The Problem with Arguments of Ancient Fear of the Unknown.

[Onasander]

I have been coming across, quite often here, the belief that ancient people were afraid, due to superstition, of traveling/migrating into lands the modern historians know little about.

 

I think this is taking cultural assumptions from a few select peoples or cultures at given points in time, and slapping it on the whole of antiquity until the Italian Merchant States, and later Columbus emerged.

 

This is very difficult for me to swallow. It's painting the voids in history with the colors and presumptions of other ages, or a entire culture with the impulse, interactive dynamics of a few.

 

The image of Celts and Gauls fearful of traveling through unknown, dark forests is a joke. Did they themselves know of a world any different? The whole world was forests and meadows. These tribes moved around alot, and traded. It's a convenient interposition to assert they were all terrified of the woods or exploration.

 

It is especially hard, even if accept a superstitious fear preventing them in traveling into the dark unknowns that history is unable to penetrate, that they would prefer taking up full scale invasions of the Roman state without much fear, over s possible goblin in the forest. Even if Goblins were certain and real, and malicious, I would prefer my chances in tribal combat against a few of them than a couple roman legions.

 

Rome is known to us. But shouldn't Rome be the equal unknown to them as any other land in this intellectual void they possess?

 

It's obvious they had individuals who traded, traveled, explored, and/or were enslaved and escaped and knew enough to head back in with the rest of the tribe. If they knew how to trade with the Romans, they likely knew how to trade with others, which involves familiarity.

 

Also, the fear of England..... some of it is factual, but how widespread and reasonable? The Isles were open up to international ore trade for centuries before this. Cross Chanel travel is certain, we have evidence stretching back thousands of years.

 

Yeah, there might of been a fear of traveling by some, but they might of been exploiting old wives tails to avoid further intanglements that could lead to their deaths. Alexanders men mutinied less from the fear of the unknown but from never ending warfare increasingly farther away from home. A certain point occurs in a overextension of every army where every step foreward is a step farther away from the rationality and motivations of those who fight.

 

This point is easy to detect. Chanakya mapped it out in his explanation of the RajaMandala.

 

If your state is the center of the map, the states immediately around you are threatening, thus your natural enemy. The state on the other side is your ally. This radiates out, each state determining its enemies and friends. This causes statistical dilemmas to some states, like Frederick the Great's Prussia who found themselves mathematically ruled everyone's enemy, and preemptively struck as fast and decisively as the cold, staying close to their center.

In Alexander's case, he conquered his natural ememy, then his former natural allies, then their enemies, and wanted to carry on with this absurdity. The military reached its Zenith from the prespective of Macedonia, Alexander tried to recenter them on babylonia for future, easier to justify expansions.

 

The barbarian states to the north of Rome knew where their territory began and ended, and who their neighbors were. Some more hostile or friendly than others. The Romans under Caesar overran Gaul, their natural enemy. England was a natural ally turned sudden enemy, but one trapped on the most part harmlessly on the opposite chanel, with superior numbers on unscouted terrain. England was at best a minor threat, and yet a absurd enemy to want to face. Not because they couldnt be subdued by a proper roman force, but rather, absurd because it couldnt by a small expeditionary force. Not within reason at least, and without profit unless multiple strongholds were encountered.

 

The fear of the sea, again, is something taken from the culture right before columbus. The ships of the Roman era, not designed for the atlantic. The belief in monsters, well deserved... cause the ocean does have some scary shit. Dozens of oars entering in and out of water at a snails pace could likely bring some freakish fish up occasionally. That is within reason. Also the stress and futility of such dangerous travel. However, that is empirical and pragmatic. Fear of the forests is childish. We are inserting infantile beliefs most people grow out of on ancient people to solve a big problem simply, which is wrong.

 

These cultures produced adults who grew out of childhood, and had a range of personalities more than likely resembling what their neighbors had.

 

Its quite likely the reasons the tribes stagnated is their natural enemies checked them... but some people always pushed out exploring, one way or another

It would be better, than attributing the whole of migratory antiquity, be by land or sea, that they call collectively shared the same beliefs, and instead to say 'group A in era 2 held this superstition, which converges with these other groups in other eras', while noting exceptions to the rule.

