ZEITGEIST, The Movie

[GreNME]

thesyntaxera, I really have been attempting to give you every chance to actually state your case, and at this point you are simply saying "nuh uh!" and "I didn't say that" to anything I argue against, which I find pretty pointless. So, until such time you actually have the time and feel it's worth the effort to put together in a cogent form exactly what you are trying to say with examples (once again, in your own words) of what you think illustrate such things, we're just going in circles.

Unlike others, I'm not going to call you names or assume I'm better than you. I will maintain that on the subject of historicity of origins and their cultural developments, that you seem to have some very basic concepts understood but haven't engaged in any deep study outside of those that you may have special interest in-- perhaps you're into astrology, perhaps you simply find the subject fascinating, perhaps such material has simply made up the bulk of what you've read and studied. Since I don't know you personally I can't say, but the patterns of logic you are displaying are not favoring your claims of having more than a basic understanding of the progression of cultures and faiths throughout history. That isn't an insult, because I honestly don't find you to be stupid, but that doesn't mean I have to acknowledge that what you've stated so far has equal validity to the archaeological and historic study fields in general today. The fact is that historians today dismiss the Egyptian theory because it has not held fast to scrutiny, and has grew mainly as a fad since the discovery of the Rosetta Stone. In a world of instant communication like today it's often difficult to imagine two civilizations living in such proximity to each other being so exclusive, but if you understand how the Egyptian culture developed and how the many cultures in Mesopotamia developed, you can discover reasons why there were so many obstacles-- sometimes physical and sometimes mental-- to the transfer of beliefs in any but a negligible (and usually negative) way.

I noticed GreNME responded to every word written by thesyntaxera, but neglected Nick's post. Why??

Oh, it sounded to me like Nick was more presenting a proposition of belief than an actual assertation of fact. Basically, depending on what way you want to look at a thing, said thing could be indicative of almost any meaning you can fathom to attribute it.

Well, that, and I thought I covered most of my disputing thoughts on the matter in other posts.

 

[Nick227]

So expecting people to produce actual evidence to back up their arguments is highbrow ,elitist,dung????

I think it could be useful to appreciate the difference between objective and subjective evidence. If you've studied any of the multitude of spiritual systems that have found their way down to us from the ages, something does become, I submit, fairly clear - they are not trying to create an objective map of reality. That is simply not the intent.

It doesn't matter whether you look at the cosmology of Tibetan Buddhism, Siberian shamen, Jewish Kabbalists, or whoever. The intent is not to create an objective map of how things are. The intent is to lay out a set of symbolic relationships for useful subjective study.

If you want to test the validity of the argument that the Jesus story was just another symbolic episode in the world's longest soap opera, why not just believe it and see what that feels like? How is your world changed?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

This is an educational/skepticism board. The number of people being interested in something doesn't make it one iota less nonsensical without evidence to back it up, and "embracing it" without any is sort of what this forum exists to discourage.

You're saying it's a fear trip, basically. You're scared of embracing the unknown? That's cool. I can definitely relate to that, but I think it's good to say what the issue is. "We are collectively scared of embracing the unknown and we respectfully seek evidence before we're even going to consider going there." It's OK.

////////////////

To pick up on the idea that there's just no evidence that there's a high degree of symbolic parity between many, many strands of human spiritual/religious belief - well, there are fields like Comparative Mythology - check it out. Look at the symbolic aspects, don't just go into a knee-jerk reaction in demanding "proof." There are a lot of writers, well respected ones, out there. Mircea Eliade, Joseph Campbell, Jesse H Weston

from The Hero with A Thousand Faces, Joseph Campbell,
(wikipedia)

"Fundamental structure of the monomyth

In the monomyth, the hero starts in the ordinary world, and receives a call to enter an unusual world of strange powers and events. If the hero accepts the call to enter this strange world, the hero must face tasks and trials, and may have to face these trials alone, or may have assistance. At its most intense, the hero must survive a severe challenge, often with help earned along the journey. If the hero survives, the hero may achieve a great gift or "boon." The hero must then decide whether to return to the ordinary world with this boon. If the hero does decide to return, the hero often faces challenges on the return journey. If the hero is successful in returning, the boon or gift may be used to improve the world. The stories of Osiris, Prometheus, Moses, Buddha, and Christ, for example, follow this structure very closely."

