BS: Archeological notions

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 10:25 PM

I stipulated in my post that AMROC, and the order as a whole, does NOT specify a 'controlling intelligence' or promote obidience to anyone or anything....that makes it different from most religions. But the page you link to contains this, which DOES share some notions with religions:

"The Rosicrucian path incorporates both metaphysics and mysticism. Metaphysics is that which falls beyond the five physical senses; for example, intuition, visualisation, and healing techniques. Mysticism does not refer to anything mysterious. Mysticism is simply the process by which you may eventually experience direct, conscious union with the Absolute, Divine Mind, Universal Intelligence, or what some Rosicrucian students call the God of their Hearts. This is not done by adhering to specific tenets or beliefs, but by learning and applying natural laws which, over time, allow you to experience Divine or Cosmic Consciousness."

...to me, ANY set of ideas and theories which presuppose 'healing', the 'Absolute', 'Divine Mind' and 'Universal Intelligence'(and other things beyond the usual 5 senses), have similar requirements, in that they expect us to set aside certain notions of scientific proof and logic. They often ask us to "open ourselves" to experiences and energies that cannot be directly measured, so that we may acquire knowledge of powers and existance beyond the usual 3-dimensional world we live in. The very process of "opening ones self" creates a mindset that suggests one OUGHT to see something or be thought flawed or lacking in some way.

   I need experiences that do NOT require me to expect them in order to engage them....experiences that can be replicated and shared using the senses I use everyday.
   Our mind/brain is a very complex thing. It can be hypnotized; it can have vivid dreams; it can reflect on its own nature; it can 'remember' stuff than never happened, and with practice, it can partially regulate breathing and temperature...etc. All this has been demonstrated many times, and indicates to me that one has to be VERY careful of what one admits as objective, rather than subjective, experience. When I add to this the number of esoteric disciplines which, like metaphysical Towers of Babel, ask me (us) to believe layers and layers of often contradictory claims about the Ultimate, I shake my head in wonder. Perhaps the Red Queen can "...believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast.", but I just can't mansge it...


Told you I was a hard case! I consider being "open minded" as being willing to be SHOWN, not as willing to believe before being shown.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:02 AM

1) What Bill D says, and Rapaire too.

2) Never underestimate past societies or examine them from your own cultural standpoint.

3) Never overestimate them either.

4) The archaeological evidence is a biased recording of a skewed distribution of chance survival. Archaeologists know how flaky it is - that's what seperates us from historians :-)

5) When in doubt, claim an interest in the New Archaelogy and pick your favourite post-processual theory - that should cover all bases.

Fibs (who teaches archaeology at University, for her sins)

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Pied Piper
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 06:43 AM

Hence your minica; this explains a lot.

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 09:55 AM

Professional archeologists have to walk a straight and narrow line as Fibs implies.
The lady archeologist who claimed she found oxidized cocaine in pharoic mummies was castigated and professionally excommunicated by her peers.
Her discovery, if valid, would suggest ocean going trade since coca is not found in the old world, at least not anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:13 AM

Professional ANYONES--archeologists, archeologists, physicists, geneticists --- must struggle with ego and the NEED to have their theories be right, even as they struggle to determine what IS right. The rewards of making a breakthrough discovery have led many to proclaim and defend awkward positions long after new evidence leads down different paths.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:19 AM

CH, it is my understanding ANYONE can post anything they wish to Wikipedia. I'd think a sceptic such as yourself would be wary of such. Also, it is too bad a person who has been a student/member of something for over 25 years is not considered a valid source of info about an org. On that premise I guess you would not be the person to ask about your pub sessions, etc. I'll have to look it up in Wik, instead.

I consider your comment about those people associated with AMORC, which I posted, a personal insult.

BillD, "AMROC?" **bg**

they expect us to set aside certain notions of scientific proof and logic. They often ask us to "open ourselves" to experiences and energies that cannot be directly measured, so that we may acquire knowledge of powers and existance beyond the usual 3-dimensional world we live in. The very process of "opening ones self" creates a mindset that suggests one OUGHT to see something or be thought flawed or lacking in some way.

Bill, I hope to get back to you with my brother's input within the next few days (it's kind of hectic here this week) but, in the meantime I can only say this is what I know to be true from my experience and the experiments which Rog (the hard-headed engineer) and I have both carried out in our studies:

We have never been required, nor asked to set aside "scientific proof or logic." In fact, many of the monographs include scientifically-based experiments. Many, many members are scientists and extremely logic-based individuals.

"Opening ones self" simply means to approach with an open mind and does not in any way imply a fault or lack. I, for one, am quite glad that Louis Pasteur, Marie Curie, etc. all were brave enough to consider that which may not have been perceived as able to be "directly measured" until further investigation.