[Number Six]

The fear of the sea, again, is something taken from the culture right before columbus.

 

You centered the point here. A lot of our misconceptions about antiquity and early middle ages are taken from late middle ages and modern era. Many peoples are even convinced that the ancients thought Earth was flat just, just because Columbus mariners were afraid so. Hell, even Dante's Earth is not flat, let alone ancients'.

 

But, while I do agree with many of your points, you should read Ernesto De Martino's La fine del mondo (The end of the world)... but... it has not been translated into English (nor any other language, as far as I could find), unlike some other ones of his works. The end of the world is an unfinished study (he died before completing it) on various forms of cultural apocalypses; among other things, it deals with the concept of presence. De Martino tells about one of his journeys in southern Italy, during Sixties or so: he and his collaborators needed a guide, so they asked a local shepherd to join them in their car, with the promise that they would bring him back once he showed them the way. The man accepted and was already suspicious to begin with, but panicked completely when the bell tower of his town disappeared from the view. They had to turn and bring him back already, while he scouted with his head out of the window for the reappearance of the bell tower. When he saw it, he calmed again.

The book compares this episode with similar ones taken from modern indigenous peoples.

 

Now, while I do agree that De Martino's theories do not apply to each and every ancient population just as well, his theories on magic and primitive psychology are often used by historians who adopt an antropological perspective, just like L

Edited November 15, 2013 by Number Six

[Onasander]

Ill get it translated.... I read Giorgio Agemben on and off... my Point-Elliptic Paradox was developed as a tool to criticise the way light travels in one of his essays.... found in parallel's Chrissypus's Stepped Cone Paradox in part, as well as makes the theory of relativity unstable..... this came about merely as a accident from reading him. He is a good read for anyone here on this site, given his focus on Antiquity.

 

Can you give me a link to where used editions of this work is sold?

 

 

I was always running away as a child, police had a hard time tracking me down. I remember once I was crawling over chain linked, barb wire fence into a railyard as a toddler. Also fell off the beginning of a highway bridge (one story with grass, landed back first, didn't look before I jumpped...... nor did I in the Airborne years later). Once I was found in a university during course signups, police saw this little set of legs among all the students. My mother would of gotten into trouble, but I took off once after they returned me, and made it very difficult for them to catch me.

 

Moving from California to West Virginia, I got bored as hell, and by age twelve knew the surrounding area for ten miles, pushing a area over three states (my town is the only one to border three states in the country).

 

Yes, we have a interstate highway system north and south, as well as east and west, but I also hit the railroad tracks, creek systems, every valley, and sometimes just ran over hills. There is one village nearby in PA, next creek system over near Meadowcroft Village (oldest inhabited site in north america) where the people dont know much about my town, as well as vice versa. However, two hundred years ago, historybooks mention people from both our towns, reliant on foot and water transport, knew each other well, and fought several wars together.....

 

I admit, some people are instinctively xenophobic, and NEVER leave. However, you also have types that instinctively MUST. In my case, I am a INTJ, a very rare psychological type, but one that pops up in cultures and races the world over. We are known for endurance, solitary sports, like marathons.

 

Im having a hard time believing we didn't go stir crazy in ancient times. The Cynics were known for traveling, the Satyricon is a well known satire of how much people traveled. Jason and the Agronauts, The Odyssey, the Phoenician and Cathegianian traders pushing everywhere. Greek Armed German Mercenary troops reliant on ships for transport. Naked Gymnosophists debating Christians, India.sending expeditions into Arabia, Egyptians into India, Sardinian mercenaries employed in Ancient Egypt, many philosophical, msthematical terms reaching India and Europe & North Africa, not to mention fragments and loss works referenced to by travelers. HotHowthe hell did Tacitus know about Sweden?

 

Where was Mali paddling off too in the 1300? Leo Africanus? Battusa? Marco Polo.....

 

The list goes on and on and on. No doubt a great bulk stayed put. But cultures can focus on one personality over another, giving life and impulse to the culture, values, and motivations of the entire community. Some native American groups in North America stayed put, others had a wonderlust, like the Shawnee, who were spread from the gulf of Mexico to New York..... they would divide, and later recall groups together for an offensive. Others, like the Iraquois, formed nations with territorial boundries and capitals. The Delaware tried to mimick the colonialists.

