?
Mayhap we shouldn't be too concerned aboot having one 'True' point of view aboot the world and concentrate on being able to change one's point view and see what comes up? Looking at the world in QM terms.
Mayhap how does the world and affairs in the world have to appear to you for YOU to be: content, angry, happy, sad, etc?
---------
All that lives is holy, life delights in life.
--William Blake
23 October 2009
16 weeks 3 days
The Universe as a simulation is sounding better and better all the time. Maybe God was feeling lazy and didn't want to work out all the math, so He/She just decided to do an experiment instead. Sounds as plausible as anything else! The Universe (as we know it) seems completely absurd as anything but an experiment. I personally don't like the idea of being a subject in an experiment, or being among the "cattle of Re", but it is what it is.
I've been watching the remake of the "Ancient Aliens" series on the History Channel this past month. A lot of great material is presented, but it is all still so very confusing. I suppose whatever "space mission" technology may have been deployed by civilizations that are thousands if not millions of years ahead of us just has to be confusing. I like the idea of the Great Pyramid representing (among other things) an enormous land claim marker, which was deliberately placed at the center of the Earth's land masses (to signal other prospective space jockeys that this big blue marble is spoken for).
"Property of the East Galaxy Trading Company - No Trespassing"
Access for Grey Card Holders Only
A most intriguing statement in the Bible is the one where God gives Adam and Eve the mandate to "subdue the Earth". This appears to support the so-called Ancient Astronaut and Atlantis theories. In other words, The Adams Family was given the franchise to rule the Earth and they more-or-less fulfilled that commandment (in the view of the Bible), at least up until the time of the Great Flood(s). Because of the Flood, we are told that the "Earth was divided". However, the Book of Genesis continues to give us an unbroken list of Patriarchs ("Godfathers", holders of the "divine birthright", a.k.a. "Great Kings") after the Flood. The implication is that centralized control was fairly quickly re-established, although it may have become more limited, e.g., to the "four corners" of the Near East rather than the entire globe.
Again, there's no point in trying to prove the "King of Kings" theory. There is an entire web site devoted to that. In the spirit of this topic, I'm trying to keep it on the intuitive, abstract plane. And I don't want to make too big a deal out of it anymore. If there really is someone or something in control of the planet, would they be interested in this thread? And if nothing is under control, God save us all!
12 April 2007
5 hours 14 min
My grandpa used to have an old tattered paperback edition book about Fortean mysteries. in it there was a short fiction story explaining that this planet was the galactic version of an insane asylum.
So far it's the most sensible explanation for the Fermi paradox that I can think of ;)
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
23 October 2009
16 weeks 3 days
RPJ: Crazy you should mention that. Today I was contemplating the Fermi-Ntation Paradox. That's the one about 12 billion years of evolution the best thing to watch on satellite TV is the World Cup concert. I just can't get my head around it.
Colombia didn't qualify so they sent Shakira instead. Not a bad consolation prize. But, you still can't please everybody!
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/spo...
22 November 2004
1 week 5 days
We have all heard that science is interested in establishing predictability. And we have found that in those subject areas often discussed here on TDG this is really hard. Just think of NDEs, remote viewing, contacting the deceased in the next realm. Really hard to predict any of that.
The World Cup however does help in this matter. Science can count on England goaltenders.
----
We are the cat.
12 April 2007
5 hours 14 min
Let's see how good you're at this predicting game:
Germany vs Australia: Final score?
:-P
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 November 2004
1 week 5 days
Well, in points. Germany 3 points, Australia 0.
Goals, I don't know. Let me get back to you in about 2 hours :)
----
We are the cat.
12 April 2007
5 hours 14 min
I knew it... ;)
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
12 April 2007
5 hours 14 min
Yeah. Shakira does add support to the speculation about an Intelligent Designer ;)
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 November 2004
1 week 5 days
I personally don't like the idea of being a subject in an experiment, or being among the "cattle of Re", but it is what it is.
Actually the simulation idea is worse than that. We are not subjects of an experiment. That would mean we are real beings, and some experiment is being done to us.
No, the theory is worse. We don't exist except as part of an experiment, there are only a bunch if bits describing what we would be like if we existed.
And if nothing is under control, God save us all!
Indeed many people feel like that. Even the worst kind of control to be under is, to them, better than no being controlled at all. Some people need order in their lives, even if the order is bad. There are people (not that you're one of them) who prefer the worst dictator to having to be on their own.
----
We are the cat.
12 April 2007
5 hours 14 min
Right now I'm playing the Shivering Isles expansion content of the video game The Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion for the Xbox.
The Shivering Isles is another realm of existence in the Elder Scroll universe, controlled by Sheogorath. A superior being that, among other things, is completely and absolutely mad.
Gives you an interesting perspective on things... ;)
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 November 2004
1 week 5 days
I'm setting up part of my network in IPv6 to get around some of restrictions of NAT and tunnelling. Of course to do that, I have to encapsulate the IPv6 in IPv4 so that it can tunnel through the NAT.
You want madness, we deliver madness.
----
We are the cat.
23 October 2009
16 weeks 3 days
Liberté, égalité et virtual realité, babé!