-Caveat Lector-
>>Is 'Merlin Stone' a pagan/Wiccan himself by any chance?=20
>Maybe. Maybe not. Either way, it=92s irrelevant.
>What is relevant is that she=92s a historian with a strong background in
archeology and presents a good case well.
>But you wouldn=92t know that, because you didn=92t bothered to read what =
she
had to say before you started to talk about it.
You're quite right. I had never heard of this person before you mentioned 'her' (and
here was poor ignorant, historically illiterate I thinking that Merlin was a man's
name). Let me know what book/s has she written and I will look it up. To be honest,
she sounds like some sort of New Age fruitcake who knits her own yoghurt and probably
writes books making just as much sense. But I'm just making assumptions.
>>His name certainly sounds like he is.=20
>Irrelevant. My name sounds like a lake monster. Does this mean I have
flippers?
I won't answer that, as I suspect you are being flippant.
>>Whether ancient Greek/Roman sects survived the millennia is quite
legitimate, such as research into the Templars theology. However there
are written records, documents, sites, memoirs etc to work with.=20
>And your own life? Has it been written down? No? Why should I believe
you exist, then, or that anything you say is true?
What's my life got to do with anything?
>Just because something is written down does not in and of itself mean it
is true. Just because something is not written down does not, in and of
itself, mean it is not true.
Yes, but similarly because something isn't written down makes it far less likely to be
true, just as something which is written down is more likely to be true.
>In addition to written records we must consider oral tradition and the
physical evidence in the archeological record. But you would know this
if you had bothered to read Stone and Gimbutas before you started
spouting off about their work. You haven=92t even bothered to look at =
the
pictures. Yet you are telling what is and is not contained there. Can
you even imagine how incredibly stupid this make you look?
OK then, what (in brief) physical evidence do they provide which I am ignorant of? Do
they have letters from one witch to another from anytime pre 1950? Have they found and
translated some witches texts from middle ages or ancient greece which provide a clear
link to modern wiccans?
>>The wiccans have nil in the way of evidence.
Perhaps they do. Perhaps they do not. Either way, you don=92t know =
because
you have not examined what is purported to be the evidence in question.
If you had examined the purported evidence you would perhaps be able to
rebut it a piece at a time. Or perhaps you wouldn=92t. But you don=92t =
even
know what the purported evidence is, let alone whether its real or not,
and if it is, whether their interpretation of it is is valid. This is
appalling scholarship on your part. You have a lot of nerve criticizing
anybody else=92s scholarship at all, especially in a field with which =
you
are so obviously unfamiliar.=20
This is nonsense. 'Maybe' there is evidence. I admit it's possible, but I very much
doubt it. I notice that you aren't exactly eager to provide any of this evidence from
your clearly greater knowledge of this subject than us mere mortals. Please do
enlighten us.
>Maybe you=92re right. Maybe Stone, Gimbutas, et al are totally wrong. =
But
maybe you=92re wrong. Either way, you=92re guessing. That=92s not how =
scholars
do it. Scholars do not draw conclusions out of thin air, just to suit
some preconceived notion that have. Scholars at the very least read the
literature in field before they draw even the most tentative
conclusions, let alone spout off about them in public. The very best
scholars do their own field research, gather empirical data themselves,
and draw conclusions from that. Gimbutas dug all her life. Have you ever
been on a dig? I doubt it sincerely. You never even bothered to read the
literature. You apparently never even did a preliminary lit. search. And
yet you=92re telling us about archeology just as if you actually =
expected
us to assume that you know what you=92re talking about. What is the =
matter
with you? Do you take us for fools? =20
There are no digs for wiccan artefacts because there are none. If you can stop
criticising me (for I've obviously struck a nerve) perhaps you can point me to the
error in my beliefs, rather than making all osrts of wild assumptions.
>You must. You read, by your own admission, a part of a book by Gardner,
you don=92t even know Merlin Stone=92s gender, and yet you expect us to
believe you know enough about the history of Goddess worship as to be
qualified to pass judgment on scholars in the field. Do you even know
what the word =93scholarship=94 means?=20
Again, this 'Merlin Stone' sounds like a new age lunatic. At the very least she is
presumably a pagan, and therefore far from objective.