 

I can't imagine these people (northern europeans) being so braindead. Were they genuises.... no. I think they had more than their fare share of stupidity. But I doubt it was the mere acceptance of Arian Christianity that caused the Goths to switch a switch and head south, ss far as Africa even! Furthermore, how could you explain a similar people, the Vikings and the Russ?

 

The ancient world got around. Athenians knew Ukraine, ancient world fought over troy, etc.

Some people get stir crazy.

 

If we see the impulse behavior now, subtracting the influence of memes to to root psychological behavior, we find a psychological phenomena statistically likely to pop up across all societies. If it is that widespread across the human race, it likely has very ancient origins. Might even predate humans. Chances are, even in low population eras, every society could still produce a few. Just some were better placed economically, politically, militarily, or intellectually (writting) to exploit such people.

[Number Six]

About Ernesto De Martino, as far as I can see, there are two of his works that have been translated into English: The Land of Remorse and The World of Magic (the latter is also published as Primitive Magic).

The Land of Remorse is something that does not concern antiquity; it's an etnographical study on a modern times phenomenon of southern Italy: the belief that a frenzied dance will cure you from the bite of a certain spider. The phenomenon is known as tarantism and De Martino attempts an explanation of its social and psychological causes. Beautiful and insightful book, but not of our interest right now.

The other book, The World of Magic / Primitive Magic, instead, analyses the structural significance of magic. Also this book dwells on the concept of presence, which is a central theme in De Martino's thought. Hence you should read this book if you want to read De Martino, rather than an untranslated and unfinished La fine del mondo, which is difficult as it is in its own language. The World of Magic is one of the most important books by De Martino and it contains most of his ideas. Probably it's also the most scholarly quoted, in the field of ancient history.

 

De Martino writes in Italy during Fascim and after the war. At first he adheres to Fascism, and that's why he's not a mainstream author, just like any other European intellectual who was close to either the Fascism or the Nazism. Anyway, in the aftermath of the war, he becomes close to the socialist and the communist parties. I believe he was fascinated with the mystical aspect of fascist movements, and politically interested in their socialist soul. Anyway, I don't care about the political ideas of great authors, I only care about their works, so don't have to justify him. But I wanted to give you an insight on the political context, because you may find discordant opinions about him.

He was not a mainstream author during Fascism either, anyway. In fact, his interest on magic drove him far from the idealistic perspective that was dominant in Italy at that point (and partially still is). His thought is rather close to Heidegger's philosophy.

 

Also, since he writes on magic, his books may be edited by crappy publishers (not in Italy, but I don't know about the translations: in fact, I have at least seen some easy-selling title: Primitive Magic: The Psychic Powers of Shamans and Sorcerers is the complete title of his translated work. Ugh... what the fuck?); don't get misguided: De Martino is a solid author and scholarly esteemed.

 

Enough about De Martino.

 

---

 

Going back to our topic, I do believe that, in fact, the ancients were afraid of the outer world. Hell, we are afraid, why wouldn't they? They didn't have our scientific explanations (except few intellectuals who were on the correct path) nor a 'social net' as wide as ours: going out of their field, their town or their country was indeed perilous. The world they lived in was a hostile one: hence we have the Roman obsession with boundaries rites; hence we have the frightening zoomorphic figures of Germanic art during the migrations era. Does it mean they were afraid to go out of their yard? Yes, but they also had means to control their fears: rites were one of them. Rites were meant to ground the human action within the cosmos, to coordinate it with its other forces, to allow it, because it would not be allowed if it broke the accord with the cosmos, the pax deorum. This is De Martino's line of thought, but also illustrious historians', such as Dario Sabbatucci, historian of religions, or Aldo Schiavone, legal historian, whose recent work, The Invention of Law in the West, marks a milestone in Roman studies and legal history and has also been translated into English.

Rites were particularly needed in any kind of 'transition': hence we have the importance of rites of passage, as far as transitions in the age (or status) of men are concerned. But travelling was another transition; the war was something alike: the complex, strong rites that preceeded war were needed to ground Roman action out of their ager, to ensure that while going there Rome wouldn't break the accord with the cosmos: in fact, war didn't have to be only iustum (right), it had to be also pium (bellum iustum ac pium).