//////////////////

GreNME - I don't speak Farsi. I learnt Hebrew words from Qabalah and that was the romanisation they used.

Nick

 

[Drudgewire]

You're saying it's a fear trip, basically. You're scared of embracing the unknown? That's cool. I can definitely relate to that, but I think it's good to say what the issue is. "We are collectively scared of embracing the unknown and we respectfully seek evidence before we're even going to consider going there." It's OK.

Fear of what? I stopped believing in this garbage because none of it stands up to fact, and most of it... when one finally takes a step back from their paranoia and looks at it objectively... is not only completely outside the realm of realistic possibility but requires a horribly low opinion of humanity as a whole to even be feasible.

You want to stop believing in conspiracy theories? Get a better class of friends. Once you leave the intellectual and ethical bottom of the barrel you'll find the people with actual scruples are at the polar opposite end of the spectrum from where you thought they are.

 

[Hokulele]

This whole thread is TL;DR. (I just learned that today, "too long, didn't read"...)

But, I keep seeing it at or near the top of the forum.

Can someone PLEASE provide a cliff notes summary in a paragraph or two?

Dunka.

There is a "new" video circulating called "Zeitgeist". It is basically in three parts, plagiarized edited from several other works. Part I: Loony CT's about Christianity; Part II: Loony CT's about 9/11; Part III: Loony CT's about the Federal Reserve System. Really, the only thing new about any of this is that it is a three for the price of one. Various bits and pieces have been discussed in various threads in this sub-forum as well as over in Religion and Philosophy. I can link to them if you are interested, but I would recommend a cup of warm milk if you are having trouble sleeping, or a read through the "Avery raps" thread if you are simply looking for some entertainment.

 

[GreNME]

GreNME - I don't speak Farsi. I learnt Hebrew words from Qabalah and that was the romanisation they used.

Nick

Well, my question was more from selfish motives anyway. I have loads of resources for learning how to correctly use and understand Hebrew and Arabic, but only a few scattered sources for getting more experience with Farsi.

To pick up on the idea that there's just no evidence that there's a high degree of symbolic parity between many, many strands of human spiritual/religious belief - well, there are fields like Comparative Mythology - check it out. Look at the symbolic aspects, don't just go into a knee-jerk reaction in demanding "proof." There are a lot of writers, well respected ones, out there. Mircea Eliade, Joseph Campbell, Jesse H Weston

But correlation does not imply causation. It is very important in both comparative study and critical analysis to keep in mind that similarities to not necessarily imply a relationship between the two things that have similar features. See the link I gave earlier of examples from numerous languages that have correlating meanings (and in many cases, pronunciations), even between completely unrelated languages. The only way to connect in a relationary way some things that are similar but not inherently related would be to reduce them to their pre-human origins in order to come up with a reasonable line of relation. Or, if you are a religious person of a literal bent, you could say one could reduce all the way back to Adam or Noah to establish a relational course. The latter is, in fact, one of the more common uses of attempting to use reduction to build a framework establishing a basis for claims of relationship.

Nice use of Campbell in there, though. Very applicable to what you described.

 

[Nick227]

But correlation does not imply causation. It is very important in both comparative study and critical analysis to keep in mind that similarities to not necessarily imply a relationship between the two things that have similar features.

Thanks for an interesting discussion. I have to say here that I'm not clear why causation comes into it. As I understand it, the central thrust of what Zeitgeist the Movie is asserting is that the events of Christian mythology broadly parallel those of other many religions and spiritual belief systems on a symbolic level. I don't recall the movie discussing the roots of these mythologies, but if it does I hope we can agree that that is not the thrust of the assertion.

If things appear to be similar then I would have thought that the issue of effective discrimination is far more relevant than the issue of origination, though of course if one can establish causation this could be useful. However, given that the accomplishment of this task has eluded the world's finest scholars, I think it would be better to stick with discrimination.

It's needed to establish that one is not being drawn to see patterns where none exist. On an objective level, I imagine that the only really effective means for establishing this is by checking out the wider body of opinion. Now, for me it's a simple fact that there are well established schools of thought, such as the field of Comparative Mythology, where respected figures debate this issue and many believe that there does exist a genuine "monomyth."

See the link I gave earlier of examples from numerous languages that have correlating meanings (and in many cases, pronunciations), even between completely unrelated languages. The only way to connect in a relationary way some things that are similar but not inherently related would be to reduce them to their pre-human origins in order to come up with a reasonable line of relation.