>>But how do you know they didn't do so at some point during the last
2,000 years?=20
>Because I bothered to research the subject before I started talking
about it. This is the preferred technique. It doesn=92t always work. =
But
usually it does, and no other technique works ever.
Good for you. Care to share some of your knowledge around? BTW does your 'research'
involve reading a whole lot of books by Wiccans out to make a fast buck from the
gullible?
>>Religion has always been defined by the structures they build, and the
texts they write. The Wiccans have neither.
>Some religions are defined by the structures they build, and the texts
they write. Others are not. Some religions are practiced by peoples who
neither build nor write. Others still are practiced by people who both
build and write, but not within the context of their religion.=20
Care to name a few religions which have left no writings and no structures?
<You are apparently only familiar with a handful of religions. There are
hundreds of religions. They vary considerably. I suggest that you read
up on the subject. Take a couple courses if you have to. Familiarize
yourself with the subject thoroughly enough as to not to appall us with
your ignorance. Then come back here and tell us about it. I cannot
stress too strongly the importance of doing these things in the correct
order. First learn. Then teach. That=92s how it=92s done.
>No latin or greek books on the subject.=20
This is quite simply untrue. There are numerous books on both the
history and dogma of polytheism written in both Latin and Greek. It
appears to have been a favored subject. If you read neither language,
avail yourself of these works in translation. They are available at any
library. If you can=92t find them, ask the guy at the desk for help.
That=92s what he=92s paid for.
Polytheism isn't the subject. The subject is whether the modern wiccan religion is
directly traceable to the middle ages or classical times. If you can't even keep sight
on a simple hypothesis like this I can see how some of this 'scholarship' you have
been reading up on could impress you so much.
>>Like all religions, the adherents have blind faith, and this is one
aspect of it.
>This is also irrelevant. It doesn=92t matter why people believe =
something
is true, or even if they believe. Nor does it matter why people
disbelieve. It is true or it is not true solely on its own merit. The
only scientific way to determine that merit is by analyzing the
empirical data. =20
Actually I feel it is relevant that most, if not all, of the researchers and writers
in a certain field are followers of a particular dogma which will affect what they
write.
>My personal opinion is that some of what they believe is true, some of
it is not and the rest I don=92t know about. My personal prejudice tends
toward physical evidence, written evidence, and oral history, in that
order. There=92s a ton of both physical and written evidence for
polytheism in antiquity. Some of the physical evidence dates back far,
far beyond writing. How to interpret it is another matter. There is less
evidence for the continuity of polytheism in Europe. Most, but not all,
of it is oral. But outside of Europe, i.e., out from under the heel of
Christian oppression, and the evidence of polytheism=92s continuity of
overwhelming. Whether or not Wicca is an example of the continuity of
one branch of polytheism in Europe has not been proven conclusively, at
least not to my satisfaction. But neither has it been disproven. It
certainly predates Gardner.=20
I wasn't aware they had tape recorders back in the middle ages to preserve this 'oral
history'. Ethnologists will tell you that oral history is very misleading and while
you may assume it is reliable, there is ample evidence that information passed down
orally is very unreliable, gets altered along the way with no-one the wiser etc. A
perfect example is a study done in NSW a few years back on the oral history of an
aboriginal tribe. The venerable elders passed down their 'dreamtime' stories which
suypposedly predated white colonisation and possibly went back thousands of years,
according to some breathless researchers. However it was clear there were elements in
these 'ancient wisdom' stories which were from the modern world (such as motor cars,
firearms and white people) had been invented fairly recently or at least embellished.
>I didn't say she has been 'discredited'=20
>No, no, no. I=92m the one who said she has been discredited, not you.
Really. Check your notes. You are taking notes, aren=92t you. You =
should.
It=92s important to develop good study habits if you ever hope to become =
a
real scholar.
Her research is larely statistical. You can make of it what you will. She also
determined that the stories of witches being found to have a 3rd nipple were not as
unlikely as you might think, as apparently a 3rd nipple is not all that uncommon
(statistics became available during the widespread use of Conscription during WW I).
Sure, I hope to get a degree from being on this email list. A degree in what I will
let you decide :-> All I am getting at the moment is the Third Degree (as all anti
CLuMs will know).
>>but most scholars agree that her conclusions are dubious.=20
>They are, but not because most scholars agree they are. They are dubious
because they were drawn from insufficient data. Subsequent data has shed
more light. This is common in research.
