Testing the Velikovski Heritage

[Grey Cloud]

Dave Talbott wrote on Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:42 pm:

We also receive innumerable interpretations of myth from others, but it would not be reasonable to place the burden on me to critique all of these ideas. Take what I'm offering in Symbols of an alien Sky as my proposed "answer" to the thousands of alternative explanations of myth. All that is necessary here is to view the video segments and show that I've misstated a historical fact. If the facts are not misstated, then simply ask yourself this question as the presentation develops: If the hypothesized events occurred, would I expect to find these facts
(patterns, images)? There is no other reasonable way to evaluate the model.

To take the last sentence first, a child's hypothesis about Santa fits the 'facts'. The child also has empirical evidence to support his hypothesis.
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong."
H. L. Mencken.

While it may well be unreasonable to expect you to critique 'thousands' of alternative theories, it is not unreasonable to expect you to say why you feel, for example, Eliade and Santillana & v. Deschend are wrong, given that you have often borrowed from them. And what about Cardona's alternative Saturn theory?
Your challenge to show where you have misstated historical fact is somewhat disingenuous seeing that there are no historical facts in the videos. Instead we are treated to the usual sweeping statements and generalisations, and your own key phrases which are repeated ad
infinitum and backed up with a combination of CGIs and predominently modern artistic imagery.
On the occassions where you do actually make a definite statement, it is generally worded in such a way as to be easily refuted. For example, the statements about the Warrior King and the Mother Goddess (see below).

Some specifics:
In part 1 (~1:20 mins) you describe Berossus as 'the Babylonian priest-astronomer'. Well, yes, Berossus was indeed Babylonian but he lived a long time after the heyday of Babylonian astronomy (he was c. 290-278 BCE), was a man of learning rather than an astonomer who is most famous for his History of Babylonia, and, in any case, none of his works have come down to us and what we do have comes from secondary sources.

In part 3 you describe Velikovsky as a 'distinguished scholar and colleague of Albert Einstein'. Velikovsky was not a distinguished scholar, he was a psychiatrist who got slaughtered (rightly or wrongly) when he entered the scholarly world. He may well have been a correspondent and even friend of Einstein but he was not a colleague in the true meaning of that word. This name-dropping, is in itself disingenuous as the EU model is highly critical of much of Einstein's work.

In Part 1 (~7:29), you state "In astronomical traditions the world over, the ONLY planet called the Mother Goddess is Venus". [My emphasis]
What is meant by 'astronomical traditions' I don't know, but:
Homeric Hymn XXX to Gaea (trans. Evelyn-White) (Greek epic C7th - 4th B.C.) :
"Well-founded Gaia (Earth), mother of all, eldest of all beings."

Homer, Iliad 14. 200 ff (trans. Lattimore) (Greek epic C8th B.C.) :
"[Hera addresses Aphrodite :] Since I go now to the ends of the generous earth on a visit to Okeanos, whence the gods have risen, and Tethys our mother who brought me up kindly in their own house, and cared for me and took me from Rheia, at that time when Zeus of the wide brows drove Kronos underneath the earth and the barren water. I shall go to visit these, and resolve their division of discord, since now for a long time they have stayed apart from each other and from the bed of love, since rancour has entered their feelings. Could I win over with persuasion the dear heart within them and bring them back to their bed to be merged in love with each other I shall be forever called honoured by them, and beloved."

Homer, Iliad 14. 300 ff :
"[Hera addresses Zeus :] I [Hera] am going to the ends of the generous earth, on a visit to Okeanos, whence the gods have risen, and Tethys our mother, who brought me up kindly in their own house, and cared for me. I shall go to visit these, and resolve their division of discord, since now for a long time they have stayed apart from each other and from the bed of love, since rancour has entered their feelings."

Plato, Theaetetus 152e (trans. Fowler) (Greek philosopher C4th B.C.) :
"And on this subject [i.e. that all things are derived from flow and motion] all the philosophers . . . may be marshalled in one line--Protagoras and Herakleitos and Empedokles--and the chief poets in the two kinds of poetry, Epikharmos, in comedy, and in tragedy, Homer, who, in the line `Oceanus the origin of the gods, and Tethys their mother,' has said that all things are the offspring of flow and motion."

Then there are, for instance, Durga and Kali neither of which have anything to do with the planet Venus as such. The planet Venus in the Indian 'astronomical tradition' is Shukra who is depicted as a middle-aged man.

In part 1 (~6:50) We are told of: "A great warrior or hero born from the womb of that very same goddess to rescue the world from monsters that are also unexplained".
How about these then:
Perseus - mother mortal.
Theseus - mother mortal.
Hercules - mother mortal.
Odysseus - mother mortal.
Achilles - mother immortal Thetis, nothing to do with either planet Venus or Mother-Goddess. Or,
Thor - morther Jord, the Earth (Eddas)
Sigurd - mother mortal, Hiordis.
Arjuna - mother mortal.
Ares - mother immortal, Hera.