Come on, GreNME, how precisely do you propose to do this objectively? I submit that you asking for evidence that is likely-impossible to provide. It has eluded many scholars for aeons. What you're saying, if I understand you correct, is that unless someone can absolutely prove a common source for all religion there's no way to assert that mythologies are similar. You are a reductionist fundamentalist, man! This is a very extreme position.

Surely you can appreciate that many things are studied comparatively. Reductionism does not cut it for many things, including things like the Theory of Matter, formerly a backbone of scientific belief.

I assert, there is a genuine repository of accepted knowledge that there exists a broad spectum of similarity between numerous important spiritual mythologies, and Christianity fits within this spectrum. Check out Frazer, Campbell, Eliade. Check out Jung's theory of archetype and the collective unconscious, which is broadly in the same area.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Fear of what? I stopped believing in this garbage because none of it stands up to fact,

Given that this is simply not true, that there are many respected academic figures out there who believe there is symbolic parity between the world's religions, would you be up for revising your assessment of your own fear level? BTW, it is actually OK to be afraid.

You can't submit everything to reductionist analysis and make useful statements. Take the computer screen in front of you, for example. What finally is it made of - wave or particle?

Nick

 

[Drudgewire]

Given that this is simply not true, that there are many respected academic figures out there who believe there is symbolic parity between the world's religions, would you be up for revising your assessment of your own fear level? BTW, it is actually OK to be afraid.

Academics can be as wrong as anyone else. Tangible evidence stands up to peer review, and you're on a board who's founder will pay a million bucks to anyone who can provide evidence that will.

But I guess you don't need the money either.

 

[Nick227]

Academics can be as wrong as anyone else. Tangible evidence stands up to peer review, and you're on a board who's founder will pay a million bucks to anyone who can provide evidence that will.

But I guess you don't need the money either.

Hi Drudgewire,

Might I ask you, what you would consider "tangible" here?

I ask because, from what I've seen, several people on this list seem to have something of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" perspective with this material. On both sides, I hasten to add. It feels a little more like the mentality of a witch-hunt than any kind of intelligent discussion. Please prove me wrong and give a credible and realistic definition of "tangible" here!

Nick

 

[Drudgewire]

Hi Drudgewire,

Might I ask you, what you would consider "tangible" here?

I ask because, from what I've seen, several people on this list seem to have something of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" perspective with this material. On both sides, I hasten to add. It feels a little more like the mentality of a witch-hunt than any kind of intelligent discussion. Please prove me wrong and give a credible and realistic definition of "tangible" here!

Nick

Solid evidence. If you can't provide that, you have nothing more than a best guess, or an opinion, or a vivid imagination.

Which is fine as a lifestyle choice. But of all the places it won't fly, the world's foremost skeptical society is at the very top of the list.

 

[Nick227]

Solid evidence. If you can't provide that, you have nothing more than a best guess, or an opinion, or a vivid imagination.

Which is fine as a lifestyle choice. But of all the places it won't fly, the world's foremost skeptical society is at the very top of the list.

Drudgewire,

For someone who appears to so champion objectivity, you do seem to me remarkably evasive when it comes to defining just what it is that you are actually seeking.

Please define terms. What constitutes "solid evidence" for you? Feel free to give examples, ideally ones from fields related to the one we are discussing.

It never fails to amaze me just how little most CT opposers actually know about empiric method, reductionism, or objectivity - given their wont to babble on about how important these things are. Please demonstrate that you are not in this camp. Relevant examples would be great here. I look forward to having my knowledge deepened and opinions reversed.

Nick

 

[GreNME]

Thanks for an interesting discussion. I have to say here that I'm not clear why causation comes into it. As I understand it, the central thrust of what Zeitgeist the Movie is asserting is that the events of Christian mythology broadly parallel those of other many religions and spiritual belief systems on a symbolic level. I don't recall the movie discussing the roots of these mythologies, but if it does I hope we can agree that that is not the thrust of the assertion.

I'm sorry, but we do not agree. The movie itself asserts specifically on the roots of the mythologies. It even goes so far as to assert that all mythologies are essentially based on astrology (and it incorrectly uses modern astrological data as its source).

Causation comes into it because it is a framework for relationship. If a relationship is suggested-- like has been between Christ and Horus or Moses and Menes-- then this claim needs to be supported by establishing causation. Similarities do not a causation create.