 

So, in the end, their fears didn't prevent them from travelling as much as they didn't prevent them from evolving; Roman Law is a proof of constant and elaborate evolution: it was born as rites that were meant to coordinate human action with the hostile forces that inhabitate the cosmos, and yet it was bent and adapted so much that it became more or less laical. Because, like Dum

Edited November 16, 2013 by Number Six

[Artimi]

I admit, some people are instinctively xenophobic, and NEVER leave. -Onasander

 

this sounds like you think these two things are linked together. You have one, you have the other.

 

Some people do not need to travel to expand their horizons.

 

Why are things either / or ? Sometimes it is and. I found when things are considered either/or, both sides are very intolerant.

 

that's my rant.

[Onasander]

They are linked because it has been my experience to find these people in every hidden nook and cranny of my travels......

 

First, I found them between Glimmer and Logan County in West Virginia..... I was becoming increasingly disillusioned my freshman yeatere, hated the course material and stopped doing homework as it got in the way of my studies, and so split my time between reading what I was interested in the library, or going out on increasingly longer jogs into the ever narrowing road system.

 

I was 17 then.... kept comming across very impoverished villages. Houses were one room. Electric poles stopped. Roads ceased being paved. I kept pushing foreward.

 

That very ancient English dialect everyone talks about on this site? Its there. Its there, and I am not. Its the way it has gotta be.

 

In Alaska, you get similar groups of hill billies in little compounds, fighting forindependence, one lawn chair and 44oz drink at a time. Alot of opinions, slot of bullshit, alot of natives looking like middle aged caucasion men.

 

In Hawaii, I.accidentallly stumbled on a independence compound in Waimanalo, at the end of a road..... I was amazed at how they bblended the sitting on their ass eating spam snd soda, bitching just like in alaska, with the architecture of Logan County.

 

 

 

 

I dont like these people. I just dont fucking like them. The are too far apart to have learned this from one another.

 

 

 

 

I found this link just now: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantabrian_mythology

[Onasander]

The link gives a place, but not a time or era, beyond a sense of 'pre christian', and lacks detail. The people seem to deal with it on Jungian terms, ritualizing it, dressing up AS the forest.

 

Only mention of this myth in spain so far Ive seen. The idea they were scared of the forests however is bunk.... they were a forest people. Their hunters would of known their way around, and they would of traded and warred with someone elsewhere.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Onasander

[caldrail]

 

I have been coming across, quite often here, the belief that ancient
people were afraid, due to superstition, of traveling/migrating into
lands the modern historians know little about.

It isn't emntirely a myth. The Romans were very averse to crossing rivers without appeasing the local gods in some way, an aspect of everyday ancient life that isn't usually considered. Auguries were taken before a battle as another instance, including an ancestor of Augustus who called for chickens to be tested before a naval battle. He didn't like the result and had the birds thrown overboard, for which the gods denied him victory. Also we have other instances such as the mutiny in Pannonia which was settled due to Drusus taking adantage of a lunar eclipse, or the refusal of Caligulas three legions to embark for Britain, or Claudius's freedman persuading superstitious legionaries to embark for Britain, and so on.

 

The fact that the world is dark and mysterious, or perceived as such in common belief, does not mitigate against the minority who either aren't afraid of such things or are under the impression that their actions are properly patronised by their own gods. Necessity is npt only the mother of all invention, it's a major motivation against the unknown too, amnd for that matter, since our own world can be explored from our armchair these days, the concept of a dark unexplored world map is something we've largely come to forget these days. The ancients saw things a little differently to us.

[Onasander]

I cant accept this Synderesis, as many battles were fought on the natural boundry of water. Its a little hypocritical (lacking sincerity in the rivergods best interest to support you) if your about to wage war on the banks of the river, causing it to turn red, people screaming and crying in it, body parts floating in it, etc...... these prayers you speak of caldrail are categories of circumstance to ward off task specific concerns such as a river crossing, when enough time for a ritual exists to take place. Christians broke this process to the amount of time needed to sigh, roll ones eyes upwards, and do the sign of the cross.

 

So its a reasoned process, associated with learned experience..... crossing rivers can be bad for ones health. I agree, from experience.