Of course, you are free to carry on with whatever assumptions you care to make.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:53 AM

(I guess I typed AMROC blindly...*grin*..I try for more accuracy than that. I hope I didn't inadvertantly create an acronym that offends 79 generations of the Enlightened!)

I had hoped that my posts carried a suggestion that what I do is try to NOT "make assumptions". This is a very important distinction...I do NOT claim "X is false", I seek evidence that "X is true" beyond simply being told "I experienced it".....(if YOU were told that "God gave the tablets to Moses directly", YOU would express doubts without more proof than a Biblical passage)

Well, then, I look forward to some specific instances of what, precisely, has been learned from your (and others) studies that can't be learned elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 12:14 PM

" I consider your comment a personal insult."

Oh well eh... I consider ogga-booga scammers like AMROC insults to human intelligence... so I guess that makes us even....

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:18 PM

hey, Clinton...let's be fair! Those people, for the most part, are not intentionally scamming anyone! They are presenting opinions about what they really believe, no matter what you or I think about how they got there! We are having some honest disagreements here, but you are taking it to a personal level. It's funny feeling to feel embarassed about having someone agreeing with my basic conclusions!

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:37 PM

I'll try to hold off the Plague of Locusts coming yer way, BillD, for the "AMROC" thing...sounds like something affiliated with the current administration. *shudder!*

CH, what BillD said. If you can't discuss, by all means cut down with childish insults.

This is a very important distinction...I do NOT claim "X is false", I seek evidence that "X is true" beyond simply being told "I experienced it".....(if YOU were told that "God gave the tablets to Moses directly", YOU would express doubts without more proof than a Biblical passage)

I am glad you expressed this in this way, Bill, and as always, I am full of respect for you. I shall endeavour to communicate same with my frater and come back with more, later. (Daughter is having tonsils and wisdom teeth out tomorrow am, so it may take me a day or two, plus today is my grandson's 2nd b-day! Did I tell you we are sure he is a reincarnation of 79th Generation of Enlightened Ones' first generations leader, Ai-Em-Aph-Onee?! We are thrilled! It's why I think we'll be able to divert those locusts.)

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:45 PM

"Those people, for the most part, are not intentionally scamming anyone!"

Considering the "Priory Of Sion" esque list posted above of supposed members, I tag the whole thing with the lable 'scam'.... if people involved in it are to thick or too blinkered or too apathetic to care, that's fine and jim-dandy for them.... If however, they expect me to take them at ALL seriously, I cannot... I will not...

Nor does anyones belief in anything make it in any way 'untouchable'... Just because they believe it, doesn't mean I can't be critical of it...

Especially when what they believe in is based on lies... (Traced back to ancient Egypt... Ya... right... show ANY proof....)

Nor am I inclined to believe any official party line from any organization that calls itself an "Ancient and Mystical Order"... especially not when they were formed in the early 1900's... BTW, H. Spencer Lewis actually claimed to be able to change zink into gold.... so how seriously am I supposed to take him or his passle of DLDs?

http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Rosicrucians.html
From his (note the title) "An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural"... I'll say it again... "Claims Frauds and Hoaxes"....

"modern Rosicrucians claim to be direct inheritors of the original purposes and philosophy"
So do so-called Modern Druids.... they're lying too.... A load of made-up new-age flimflammery...

I hope you aren't giving them money, kat....

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:48 PM

Cross posted...

"cut down with childish insults"
Trying to claim one can develop psychic powers, or change frogs into gold is about as childish as I can imagine....

When you do develop your 'psychic powers', James Randi has a cheque for 1 million bucks with your name on it.... all you have to do is prove it

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:56 PM

Trying to claim one can develop psychic powers, or change frogs into gold is about as childish as I can imagine....
putting words into my *mouth* again, CH, tsk, tsk...

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:59 PM

Nope... just quoting what AMROC claims...

I never said YOU said it did I????

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:04 PM

"...change frogs into gold.."

been done

and I'll take two

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:06 PM

Some decades ago, when Chariots of the Gods by Von Whatisface was being tossed about, I saw a fellow on television (it may even have been Carl Sagan, but I can't really remember now), using the same kind of reasoning as in the book and in other "alien intervention" myths, give a hilarious and very telling reductio ad absurdum dissertation on why New York City could not possibly have been built by contemporary folks; it had to have been built either by or with the guidance of ancient Atlantians or highly advanced aliens from Arcturus Nine.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:09 PM

New York isn't even real....

heh

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:12 PM

BTW, Clinton 'lying' is a serious charge, and requires more evidence than simple disagreement. You can claim someone is mistaken, or even deluded, but sometimes even the most egregious fools, ala Jerry Falwell, really believe the basics of what they are pushing. They may lie in the PROCESS of spreading their 'message', but you have to be careful what you label lies!