If things appear to be similar then I would have thought that the issue of effective discrimination is far more relevant than the issue of origination, though of course if one can establish causation this could be useful. However, given that the accomplishment of this task has eluded the world's finest scholars, I think it would be better to stick with discrimination.

Similarities alone do not support any other assumption but that there were similarities. This is the problem with attaching too much signiificance to similarities, which happens to be the bread and butter of arguments like those made in the film. Since such things don't require any deep contextual study, no real understanding of the individual aspects that may seem similar on the surface takes place and any number of uninformed assumptions can be made without actually having given much study to begin with.

It's needed to establish that one is not being drawn to see patterns where none exist. On an objective level, I imagine that the only really effective means for establishing this is by checking out the wider body of opinion. Now, for me it's a simple fact that there are well established schools of thought, such as the field of Comparative Mythology, where respected figures debate this issue and many believe that there does exist a genuine "monomyth."

You're going to have to cite that claim, because that has not been a common claim in my experience. Instead, the most common claims I have seen are that there are a number of archetypes that different civilizations have come to through separate paths, often not relating to one another. Such observations are often cited by the more recent religious-philosophical beliefs as affirmation of a divine, though such claims do not follow logically for the very reasons I gave: correlation != causation; similarities != relationship.

Come on, GreNME, how precisely do you propose to do this objectively?

Linguists have shown that completely unrelated languages with completely different roots and origins can have words that sound similar. That is a fairly strong case against the tendency to use similarities as implying relationship when dealing with cultural phenomenon, since the three largest cultural factors in any civilization tend to be language, writing, and religion.

I submit that you asking for evidence that is likely-impossible to provide. It has eluded many scholars for aeons. What you're saying, if I understand you correct, is that unless someone can absolutely prove a common source for all religion there's no way to assert that mythologies are similar. You are a reductionist fundamentalist, man! This is a very extreme position.

You are attacking an argument I didn't make. I am saying that assigning too much significance to similarities, especially when they do not follow in a linear fashion, is intellectually irresponsible. One cannot assume a relationship simply through similarities.

Surely you can appreciate that many things are studied comparatively. Reductionism does not cut it for many things, including things like the Theory of Matter, formerly a backbone of scientific belief.

I'm not advocating reductionism. I've been stating quite adamantly that more semantical analysis should take place, because when looked at in context the originally stated similarities begin to look less similar or, in some cases, false.

I assert, there is a genuine repository of accepted knowledge that there exists a broad spectum of similarity between numerous important spiritual mythologies, and Christianity fits within this spectrum. Check out Frazer, Campbell, Eliade. Check out Jung's theory of archetype and the collective unconscious, which is broadly in the same area.

Who's playing the reductionist now? I don't see how Campbell or Jung fit into what you're saying, since neither of them have (in my recollection) ever claimed that similar archetypical phenomena have any type of relational connection to each other, except for when the archetypes are put together within the scope of mythologies. I'm a big fan of Jung (I love Modern Man in Search of a Soul), but his writings focus on man's relationship to the world around him and the archetypes he builds, not a claim of relationship behind the many uses of such archetypes between different civilizations. Campbell focuses on how cultural archetypes affect the mythologies and stories that are created, not a claim of relationship between different cultures.

The error you are engaging is right now is that you are working backwards, from the myths themselves back to the archetypical characterizations. This is a common error, but it no less erroneous for being common.

 

[Drudgewire]

Drudgewire,

For someone who appears to so champion objectivity, you do seem to me remarkably evasive when it comes to defining just what it is that you are actually seeking.

Please define terms. What constitutes "solid evidence" for you? Feel free to give examples, ideally ones from fields related to the one we are discussing.

It never fails to amaze me just how little most CT opposers actually know about empiric method, reductionism, or objectivity - given their wont to babble on about how important these things are. Please demonstrate that you are not in this camp. Relevant examples would be great here. I look forward to having my knowledge deepened and opinions reversed.

Nick

Do a post search for me. I can't begin to tell you many times I've stated all it would take is one piece of real, non-imagined, non-subjective, non-distorted scientific shred of evidence and I'm right back on the woo train I rode all throughout the 90s.

I don't disbelieve ANY of this because of a lack of objectivitiy or a close-minded approach to the unknown, I disbelieve it because I understand how... when you REALLY WANT to believe in something... reason and logic take a backseat to wishful thinking. And how "evidence" becomes a buzzword where any half-baked idea that sounds good is given equal footing with the historical record, the scientific method, and theses made by people who aren't drug-addled, paranoid goofballs.