 

However..... this isnt fear of the unknown. A river may be unpredictable and lethal, but is still knowable and experienced, especially if you live along it. And for specific dieties in rivers..... obviously then the river is known. Its a known entity.

 

Take the prechristian ideal of The Lady in the Lake. It aint Lake Superior. These are rather small, well known lakes. The myth and ritual surrounding these beliefs and practices evolved over time..... it wasnt static.

 

Can one have a fear of the unknown? Yes. Is it a rather simple , rudimentary belief? Yes, it can be.

 

But it can also be highly reasoned, via complex syllogism. Its a mistake to explain the state of culture and civilization over such a massive swath of land and time as monocultural and instinctive..... tribes can vary within a generation intellectually and schismatically merely from the wit and insight of a clever witchdoctor..... its hard to say what was said in any era. We only have a few fragments to go off of. The best methods Ive seen for calculating how myths mutate over time are questionable at best. We have tail end recollections from roman and Christian eras.

 

I myself had experience a fear of the unknown. I was having to hike out California on foot to get back east , over the rocky mountains before winter hit. It was september.... I had some hawaiian clothes on me. I could hike north, up the central valley into Oregon, and travel east through the badlands. The desert wasnt as bad. I could cut through the center of california to lake Tahoe, into nevada across the desert, through mormon territory, into the thickest part of the mountains, pop out on the great plains and keep moving. Or I could go south to Las Vegas, pushing through deserts with no water for 70+ miles between stops, till I hit the gulf coast.

 

Every step foreward, I was worried. I wasnt all that sure about any direction. I had a few bucks on me. It was hot in the day, cold at night. I knew the rainy season was about to hit, but the creeks were all dried up. Mountains and plains came and went.

 

I struggled the whole time in the beginning which way to go. Route 160 though grand island..... the sacramento river valley, was me fretting. It wasnt till I bought a map..... the last in stock (people dont want them anymore) that I decided. Even then, I stressed over backroads and water, distances between points. Even then, the map was mostly imaginaryx meant for highway motorists, not the needs of someone on foot. I still have the map, but stopped looking at it after placerville..... its into was unreliable, and I just used my gut instinct and asking people.

 

The background to the greek Hermes as a god of travelers, of the sly and quick, living off the cuff, and of roadside markers makes alot of sense.

 

Travelers traveled EVERYWHERE in the ancient world. Its scary..... but people had their reasons, and being scared doesnt stop some stupid idiots like me.

[caldrail]

Rationality and logic have little to do with this. The facts are that ancient peoples were usually very superstitious, the Romans particularly so, and for them crossing a river wasn't just a physical act - it was trespassing on the domain of a local god who might take offence at their presence and sweep them away to their deaths.

 

Whilst you or I might shake our heads at their reticence, bear in mind that we have a different worldview and better education that they did. For them, things happened because of divine intervention. Romans saw thunderstorms as evidence of a gods anger (note how dispirited troops were in Germania ad9 when the storms broke overnight. It wasn't just that they were wet and windblown, they were at a low ebb of morale. Note how Romans would buy lead pellets inscribed with the name of the gladiator they wished to curse, or that next to a temple you would find a vebndor selling the various paraphenalia a worshipper needed to properly appease or pray to a god, or that Romans would voluntarily bury or deposit in water artifacts as offerings for divine favour)

[Onasander]

The rate of superstition between the ancients and moderns are at the very least equal to, if not greater for in modern times.

 

There is a cognitive constancy for humans as there are for starfish who live at a much slower speed.

 

The way we process the imput data relies less on on our education and more on hardwire personality features. Tribal groups show a cognitive preference over a big city which knows how to balance a larger assortment of types. Korea favors the left frontal lobes, the US Army infantry the inverse. Doesnt change the constancy though, just the processing preference.

 

Our superstitions are judgments. Thats it at root. I can seperate them further, but we will keep returning to the judgmental root.

 

We havent become any more perceptive individually, but the range of judgments on matters has increased. We exist in the most superstitious era of world history..... its so bad we attack skepticism in science these days..... we do absurd acts, crazy things to ourselves. That is education too.