>>In any case, didn't Gardner claim he got most of his information from
his Grandmother? (I have his book somewhere, I never fully read it
though.)
What he said is not relevant to when he said it. In the chronology of
writings on the subject, Gardner came along rather late, especially for
a guy who people say started it all. How much of what he said is
actually true, is separate subject.
I think it is relevant. Did he or didn't he? You are the expert, am I right or wrong?
My granny used to tell me all sorts of crazy things, but I didn't write a book about
them.
>>>We are not discussing Wiccans or their beliefs. We are discussing the
work of the scholars who study them. It's a different subject.
>>I don't know what thread you are following, but this one was in
response to the document=20
By definition, that document IS scholarship on the subject. It=92s just
not very good scholarship, that=92s all. On the point of Gardner=92s =
place
in the chronology, it is very shoddy scholarship indeed.
>>on wiccan pseudo-history, which is all about the beliefs of wiccans
trying to be passed off as legitimate history.=20
>No, it is not. It is about SOME of the beliefs which certain people
CLAIM wiccans are =93passing off=94 as legitimate history. Other Wiccan
beliefs are not addressed at all by this article. =93Passing off=94 is =
a
non nobjective term. It=92s use betrays non objectivity on the part of
whoever uses it.
Well you seem to be so impressed by this 'Merlin Stone's' historical works, it seems
to me (looking in from the outside) that it is just as silly as Christians who write
books where they claim to have found and photographed Noah's Ark or the Holy Grail.
>As for =93legitimate=94 history vs. =93pseudo-history,=94 well, opinions =
vary.
History tends to be the propaganda of victors. It is extremely difficult
to determine from accounts what actually happened, even as recently as
yesterday.
I don't have trouble. You just have to remember the motivations of people making
statements.
>>I'm sure that 90% or more of the 'scholars' who research this area are
themselves Wiccan or assorted pagans,=20
>No, you are not sure. You are assuming. You can=92t be sure because you
haven=92t read them all. Again, you are talking about things you don=92t
know about. You really should give it up. It=92s making you look bad.
Yes, I am sure. If I spent a lot of time in new age bookshops and was familiar with
all these great authorities you quote, I would probably be doubly sure.
>>I could just as easily assume that a given percent of the =93scholars=94 =
who
refute them are monotheists. It would be a good guess. But it is a
guess and nothing more. It is also not relevant. Scholarship stands on
its own merit or it does not stand at all. The individual scholar=92s
religion, or anything else about them, is not relevant. Again, that
merit can only be determined by analysis of the empirical data. If the
evidence proves something is true, it does not matter who presented the
evidence or what else the believe.=20
As it happens it wpould be a correct guess. Who is going to devote years of their life
to writing a book on religion that isn't extremely pro or anti the religion in
question?
>Personally, I think only atheists who can write objectively about any
topic even remotely related to religion. Believers, by their very
nature, are incapable of objective reasoning on the topic of religion.
Most believers, yourself included, demonstrate a marked inability to
distinguish between the dogma of a religion and the history of its
practice. Wiccans believe in reincarnation. Whether they have believed
in reincarnation continuously since cave days or they began doing so in
the Fifties, has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not they
reincarnate, and vice versa. A case can be made either way on both
questions.=20
Atheists are worse than most bible bashers at studying religion. I know a guy from the
Atheist Society here in Melbourne, every week he talks about Jesus, about Mithra,
about Ahura-Mazda and how they are all linked etc. He knows all these obscure
religious sects, texts, scholars, doctrines etc.
>
That is, unless, you actually dig. Gimbutas actually dug. You didn=92t
even read. So between the two of you, I=92m much more inclined to =
believe
her. She, at least, is a scholar. You are merely a dilettante. Come back
when you are a scholar and then maybe I=92ll believe you. At the least
then, I=92ll take what you have to say seriously enough to be worth
considering. In the meantime, forget it. You=92re simply unqualified. Go
back to school.
And we're back onto the personal abuse. Really, if your knowledge of this subject is
so weak you can't even provide some evidence, maybe you should spend more time reading
all these reputable scholars and not sending such fractured emails.
Regards, and hope you don't put a hex on me,
Joe.
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