If that's not a good enough answer for you... which I'm sure it isn't... go back to watching your retarded movie. I'm done. If I don't care enough to convince my hippie ex that her idiotic "What The Beep" and "The Secret" movies aren't trash after a few attempts, I sure as rule10 aint wasting a day on a faceless internet woo.

 

[Nick227]

I'm sorry, but we do not agree. The movie itself asserts specifically on the roots of the mythologies. It even goes so far as to assert that all mythologies are essentially based on astrology (and it incorrectly uses modern astrological data as its source).

Yes, fair enough. The movie does assert on sources, I recall now. But surely the thrust of its assertion, its central point, is that Christianity is not a mythos that has built up around the actual life of a one-time living and breathing Jesus, rather that it is simply another re-telling of an age old monomyth. Would you not agree this point?

Causation comes into it because it is a framework for relationship. If a relationship is suggested-- like has been between Christ and Horus or Moses and Menes-- then this claim needs to be supported by establishing causation. Similarities do not a causation create.

Oh, come on, GreNME, claims of this nature don't need to be supported by evidence of similar causation. For sure, evidence of origin is great, but it's not the only game in town. Are you saying there's no other possibility for quantifying similarity? If patterns match to a significant degree then there is a definable level of match. Maybe for symbolic elements in the stories of Jesus and Moses or whoever it's not quite as easy to define parameters as it would be with say, fingerprinting, but it can be done.

Similarities alone do not support any other assumption but that there were similarities. This is the problem with attaching too much signiificance to similarities, which happens to be the bread and butter of arguments like those made in the film. Since such things don't require any deep contextual study, no real understanding of the individual aspects that may seem similar on the surface takes place and any number of uninformed assumptions can be made without actually having given much study to begin with.

I agree. One may jump to conclusions or have an unconscious need to find or not find a pattern. But apparent similarity could be mathematically assessed, or assessed on the basis of academic evaluation.

You're going to have to cite that claim, because that has not been a common claim in my experience. Instead, the most common claims I have seen are that there are a number of archetypes that different civilizations have come to through separate paths, often not relating to one another. Such observations are often cited by the more recent religious-philosophical beliefs as affirmation of a divine, though such claims do not follow logically for the very reasons I gave: correlation != causation; similarities != relationship.

Fair enough. I will look up some supporting texts. We've had Campbell already.

Linguists have shown that completely unrelated languages with completely different roots and origins can have words that sound similar. That is a fairly strong case against the tendency to use similarities as implying relationship when dealing with cultural phenomenon, since the three largest cultural factors in any civilization tend to be language, writing, and religion.

I wouldn't personally consider this necessarily a fairly strong case. It could be that there is a causative principle in the evolution of language. It would also be good to assess whether the degree of match, in each case, is significant given the variety of sounds in each language.

You are attacking an argument I didn't make. I am saying that assigning too much significance to similarities, especially when they do not follow in a linear fashion, is intellectually irresponsible. One cannot assume a relationship simply through similarities.

I agree. Of course, ideally, one would access to a whole string of truly separated living systems here to start to make more mathematically valid comparisons. Given the absence of this, given the absence of good data from our early history, I still think a reasonable job can be done.

I'm not advocating reductionism. I've been stating quite adamantly that more semantical analysis should take place, because when looked at in context the originally stated similarities begin to look less similar or, in some cases, false.

I agree that the case can be overstated.

Of course there is the whole subjective side of pattern-matching here, which, perhaps thankfully, we're not going into just yet. Though of course it is in real human terms by far the biggest chunk of it.

Who's playing the reductionist now? I don't see how Campbell or Jung fit into what you're saying, since neither of them have (in my recollection) ever claimed that similar archetypical phenomena have any type of relational connection to each other, except for when the archetypes are put together within the scope of mythologies. I'm a big fan of Jung (I love Modern Man in Search of a Soul), but his writings focus on man's relationship to the world around him and the archetypes he builds, not a claim of relationship behind the many uses of such archetypes between different civilizations. Campbell focuses on how cultural archetypes affect the mythologies and stories that are created, not a claim of relationship between different cultures.

