|
Post by niggs13 on Jul 24, 2007 10:29:00 GMT
Just got back to this thread, don't understand why Tamrin is annoyed, my post about giants which seemed to spark this fracas was a legitimate point. I was merely referring the legend to the book of Enoch, watchers, Nephilim etc and the genetic differences between races and how primitive people coming across racial groups of such differing stature might portray them in their traditional histories. No mention of magic beans, giant plants or pots of gold but still got treated as a Yorkshire Hans Christian Anderson. Now if tha won'ts ta talk 'bout Fairy Folk ! Nigel
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 24, 2007 21:24:46 GMT
Just got back to this thread, don't understand why Tamrin is annoyed, my post about giants which seemed to spark this fracas was a legitimate point. I was merely referring the legend to the book of Enoch, watchers, Nephilim etc and the genetic differences between races and how primitive people coming across racial groups of such differing stature might portray them in their traditional histories. No mention of magic beans, giant plants or pots of gold but still got treated as a Yorkshire Hans Christian Anderson. Now if tha won'ts ta talk 'bout Fairy Folk ! Nigel Bro. NigelI did not abandon the topic because of you. Sometimes an odd aspect of a post may catch one's attention and lead to an occasional diversion. However, the thread never really came to grips with the topic of comparative mythology and ritual in the first place and instead became mired in a topic which I felt had already been exhaustively debunked elsewhere on the forum. Indeed your contribution came rather late in the piece and, as far as I recall, you had not been party to the earlier, tedious discussions. However, to respond to it at the time would, I felt, have perpetuated and endorsed the change of topic, when I had still planned to return to the intended subject which, on another thread, I had been encouraged to discuss. Now that is no longer my intention, I can say of your posts that: 1. I do not consider the tall (6' 6") Caucasian mummies of Cherchin to have been "giants" (outside the realm of fairy tales, the term "giant" commonly refers to individuals over 7'6"—even then there would be no need to regard individual "giants" as being other than unusually tall humans). 2. One may wonder as to which Book of Enoch you are referring. If the usual Ethiopic version (1 Enoch), we read there: And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells [the Ethiopian text gives 300 cubits (135 meters), which is probably a corruption of 30 cubits (13.5 meters)]: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. They really would be giants! Here we would expect all the physiological problems of gigantism to be so profound that they would be crushed under their own weight, like stranded whales. As another example, elephants, which grow no taller than 13' 2" (4 meters), require extraordinarily sturdy legs to support their weight and even then can injure themselves if they raise more than one at a time. I confess I am not a Biblical fundamentalist and regard many of the stories, especially in Genesis, as being mythological. The Bible may or may not provide us with a straight and undeviating line of conduct (sometimes by providing bad examples) but, in my opinion, it does not (especially in translation) provide us with a reliable history. Moreover, none of the several versions of the Book of Enoch are considered to be Canonical.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 24, 2007 23:12:18 GMT
Greetings, Just got back to this thread, don't understand why Tamrin is annoyed, my post about giants which seemed to spark this fracas was a legitimate point. I was merely referring the legend to the book of Enoch, watchers, Nephilim etc and the genetic differences between races and how primitive people coming across racial groups of such differing stature might portray them in their traditional histories. No mention of magic beans, giant plants or pots of gold but still got treated as a Yorkshire Hans Christian Anderson. Now if tha won'ts ta talk 'bout Fairy Folk ! Nigel Bro. NigelI did not abandon the topic because of you. Sometimes an odd aspect of a post may catch one's attention and lead to an occasional diversion. However, the thread never really came to grips with the topic of comparative mythology and ritual in the first place and instead became mired in a topic which I felt had already been exhaustively debunked elsewhere on the forum. Indeed your contribution came rather late in the piece and, as far as I recall, you had not been party to the earlier, tedious discussions. However, to respond to it at the time would, I felt, have perpetuated and endorsed the change of topic, when I had still planned to return to the intended subject which, on another thread, I had been encouraged to discuss. Now that is no longer my intention, I can say of your posts that: 1. I do not consider the tall (6' 6") Caucasian mummies of Cherchin to have been "giants" (outside the realm of fairy tales, the term "giant" commonly refers to individuals over 7'6"—even then there would be no need to regard individual "giants" as being other than unusually tall humans). 2. One may wonder as to which Book of Enoch you are referring. If the usual Ethiopic version (1 Enoch), we read there: And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells [the Ethiopian text gives 300 cubits (135 meters), which is probably a corruption of 30 cubits (13.5 meters)]: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. They really would be giants! Here would would expect all the physiological problems of gigantism to be so profound that they would be crushed under their own weight, like stranded whales. As another example, elephants, which grow no taller than 13' 2" (4 meters), require extraordinarily sturdy legs to support their weight and even then can injure themselves if they raise more than one at a time. I confess I am not a Biblical fundamentalist and regard many of the stories, especially in Genesis, as being mythological. The Bible may or may not provide us with "a straight and undeviating line of conduct" (sometimes by providing bad examples) but, in my opinion, it does not (especially in translation) provide us with a reliable history. Moreover, none of the several versions of the Book of Enoch are considered to be Canonical. Any search with words like ‚Green Man’, Wild Man etc., will I am sure prove of some value and interest on the subject of giants etc., often used in ancient legends. Here are just a few examples: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodwoseen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basajaunsdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/morris/kelmscottjpeg/DSC_0039.jpgand even in the story of Gilgamesh Enkidu looks interesting as well ... Here are a few more: Al-Khidr en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Khidror Sir Gawain and the Green Knight
