TRUFAX

[Tegernacus]

Potia, we're all still still learning. Even our colleague Dr Megli. It's when you STOP learning that there is a problem

[megli]

Very true. I'm in the lucky position of doing it for a living! Sorry for my waspish tone, on occasion - I'm a bit harried at the moment.

[Heron]

Jul 17, 2008 8:04:23 GMT -1 littleraven said:

It's a good point. But we *have* to be extremely careful that what we consider to be a divine relationship is not based on a confirmed fiction. Whilst we may find use in what is essentially a constructed symbolism, giving access to our 'higher soul', it's ultimately pointless to be trying to commune with a deity that may have originated in nothing more than poor scholarship.

For me personally, I am now firmly of the 'evolution' idea, that the nature of the tales is one of a progressive evolution of stories that are important to *people* and the overlays of various religions, culture etc is merely one of a veneer. What this means is that to me it is no longer of great import whether this or that story was written by a monk dictating a Druid, or a medieval scribe his lord, or a 20th century miner, what we have are the stories of *people*, here, in this place. The veneers of culture and relgion can be carefully stripped to uncover how that persons soul relates to their time and place and ultimately deity.

To me, that is wonderful. That relationship between the human spirit and the divine is beyond human inadequacies.

Yes, people wrote the stories for other people to read and that they should be seen as part of our evolving common culture and each generation will do what they need to with the stories. So the idea that they had a 'real' meaning that is now lost denies the particular use to which they are put by succeeding generations.

But there is also a world which has its own purposes but to which we are inextricably linked in spite of our inward looking humanness. And if tales like 'The Oldest Animals' episode in Culhwch and Olwen give us glimpses of that world and seem to show humans interacting with that world in a way that few do now, that has historical importance. If that tale changes focus because people find a different use for it I feel we do need to say that the historical importance it had is real and might be of more importance to us than a specific historical focus from a later period and into which it might evolve. But in this case I can't imagine that the tale tellers didn't see the tale in the way that I see it, which is the point that Patrick Ford was making (somehow I called him Boris for some reason!) about the visibility of mythological origins to the medieval audience.

Similarly with the following episode of the freeing of Mabon from the dungeon at Caerloyw : it might be that this was simply seen as a story about Arthur freeing a prisoner from a castle. But I doubt it. It's link to the previous sequence and the link with Modron seem to us to guarantee a mythological origin for this story. But what if scholarship deemed otherwise? But that these tales still spoke to us of significant records of human interaction with non-humans, whether animals or spirits, or that the story of Mabon still seemed to echo the pattern of a religious myth. Would we then abandon it? And how much of The Bible would Jews and Christians have to abandon if applying such a test. Stories are stories and they evolve. They also have specific historical contexts. Their origins might be unimportant for particular generations but the origins are still there. If they speak to us in particular ways then shouldn't we respond? We shouldn't let the need to dissociate from those who seem to be responding inappropriately prevent us from responding at all.








"The gods who are defeated consider that defeat no refutation" (W B Ker)

[megli]

Heron - remind me where Pat Ford says this about the visibility of mythological horizons. It's not ringing any bells, and I'd like to read it.

[littleraven]

Jul 17, 2008 17:04:24 GMT -1 potia said:

Megli - thank you for your taking the time to write as you do. And thank you to those who have added further comments and insights. I like to think I'm not a total eejit on these matters (feel free to disagree) but I'm definitely still learning stuff

As Tegernacus has already said, we're all still learning. It just so happens that here we have some truly great minds - I'm thinking Megli and Heron here. I like to think, and occasionally I'm told, that I'm fairly knowledgable but to be honest I doubt I could say anything that they would find useful.

But here's a little trick/game I have played in the past to determine whether someone *really* knows, or just like people to think they know. I call it 'WikiWatch' (the clue is in the title). Choose an obscure but relevent topic, perhaps something like obscure classical Greek philosophers, Aleister Crowley's sojourns in the Mediterrenean or 15th century church history. Choose the topic then create a detailed question, post it somewhere. Come back 24hrs later, then compare the replies to the relevent entry on Wiki. 90% of the time you can see the (almost) copy and paste, from those who may project themselves as 'knowledgable'.

I find it's a good way of realising we're not too far from others, and infact probably a great deal ahaead becaseu we ask ourselves these questions in the first place.

[megli]

LOL! Great mind I, for my part, certainly am not. I'm a pedant. Not the same thing at all!

WikiWatch is a great idea. Though I must say, Wikipedia is very useful for reminding one of salient facts in areas with which one is already familiar but needs a quick refresher. (I had to talk to BBC Wales the otherday about the Myddfai physicians and Wikipedia was very useful for reminding me about Galen.)

[littleraven]

I have absolutely no prob with Wiki as a jumping off point, these days it's much more reliable than it was and it does have some good stuff. Hopefully our area of interest is not too well travelled by the average hijacker though.

It's when it ceases to be a jumpoff and becomes the *only* source I get irritated by. Oh, and people who can't say "Really? I didn't know that ... "

As for Galen, wasn't he that character in 'Crusade', the spin off from 'Babylon 5'? (just joking, gladiators were damn fine for anatomical investigation)

[Tegernacus]

No, Galen was the chimp in Planet Of The Apes. Roddy Mcdowelling. I used to have a POTA monkey-mask when I was a kid. True story, that...

Personally, I know absolutely nothing.. well, not true, but if there is something I know nothing about (usually most things) I'll look it up.. on Wikipedia, the Encyclopaedia, Google Books, my Zotero archive of "saved for later" web-pages, my home library, the local library... or just ask someone on here, which is often quicker and more reliable

[littleraven]

Well, I don't have that problem, because I do know everything. Just ask.

[megli]

Nero had the same problem. He used to ask tutors questions like 'What was the name of Hecuba's mother-in-law?' and 'What songs did the Sirens sing?', and get them bumped off if they couldn't answer.

[littleraven]

Jul 18, 2008 12:29:23 GMT -1 megli said:

Nero had the same problem. He used to ask tutors questions like 'What was the name of Hecuba's mother-in-law?' and 'What songs did the Sirens sing?', and get them bumped off if they couldn't answer.

I don't have any tutors any more.

[Heron]

Jul 18, 2008 8:00:11 GMT -1 megli said:

Heron - remind me where Pat Ford says this about the visibility of mythological horizons. It's not ringing any bells, and I'd like to read it.

I'm fairly sure it's in the Introduction to his translation of Y Mabinogi. It's a long time since I read it but I happened to come across some notes I made on it in an old note book just before posting. So I'm fairly sure it's in the Intro. but might be in his notes to that edition.

[Heron]

Jul 18, 2008 10:16:13 GMT -1 littleraven said:

Jul 17, 2008 17:04:24 GMT -1 potia said:

Megli - thank you for your taking the time to write as you do. And thank you to those who have added further comments and insights. I like to think I'm not a total eejit on these matters (feel free to disagree) but I'm definitely still learning stuff

As Tegernacus has already said, we're all still learning. It just so happens that here we have some truly great minds - I'm thinking Megli and Heron here. I like to think, and occasionally I'm told, that I'm fairly knowledgable but to be honest I doubt I could say anything that they would find useful.

Certainly we're all still learning. As for me I'm just getting on a bit and have read far more than is good for me (and forgotten most of it). Ezra Pound said somewhere that it's not what you know but what you've absorbed and forgotten that's important. I find that very reassuring

[megli]

me too!

[arth_frown]

I just try and keep it simple the more complicated you make your spirituality the more errors occur. Especially when using historical references made by none scholars who are using facts and running away with them.