I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Jung's concept of a Collective Unconscious - a shared resource of archetype - clearly oppose what you're writing here above. Campbell also states that there is clearly parity between the mythologies associated around the figures of Jesus, Osiris, Buddha, and Moses. I don't see that it's relevant to the discussion that there might be a "relationship between different cultures", rather that the existence of a parity weakens the argument that Jesus actually lived.

Thanks for an intriguing discussion.

Nick

 

[dudalb]

There is a "new" video circulating called "Zeitgeist". It is basically in three parts, plagiarized edited from several other works. Part I: Loony CT's about Christianity; Part II: Loony CT's about 9/11; Part III: Loony CT's about the Federal Reserve System. Really, the only thing new about any of this is that it is a three for the price of one. Various bits and pieces have been discussed in various threads in this sub-forum as well as over in Religion and Philosophy. I can link to them if you are interested, but I would recommend a cup of warm milk if you are having trouble sleeping, or a read through the "Avery raps" thread if you are simply looking for some entertainment.

Excellent description. Zeitgiest is a sort of package with something to appeal to every kind of CT Looney: The First Part for the Da VInci COde kooks; The Second for the Twoofers,and the Third is the Federal Reserve "Golden Oldie" for all the Old Time CTers. Something for every loon.

 

[Nick227]

Do a post search for me. I can't begin to tell you many times I've stated all it would take is one piece of real, non-imagined, non-subjective, non-distorted scientific shred of evidence and I'm right back on the woo train I rode all throughout the 90s.

I don't disbelieve ANY of this because of a lack of objectivitiy or a close-minded approach to the unknown, I disbelieve it because I understand how... when you REALLY WANT to believe in something... reason and logic take a backseat to wishful thinking. And how "evidence" becomes a buzzword where any half-baked idea that sounds good is given equal footing with the historical record, the scientific method, and theses made by people who aren't drug-addled, paranoid goofballs.

If that's not a good enough answer for you... which I'm sure it isn't... go back to watching your retarded movie. I'm done. If I don't care enough to convince my hippie ex that her idiotic "What The Beep" and "The Secret" movies aren't trash after a few attempts, I sure as rule10 aint wasting a day on a faceless internet woo.

For God's sake, Drudgewire, why not just bloody admit it - "Actually I haven't got the first clue what I'm rambling on about throughout this whole dialogue but conspiracy theories scare the **** out of me and I'm desperately trying to put up some kind of defence."

You'd feel a lot better, man. Really. I written some right nonsense in my time and desperately tried to cling onto it no matter what. It's not worth it. Better to come clean.

Nick

 

[GreNME]

Yes, fair enough. The movie does assert on sources, I recall now. But surely the thrust of its assertion, its central point, is that Christianity is not a mythos that has built up around the actual life of a one-time living and breathing Jesus, rather that it is simply another re-telling of an age old monomyth. Would you not agree this point?

Hmmm. Closer, but I don't think I could agree with that, either. The film seems to imply a darker motive to the establishment of religion in general, and focuses on Christianity as an amalgam of religions, some of which (like Egyptian) had no traceable influence on it. The core assertion of the film, as far as I could tell, is that religions are frauds thrust upon us as a tool for control and other bad stuff. Hence my invocation of Hanlon's Razor early on: never attribute to malice what can easily be attributed to stupidity (or, in my re-wording of it, ignorance).

Oh, come on, GreNME, claims of this nature don't need to be supported by evidence of similar causation.

Sure, the claims don't necessarily need to be, but they equally don't have to be considered valid, either.

For sure, evidence of origin is great, but it's not the only game in town. Are you saying there's no other possibility for quantifying similarity? If patterns match to a significant degree then there is a definable level of match. Maybe for symbolic elements in the stories of Jesus and Moses or whoever it's not quite as easy to define parameters as it would be with say, fingerprinting, but it can be done.

I would say that applying any more significance than passing similarities is attempting to take correlation too far without sufficient evidence to back it up. From the perspective of scientific method, confirmation and passing repeated testing are the only games in town.

Linguists have shown that completely unrelated languages with completely different roots and origins can have words that sound similar. That is a fairly strong case against the tendency to use similarities as implying relationship when dealing with cultural phenomenon, since the three largest cultural factors in any civilization tend to be language, writing, and religion.

I wouldn't personally consider this necessarily a fairly strong case. It could be that there is a causative principle in the evolution of language. It would also be good to assess whether the degree of match, in each case, is significant given the variety of sounds in each language.