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:19 PM

Anyone who has ever claimed they can turn zink into gold is lying

and there goes their credibility, right out the window

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:27 PM

Trying to claim one can develop psychic powers, or change frogs into gold is about as childish as I can imagine....

You did not attribute your cite. Also, where does it say that AMORC claims to have turned frogs into gold? You are descending into absurdity. Next thing you know, you'll be wanting princesses to kiss you to see if you can turn into a, well...

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:52 PM

http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Rosicrucians.html
"the Ancient and Mystical Order of the Rosy Cross (AMORC) was begun in 1909 by H. Spencer Lewis, an advertising man in California. Lewis actually purported to change zinc into gold..."

"You are descending into absurdity."
That's just me dealing with AMROC on their own level... Fighting silly-string with silly-string as it were...

"you'll be wanting princesses to kiss you"
They're lined up out the door as I type this... ,-)

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: GUEST,bunnahabhain
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:00 PM

Well, there is a small problem with using boats as evidence of/lack of wood. They can be moved about.

As mentioned above, there is good evidence for large scale water engineering projects, weighting vast amounts. They're called dams. There's also good evidence for water pumps, using and ancient design, and normally translated as 'water dippers'

donoul, you do yourself no credit by being taken in by this rubbish.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:05 PM

Getting back to the orginal archeological intent of this thread for a moment, some may be interested in how a child mummy from AMORC's Egyptian Museum in San Jose, CA WENT HI-TECH at Stanford University.

From Randi's own site: Our universe and our lives are filled with mysterious and magical things yet to be discovered. Randi does not object to faith in these wonders as long as that faith does not insist on being taken as proven.

That is in complete agreement with the aims of AMORC and in fact, one of the first and foremost things AMORC tells anyone who is interested is We don't expect you to accept anything on faith.

Yes, H. Spencer Lewis did bring AMORC to the USA, but it was in existence long before that. If you really were interested in the truth and followed the link, you would have found that:

The lineage of the Rosicrucian movement can be traced from its beginnings in the mystery schools of ancient Egypt founded by Pharaoh Thutmose III (1500 to 1477 B.C.), and more particularly from his grandson Pharaoh Amenhotep IV (also known as Akhnaton) - through to the Greek philosophers such as Thales and Pythagoras, the Roman philosopher Plotinus, and others, who journeyed to Egypt and were initiated into the mystery schools - through to the symbolism hidden in the love songs of Troubadours, the formularies of Alchemists, the symbolical system known as the Qabala, and the rituals of Orders of Knighthood during the dark and dangerous times of medieval Europe.

In 17th century Germany, a mysterious publication called the 'Fama Fraternitatis' written by 'Christian Rosenkreuz' was printed. This heralded a renewed interest in Rosicrucianism throughout Europe. As part of this great renewal, the renowned Sir Francis Bacon (1561 to 1626) English philosopher, essayist, and statesman, directed the Rosicrucian Order activities both in England and Europe. Rosicrucian history states that Sir Francis Bacon was actually the author of the Fama Fraternitatis and other works that brought about the revival of the Order in Germany.

The Order crossed the Atlantic in the late 17th century when a Rosicrucian colony was established in Philadelphia. Later such eminent Americans as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine were intimately connected with the Rosicrucian community.

Throughout history there have been periods of greater and lesser activity of Rosicrucianism around the world. While inactive in the Americas during the 19th century, the Order was very active in France, Germany, Switzerland, Russia, Spain, and other lands during this time.

While Rosicrucianism is primarily a western phenomenon it is also eclectic and uniquely draws on the diverse mystical traditions of ancient Greece, China, India and Persia. Naturally enough, it also embraces the great explosion of human scientific and philosophical knowledge of the 19th and 20th centuries.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Cluin
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:06 PM

Adam's (or Rama's) Bridge.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:23 PM

mack, I was referring to the boat found under the sand at Giza. That one is a river boat however and would not be suitable for ocean voyage.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:28 PM

other views

more a chain of shoals, about 3500 years old, NOT "man made"... a search on "Rama's bridge" will get you more than you ever wanted to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:29 PM

Wood isn't the only fuel; camel shite burns very nicely. You'd need a a LOT of shite ... hmmm ... ;o)

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Grab
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 10:07 AM

As far as people in the past having "superior knowledge", for most of Europe for over 1000 years, that was entirely the case. The Romans came with their Greek-inspired knowledge, amazing engineering skills and superior military. And then the Roman empire fell. It wasn't until over 1000 years later that western Europe got back to the same level of technological sophistication.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 11:35 AM

" We don't expect you to accept anything on faith."