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 25, 2007 0:07:28 GMT
Bro. Sid,Your examples are interesting AS myths, (although peripheral to the intended subject of this thread). There is no surprise in postulating a mythical character as being big or small and, from there, a flamboyant story-teller may readily devise huge giants (e.g. Paul Bunyon) or tiny midgets (e.g., Lilliputians). From what I have seen, the more fantastic the story, the more likely it is to be retold.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Jul 25, 2007 1:06:54 GMT
What I saw was that, instead of penetrating in thought the ritual and its similarities, attention was drawn to some of the non-similarities: eg, giants - nothing in our rituals has such, and in any case the symbolic depiction shown by tamrin was not necessarily of any giants. Hi jmd Tamrin posted this thread in the Esoteric - NON Masonic area. Some of us supposed that any images which were posted could be considered from an esoteric/philosophical point of view only. Open slather so as to speak. Maat
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 25, 2007 5:00:16 GMT
Open slather so as to speak. "Open slather"—An apt description. While the subject was not strictly “Masonic,” hence the choice of category, the first (and last) example chosen was one to which the Masonic readership of this forum might be expected to relate, as Masons. The example went somewhat beyond the usual children’s version of dreamtime stories, to the threshold of a version beyond which only initiates are admitted and to which, as initiates of another tradition, we might be able to achieve a degree of comprehension, even at the threshold. Sensitivity at this level of understanding is high and the response received was of a kind which would typically evoke reticence by the traditional custodians (much as we might choose not to respond to single-minded conspiracy theorists). Perhaps one of the least interesting aspects, when trying to comprehend the inner meaning of the legend, was the mention of Luma Luma as a giant and his depiction as being larger than the other figures. I suspect that, had I been discussing, for instance, the giant statues (55 meters & 37 meters) of the Buddhas of Bamyan in Afghanistan (since destroyed), that no similar, single-minded diversion would have ensued and the subject would have been regarded with more circumspection.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 26, 2007 0:34:32 GMT
I was unwise in presuming a discussion of sacred myth was possible on a public forum, Masonic or not. I apologise to the readership for raising your hopes in vain and to the traditional custodians for exposing the myth to debasement.
In an attempt to salvage something of value from the ruins of this thread, I have commenced a new thread, entitled “Comparative Mythology,” where we may be able to explore some generalities, in a field which appeals to many Freemasons.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 26, 2007 12:13:07 GMT
Dictionary I used was the Heinemann Australian Dictionary, second edition, 1978. Overseen by 33 (no more or less) Profs, Drs, etc from the La Trobe University. Very odd indeed. I would appreciate the complete, verbatim definition.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Jul 27, 2007 0:07:49 GMT
superstition (say sooper-stish'n) noun
1. an irrational fear of mysterious or unknown things 2. a belief or practice based on faith in magic or chance
p 1078
It just occurred to me that by the above definitions we could both be considered superstitious
You're a No 1 and I'm a No 2... ;D
Maat
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jul 27, 2007 0:32:50 GMT
>magic or chance
I think that is interesting that things done by the Magi could be equivalent to chance
For instance we are told that they could use a star to locate a single dwelling
Cheers
Russell
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 27, 2007 0:35:27 GMT
superstition (say sooper- stish'n) noun 1. an irrational fear of mysterious or unknown things 2. a belief or practice based on faith in magic or chance p 1078 It just occurred to me that by the above definitions we could both be considered superstitious You're a No 1 and I'm a No 2... ;D Maat Rather, I would say I have a rational approach mysterious and unknown things: I do not fear them, as such. I wonder how an irrational belief in the efficacy of lucky charms might be described as "fear."
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 17, 2007 8:33:39 GMT
"Alice Springs artist, Karina Penhall presents a manger scene combining her traditional Aboriginal dot painting style with some aspects of western art."
"In the centre of the curved wind break (stable) lies a coolamon, a wooden Aboriginal carry basket symbolising the baby Jesus. On either side is a 'U'shape symbolising a seated person, Mary and Joseph. In front of the coolamon are three wise men with their gifts and behind them are others such as the shepherds, who also come to the manger to worship the Child. Above, Bethlehem's star lights the way."
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 2, 2008 15:48:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maat on Sept 3, 2008 0:47:03 GMT
Good thing we don't charge for advertising .... Good wishes for your new forum Tamrin/Solomon/Global Moderator. Maat
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 3, 2008 8:24:51 GMT
Good thing we don't charge for advertising .... I paid dearly when I tried to directly share the vignettes here. Thank you for your good wishes: Tamrin (moderator/contributor) / Solomon (administrator)
|
|