Are you really saying that the case in language, which is one of the most critical parts of human-to-human communication (and thus society), isn't necessarily a strong case? How strong a case do you really need to have confirmation that similarities do not mean there is a relationship?

I agree. Of course, ideally, one would access to a whole string of truly separated living systems here to start to make more mathematically valid comparisons. Given the absence of this, given the absence of good data from our early history, I still think a reasonable job can be done.

Woah, slow down for a moment. There happens to be a fairly large amount of data from our early history, at least as far back as when we learned to write stuff down. It is just a more difficult and tedious line of study, which makes it a rather boring choice for a lot of people, who tend to find Egyptology and some Far Eastern ancient study more interesting (hence the higher number of researchers). If there were as much interest in ancient Sumerian archaeology as there is in, say, medieval history, then we would probably have a higher prevalence of published work on the data. Unfortunately, ancient Mesopotamian research is about as popular as a Libertarian Party candidate in US presidential politics.

Of course there is the whole subjective side of pattern-matching here, which, perhaps thankfully, we're not going into just yet. Though of course it is in real human terms by far the biggest chunk of it.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but wouldn't that be more damning against claims of significance attributed to similarities?

I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Jung's concept of a Collective Unconscious - a shared resource of archetype - clearly oppose what you're writing here above. Campbell also states that there is clearly parity between the mythologies associated around the figures of Jesus, Osiris, Buddha, and Moses. I don't see that it's relevant to the discussion that there might be a "relationship between different cultures", rather that the existence of a parity weakens the argument that Jesus actually lived.

I never got the impression that Jung was ever referring to anything other than the need for spirituality by human beings in general. He seemed to assert that it was an essential part of the psyche of mankind, almost like something we could not find contentment or meaning without. I recall Campbell pointing out the similarities in the different mythologies, but not asserting an actual relationship beyond the fact that there are similarities.

On a separate note, it's difficult to make a believable case either way to me concerning Jesus. There were many individuals who claimed to be prophets or attempted to be leaders in Jesus' day, and some who Jews believe came even closer to meeting the criteria than Jesus did, comparatively speaking. The probability is very high that the man who Christianity knows as Jesus was either one of this list of would-be prophets who were killed by Rome, or that he is an amalgam of more than one of these would-be prophets from his time, including the fellow John the Baptist. Whether there was actually a man who stood before Pilate as the Christ story goes is mostly derived from hearsay, but the existence of men who roamed the shores of Israel teaching and attempting to heal people is fairly certain, historically speaking. Considering the story of Jesus' ministry without taking the miracles and divinity literally, there is a good probability there was someone who fit that profile-- in actuality, there were probably several. Prophets and religious 'radicals' are nothing new, and weren't even something new 2000 years ago.

Thanks for an intriguing discussion.

Nick

My pleasure. It's been years since anyone brought up Jung in a discussion with me!

 

[Drudgewire]

For God's sake, Drudgewire, why not just bloody admit it - "Actually I haven't got the first clue what I'm rambling on about throughout this whole dialogue but conspiracy theories scare the **** out of me and I'm desperately trying to put up some kind of defence."

You'd feel a lot better, man. Really. I written some right nonsense in my time and desperately tried to cling onto it no matter what. It's not worth it. Better to come clean.

Nick

 

[thesyntaxera]

thesyntaxera, I really have been attempting to give you every chance to actually state your case, and at this point you are simply saying "nuh uh!" and "I didn't say that" to anything I argue against, which I find pretty pointless. So, until such time you actually have the time and feel it's worth the effort to put together in a cogent form exactly what you are trying to say with examples (once again, in your own words) of what you think illustrate such things, we're just going in circles.

Well, firstly and foremost...do we agree on the basic premise...that as time passes from the origins of humanity to the present religious idea's about the nature and purpose of existence might have interacted and as a result affected each other over time? Until we have a level playing field I don't see much point in dissecting your nit-picking of history to suit your argument. You have many valid points, but they by no means invalidate the totality of the theory...they are merely the component parts of a bigger picture that your refuse to acknowledge for some reason.

As far as being an embarrassment to jref....well....since I find the process of systematically debunking anything that doesn't jive with my world view a little tedious considering that there are many ways of looking at things, and since it appears that this forum exists solely as a tool for the reinforcement of the consensus reality that the majority of it's members appear to exist within...then I guess I take that as a compliment.