[caldrail]

Whilst I appreciate that even today we tend to be superstitious (Heck, I still my horoscope even though I know it's bunkum), the extent to which superstition drives our lives is different to that experienced by the ancient world. Although you discount education, I would argue that you have learned that a thunderstorm is the result of physical interactions within our enviroment rather than any act of God. There's still the irrational component of our brain that tells us we ought to not step under a ladder, but then, isn't that the result of learned response from our peers and parents, and thus an educative argument rather than a rationally considered option for improved safety?

[Onasander]

I never discount pedagogy, I mock it in its fraternal mandated forms (such as you must go to college to become a writer or politician) but I take a lot of effort to study it.

 

Most of the superstitions I attack are academic superstitions. Why? Because they (the professors) should be self aware and know better. However, everyone is prone to this. I struggle with it in my daily life.

 

The best approach to rational thinking is to be aware that the meanings attached to intuitive understanding has a root impulse/impulses covered up by a lot of learned response. Our feral nature is full of learned superstition, but also accepts alot of raw data for what it is.... something strange, something scary, something beautiful.

 

Once we get in the habit of knowing in a glance, of laughing at someone's conclusion, we've become superstitious. Doesn't mean science can't be productive under such circumstance, it doesn't have much choice if fact..... the scientific method is impossible without it, just we should be more aware.

 

The anatomy of every fact is operational. A thing is its operator and operand. It can be both static and dynamic, far and near, big or small. Facts cover by default more than we consider. It's why relying too much on statistics can fuck you in the end. I study them Nome the less. Because I like facts.... they interact and flank our best conclusions, leaving us knowing nothing in the end. In the end, we are just a superstitious lot. We proclaim ideologies and grand thinking, but despite our better beliefs of ourselves, really don't do it. We do something else.... a lot of bad habits, very human habits, and then afterwards refer to the better visualization of selfhood and good traditions, part ourselves on the back and hope no one notices the defects too much. Those defects are larger than we can imagine, and they build up like a cancer in larger groups.

 

Do you know the most beautiful thing in this world? The office gagglefuck. Everyone is attracted to it, and they all slink towards it, mooing as they go to get a look. The office cuties always manage to find her way from the outside to the center of it, instinctively competing for the attention..... the boss comes walking out..... sees what is going on (but doesn't see it the same way) and yells "What the Fuck is going on here"...... indeed. That fact everyone was focusing on..... a part of its Anatomy was the Fuck Phenomena. 

 

You try getting a rational explanation out of everyone as to what they were doing. Everyone knew what they were doing, in reference to everyone else. They all have a rational explanation as to what happened, why they acted as they did... makes sense to them, but all the parts put together doesn't equal the whole of the explanation..... what is gagglefuck? What triggers that social behavior over any other?

 

So much of our acts are instinct based on superstition. There usually isn't a grownup around to tell us we are active very strange, or doing strange things. Impulse after impulse fitting into acceptable behavior, acceptable conclusions, acceptable culture, acceptable self.

 

How do you think a Theodorian, or a Cynic, or a Pyrrhonist would react to a definition of what science is, or education, and then let loose in CERN Labs or Harvard University? How quickly would their penetrating eyes focus in on the lies and absurdities we blanket ourselves with? How many lead scientists and professors would be shown to be hypocritical idiots doing the exact opposite of what they preach?

 

In the end, we are all human. I mock the academics, but it's for their benefit. If I thought nothing of them, I wouldn't bother. It's a human enterprise, and as I am human, it's worthwhile to investigate our highest valued endeavors. I'm currently even working in collaboration with a assistant professor (tenure farming unfortunately, but she's starting to see the scope of her own ideas). 

 

Just we gotta stop and pause sometimes and question ourselves and our assumptions. We have to admit our biases. Doesn't mean get rid of them, but facts are expansive. Sometimes they contradict otherwise very good ideas we can't do without sincerely. But I note them and throw them on the table when I feel the contradiction, or if it seems a wrong bias to have with someone is a discussion. Example, when I told Gilius I was indeed a Catholic. That was my bias, but I never the less pressed him to, encouraged him and recommended a few methods to better assert his ideas competently. We should seek to do this more. With more aspects of ourselves, from introspective inquiry as to who we are, and comparing it to society. You'll find hugh gaps in our knowledge and actions once you do so.