Jim Jones, Rev. Moonie, David Koresh and John Wayne Gacey all said the same thing...

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 11:46 AM

Gacy hardly fits in that group.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Cluin
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 12:01 PM

I'm wondering about that connection too.

Didn't expect to be wondering about that today.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 12:05 PM

To compare AMORC to any of that list is so idiotic it's laughable. Yer scraping the barrel, CH.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 12:31 PM

Like I said KL... I'm just realting to AMROC on their own level....

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 12:32 PM

Oops...

... 'cause deluded little dupes are deluded little dupes in my book....

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Cluin
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 12:34 PM

We don't expect you to accept anything on faith.

Then what value has faith?

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:56 PM

Faith, and a $1.50, will get you a small cup of lousy coffee....

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 04:59 PM

I know most of you pooh-pooh some of the metaphysical beliefs which I hold dear, but nevertheless, it includes the belief the pyramids were NOT built as tombs (katlaughing)

That sentence shows very clearly the problems one can encounter with you when discussing such things.

What for others is merely a question which can be decided empirically (as far as archeology goes) or is a question of which theory best fits the evidence so far you declare being part of your metaphysical beliefs. No wonder that you feel so easily ridiculed or whatever else when I still think I'm safely discussing empirical support or lack of for some theory.

This is where in my opinion you are crossing the line again. The aborigines (of Australia) declaring their legends about themselves as truth, natives of different cultures saying that scientific findings about their history different from their oral history violate their feelings, the Christians who take the Bible as a biology book, the Muslims who declare that each word of the Koran has been written in the heaven (and ignore findings that there once were conflicting versions of the Koran) are other examples where opinions originating from a belief system conflict with research.

BTW, the article 'the' in my overly long sentence is short for 'those of that group who' and not for 'all of those'. With a very large majority of Christians and with all (though based on a smaller number) Muslims I have talked about such things so far I have no problems at all.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 08:33 PM

I was wondering how long it would take for you to weigh in, Wolfgang. Entrenched as usual, yet certainly entitled to whatever you hold dear.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Amos
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 11:26 PM

Faith as an attitude is a very high-class attribute, when it is supported with rational local effort, and it serves to provide motivation, generate energy, dispel apathy, instill optimism and new ideas, and hold ambiguities beyond the scope of the present concern at bay. But when it is used as a substitute for looking, as a grounds for fending off the world instead of steering it forward, it is not high-class or spiritual at ll; it is a spiritual insult. It is unfortunate that both of these concepts are forced to wear the same five-letter label as though they were much more similar than they really are.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:27 AM

"it is a spiritual insult"

And an insult to intelligence....

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Peace
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:41 AM

Turning zink into gold

zing
gong
golg
gold

Done!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 05:53 PM

I often think that I am involved in a reasoned discussion with Mrs Shambles about one issue or another when I slowly discover that it not the logical process that I think it is - but is usually her view that I may be overdue for a hair-cut, need a shave or is really about some unconnected throwaway comment that I may have made many years previous which she has dug-up after being long-buried.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Cluin
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 07:10 AM

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 08:16 AM

Tonto, disguised as a glove....

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: MMario
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 09:17 AM

marinated some tofu

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Cluin
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 04:25 PM

and keyed the Lone Ranger's new Missabe.

Subject: RE: BS: Archaeological notions
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 12:21 AM

But what did that have to do with Archaeology?

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Cluin
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 05:15 AM

That boat sailed long ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: freda underhill
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 06:54 AM

Generic assumptions about Rosicrucianism or any other type of practise are about as useful as generic assumptions about anything.

One misconception is that mystical experiences are born out of belief, and so are the result of projected hopes or fantasies. Many styles of meditation teach the opposite -

they teach a process of becoming objective, by teaching practises which assist in withdrawing from the active mind, peeling away layers of identity and BELIEF - until a perception is experienced that is not influenced by identity, culture, or belief, but is a raw unfiltered experience.

btw I don't know anything about Rosicrucianism, but shared a house in the early 80s with a man who was a Rosicrucian - a remarkable and outstanding person who was a brilliant teacher, and then spent a decade or so developing bush flower remedies from the wildflowers of western australia.

I don't believe in the Beatles. i don't believe they exist, anyone who believes in them are just hallucinating fantasisers.

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Archeological notions
From: Leadfingers
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 09:04 AM

100 !!