Featured Title:
Free book with orders of £10 or over in our shop |
 |
| Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-art of Britain |
 |
| Login |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like your own home page, fewer ads, and your contributions link to your page. |
| Who's Online |
There are currently, 111 guests and 6 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
| Review your Reply |
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2657
 ON-Line
|  New Message Posted!2013-05-24 09:03
Even a superficial reading never mind a close one ,could see that there was no mention of problems with languange or terminology until three months and 8 pages of posts later . You first post was clearly concerned with the content and with nothing about terminiology , You were "troubled " by the conclusion and not the terminology , and so it continued for months with everything being explained , only later did that change to a semantic problem ,when it finally sunk in tht Hutton was correct . The semantic problem was also explained and not accpeted until confirmation from the author .
If something so basic has taken that amount of time then you will really " struggle with Ruggles "
George
|
megalith6
Joined:
28-10-2001
Messages: 132
from London UK
 OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2013-05-23 23:57
George wrote:
"That is not the impression from the initial and subsequent posts ,and is easily confirmed . There is no mention of ambiguity or any problem with understanding the meaning until after the it was explained why Hutton was correct ."
"It is obvious you understood the meaning but found it difficult accept the conclusion . The first mention of a problem with the language , the use of “cardinal “ came nearly 3 months and 8 pages of posts after the first post ."
............................
Your impressions are your own, as mine are mine, and what is obvious to you is by no means obvious to everybody else, I should have thought a brief glance up and down this thread would make that rather apparent. Otherwise, you have drawn up a chicken and egg scenario. If a reader fails to comprehend a text because it is couched in esoteric language then that reader cannot automatically be expected to understand what the author intends, and this is indeed the case. I still don't know what 'stations of the sun' are for example, perhaps someone can enlighten me here?
Ric
|
rogeralbin
Joined:
08-10-2010
Messages: 193
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2013-05-23 23:41
What prompted the question was the insistence that despite ordinary matter making up only 5% of the universe, undetectable "stuff" and "flows" making up the substance of our world, is a subject of humour. When quite the opposite with 68% dark energy and 27% dark matter is the reality.
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5549
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2013-05-23 21:53
Rogeralbin asked...
"Where is all the dark matter"?
The whole of this thread is based on visual, that is a certain range, or ranges of specific spectrums of visible radiations enabling alignments to be marked out , and the subsequent comments describing how a majority of a variety of constructions don't conform to major repeating visual alignments.
To answer Your question, I would suggest that the dark matter is omni present, but radiated into our visual spectrum when the Earth and whichever radiating body both manouver into locations where the dark matter is vibrated enough to illuminate.
It takes two to tango, and listening to many visual only posters one could easily presume that the earth is stationary , and only the apparent movements of other heavenly bodies is responsible for illumination.
cropredy
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2657
ON-Line
| New Message Posted!2013-05-23 21:13
That is not the impression from the initial and subsequent posts ,and is easily confirmed . There is no mention of ambiguity or any problem with understanding the meaning until after the it was explained why Hutton was correct .
It is obvious you understood the meaning but found it difficult accept the conclusion . The first mention of a problem with the language , the use of “cardinal “ came nearly 3 months and 8 pages of posts after the first post .
|
megalith6
Joined:
28-10-2001
Messages: 132
from London UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2013-05-23 20:15
Not at all. If the content had not been couched in such quasi esoteric terms as for example 'stations of the sun' (meaning?) I should have absorbed the meaning and moved on.
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2657
ON-Line
| New Message Posted!2013-05-23 08:49
Ric you are the one who chose to dip into , maybe even buy , a book titled “Stations of the Sun “ then later complained about the phrase being misleading and ambiguous ,what attracted you to it ? The ambiguity ?
Your initial post here about the book was not concerned with ambiguity but the argument i.e. the content , which you found “troubling “ .There is no doubt that what mattered to you was the rejection of the idea of solar alignments everywhere and not one reference to the ambiguity .
This continued for some time until it became apparent that Hutton was correct only then did you change tack to argue that the language was misleading despite it being explained that is was sufficiently straightforward and , however it was read it was still correct .This continued until Orbpit went to the trouble of asking the author and the explanation was as had been expected .
What took up the time and space was not the ambiguity of the language ( it can be easily checked )but your failure to accept what was explained to you in the first reply to the original response .
George
|
megalith6
Joined:
28-10-2001
Messages: 132
from London UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2013-05-23 03:05
George posted 22-05-2013 at 15:42 Ric , "the vast majority of prehistoric monuments in these islands do not relate to ... the cardinal points of the sun" was clear enough to most who read it and was clarified by the author i.e. “the vast majority of prehistoric monuments in the British Isles are not accurately aligned on sunsets or sunrises at the solstices and equinoxes.” .However the initial comment was read it was true , as was the confirmation .
You may not like the the use of language but I think it was the content that was really the sore point .
...............................................
I am afraid that is incorrect George,
The sore point is Ronald Hutton's use of language here, I just wish he could express himself in more straightforward terms, it would have saved a great deal of time and space I feel.
Secondly, we must tread carefully when considering what prehistoric people may or may not have intended by erecting their monuments - what unites us with them is our shared humanity - and look at the tremendous range of views expressed within this thread: it is highly likely therefore that similar divergences of opinion, belief and philosophy existed in prehistory - region to region - and we need I think to be sensitive to that.
Ric
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2657
ON-Line
| New Message Posted!2013-05-23 00:27
There are criteria for judging whether a putative alignment has any meaning in relation to a particular astronomical event e.g. it is accepted the the passage and roof box at Newgrange is aligned on the rising winter solstice sun because the sunlight enters the passage , on days either side of the of the solstice . You may argue that it is fortuitous or that the alignment is actually upon some other astronomical event .
We don't know what was in the minds of the builders but other major monuments are also aligned on solstices and it does appear intentional . You would have difficulty convincing anyone that the monument was aligned upon a lunar event or another solar event like an equinox simply because the alignment would be too inaccurate . If you argue that a level of accuracy should not be a considered in the criteria then you would have to dismiss the Newgrange alignment on the solstice and others that display what appears to be deliberate orientations on certain astro events because , if accuracy is not to be seen as important then possibly sites like Newgrange were aligned on something else or not at all . Most archaeoastronomers would dismiss that view .
Burl made this point “”The longer face of single standing stone ,the orientation of an isolated stone row that happens to be in line with a solar or lunar event cannot be taken as proof that the alignment was intended “
There has to be some form of clear indication concerning an alignment the passage of a passage grave is one , an avenue another . If we want to be sure of intention then simply lining up a couple of stones within a stone circle is not good enough or one stone to a hill top .Burl made this point “”The longer face of single standing stone ,the orientation of an isolated stone row that happens to be in line with a solar or lunar event cannot be taken as proof that the alignment was intended “ . If we accepted whatever people chose to believe as being alignments because it suited their agenda or because they felt it “looked right “ or “felt right “ we would be swamped with meaningless data and would have to include all the other similar circumstances that they ignored or didn't feel was right which would negate their initial findings.
George
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 909
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2013-05-22 22:52
True according to who, George, and what are the criteria for the definition of " relating to the cardinal points of the sun" or "an alignment" ?
cerrig
| |
|
Main News