 

We live in the most superstitious age in history. Does it differ from other ages? Hopefully..... I certainly hope so, if not it's all been a farce for nothing, but I don't think we ever quite escape the old orders, however clever we stamp them out. The gap is left in the dialectic, and nature abhors such a vacuum. It gets sucked back in. You mentioned horoscopes..... it was Carl Jung who noted the age of Horoscopes wasn't the ancient past, but today. They have never been so well read and explored by the average individual. In the medieval era, only once in a while would someone's horoscope be made up, it was  a rarity. Now it happens all the time. Why? A prelude to the gagglefuck, the most irrational yet beautiful thing in the universe. We just can't get enough.

 

Now excuse me, Global Warming just got frostbite, I gotta treat and bandage it's wound.... don't want it to die. Stuff to do..... Stuff to do....

[caldrail]

The simple exostence of modern superstition is two-fold - firstly that it is natural to human beings and that we pass those superstitions to the next generation as part of our culture, and secondly, the explanations for the state of existence that inspires superstitious belief is more diffcult to understand due to the nature and complexity of scientific principles as opposed to the much less complicated statements of religion  As for today being the most superstitious age - ridiculous. Since when did the Joint Chiefs Of Staff sacrifice aniomals to discern whetjher the Godsapproved of Operation Desert Storm?

 

 

The anatomy of every fact is operational. A thing is its operator and
operand. It can be both static and dynamic, far and near, big or small.
Facts cover by default more than we consider. It's why relying too much
on statistics can fuck you in the end. I study them Nome the less.
Because I like facts.... they interact and flank our best conclusions,
leaving us knowing nothing in the end.

Really? So the fact that the Romans existed as a human culture, that they achieved an extraordinary influence over our own, and that we're both using a website devoted largely to discussing their history, is of no possible relevance? I would steer clear of such pseudo-intellectual waffle if I were you.

[Onasander]

Why would I consider the romans waffles?

 

They admittedly did some stupid stuff both you and I could equally recoil from as ignorant and superstitious. We had that age of reason in the middle ages that viewed such practices critically.

 

I am discussing Irena Metzler's medieval history of disabilities with a friend, her blog here, father down, examines some of what we thought were medieval prejudices and superstitions were actually later inventions of what we assume to be a more enlightened age.

 

Rome would be a disgusting, revolting quagmire if it wasnt for the scrubbing and sterilization the middle ages gave to the romans in their idealization.

 

No matter how good our archeology is, how strict we hold to primary sources, we in the end must acknowledge we have to see Rome through a prism of a few different eras and civilizations. Its part of our view, its the only way we know how to see them.

 

You can reject rome Caldrail, dismiss them as waffles and jump in the sea and let your air out, but it doesnt change history or human nature. We are a very superstitious lot, indeed, but the romans did reason too. Cant really say we inherited everything either, that we are a culture Romans would recognize as their legitimate heirs. We like to say the US is the new Rome, but can we say Rome was the USA of its time and keep a straight face? Alot of stuff happened between the fall of Rome and modern times.

 

You claim to of read the new Dune Books. What mythical creature did Baron Harkonnen keep a statue of in the cabinet of the restored Atreides Castle where Ominous and Erasmus kept them?

 

He kept the best marker of time.... a chimera. A sphinx... no matter how perfectly preserved and authentic a preservation, it lost its vitality and purpose. It ceased being what it once was..... the fortifications of a military house of a feudal empire, and at best could hope to be now a symbol to a simularcum daydream of a society that has nothing to do with an older era they no longer really relate to. Nothing quite look the same, details were off. Baron took humor in this, and accepted the absurdity exactly for what it was.

 

We dont study rome here, we study a sphinx. Dont ever forget that. One stacked like a russian doll one in another.

 

The belief we can do otherwise is childish pretend. A pretend to holding to a truth, when its just holding to one of the cultures of thought that seperate us further.

 

But the scraps and misconceptions are worth exploring.

 

And you do realize that psuedo-intellectual bunk I used was Roman era reasoning, right? I have a preference to using philosophies that fit the thinkers of the era I focus on. Had this been a Chinese History forum, I would of used Taoist, Legalists, Mohists and Confucian reasoning..... you just attacked roman skepticism and reasoning the best we preserved it, thinking it was just me.