Followed by part 1 (7:40) where you said "And whenever the chroniclers of ANY land invoked the planet Mars, they INVARIABLY recalled a great warrior, the victor over chaos". This is accompanied by three images of Hercules. [My emphasis]
Let's stick with Ares. Leaving aside you entirely incorrect use of the word 'chaos', Ares does indeed play a part in the war against the Titans and the war against the Gigantes. He is not, however, the only god to do so, and his role is not noticably more prominent than any of the other Olympians. He also, quite frequently, comes off second-best, e.g.:
the Aloedae Giants capture him and keep him locked up for 13 months.
he runs away and disguises himself as a fish when faced with Typhon.
he fails in his attempt to force Hephaistos back to Olympus.
he is beaten at boxing by Apollo
he is wounded by Hercules (who you and the other Saturn theorists claim is also the planet Mars) in the war of Pylos.
he is chained to the bed by Hephaistos.
he is wounded again by Hercules while supporting his son Kyknos (Kyknos is killed by Hercules).
In the Iliad, Ares is wounded by Diomedes. He is floored with one blow by Athene who also floors Aphrodite with one blow (to her soft breast). Isn't Athene supposed to be the planet Venus according to at least some of you Saturn theorists?
In the Iliad, Ares is loathed by Zeus and Athena who use such words as 'mad' and 'unpredictable'.
Ares is responsible for the death of Adonis who is also supposed to be the planet Mars according to you Saturn theorists.

To this we can add Part 4 (~4:25) where we are treated to the following list:
Warrior-hero, warrior king
Innermost heart of the heart
Child in the womb
Child on the lap
Pupil of the eye (goddess)
Axle of the cosmic wheel
Active will of the creator

Please point me to any instances of Ares fitting any of this list, or indeed, any of the Heroes I listed above.
I would suggest that if, instead of cherry-picking words and phrases from various sources and using them to suport your theory, you study the the myths of Ares. You will find lots of references to brazen chains and ropes, 'roars like nine or ten thousand warriors' and lots of other catastrophic metaphors and images.

[SpaceTravellor]

@ Phil,
Thanks for your post above which raises many questions regarding the interpreations of myths et all.

I´ll let your comments and questions stand until later, but in the mean time I´ll give a few exsamples of how myths are read and interpreted in our modern society.

@Hi All,

REGARDING THE INTERPRETATION OF MYTHS

Unfortunately the best site for quotations http://www.theoi.com/ was temperarilly out of order, so I´m warning you for these Wiki-quotes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okeanus

Mythology

Oceanus (Greek: Ὠκεανός, lit. "ocean") was believed to be the world-ocean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Ocean in classical antiquity, which the ancient Romans and Greeks considered to be an enormous river encircling the world. Strictly speaking, Okeanos was the ocean-stream at the Equator in which floated the habitable hemisphere.

If you click on the Worlds-Ocean link, you can read a lot of informations of all the Earth Oceans, but did ancient people know of all the oceans on the Earth?

1. What "enormeous mythological river is encircling the world"? Where is the logics?

Some scholars believe that Oceanus originally represented all bodies of salt water, including the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean, the two largest bodies known to the ancient Greeks.

2. What are the 2 largest bodies (of water) known to the ancient Greeks?

Cosmography

Oceanus appears in Hellenic cosmography as well as myth. Cartographers continued to represent the encircling equatorial stream much as it had appeared on Achilles' shield.

3. What is "the encircling (equatorial) stream" in the ancient myths?

Hecateus of Abdera writes that the Okeanos of the Hyperboreans is neither the Arctic Ocean nor Western Ocean, but the sea located to the north of the ancient Greek world, called the most admirable of all seas.

4. Which admirable sea of all seas is located to the north of the ancient Greek?

THE ANSWERS TO ALL 4 QUESTIONS ARE: THE MILKY WAY RIVER.

Now: If I´m right, read the text above again and see for your self how ancient myths have become so obliviant, that the interpretations ends up in confusions and even in a total nonsense, mixing the telling of celestial myths for being matters on Earth.

And just a footnote to the "Symbols of the Alen Sky" videos: These videos could also have been taken in consideration here as well regarding the lack of knowledge of the Milky Way Myths, which de facto leaves the contents of these videos to be archived very close to the category of Science Fiction.

Not an Alien Sky but the familiar Milky Way River.jpg (25.89 KiB) Viewed 10433 times

All the Best from Ivar

[nick c]

Hi GC,
Okay, I haven't too much time but here we go again...

To take the last sentence first, a child's hypothesis about Santa fits the 'facts'. The child also has empirical evidence to support his hypothesis.

This does not make sense. The child's hypothesis certainly does not fit the facts; nobody came down the chimney, it is his mom that puts the presents under the tree not Santa, and so on. That is why as he gets a little older he discards the notion. [I must say you made a curious choice of imagery (Santa/Christmas), remember my earlier post on the [url2=http://www.candlegrove.com/sacaea.html]Saturnalia[/url2] connection to Christmas?]

While it may well be unreasonable to expect you to critique 'thousands' of alternative theories, it is not unreasonable to expect you to say why you feel, for example, Eliade and Santillana & v. Deschend are wrong, given that you have often borrowed from them. And what about Cardona's alternative Saturn theory?

Those mythologists are uniformitarians. This prevented them and others from even considering catastrophic scenarios, should that not be self evident? They gathered much information that is of use to the catastrophists but they were restrained by their inherent assumptions and a paradigm leap was not an option.
As far as differences with Cardonna, well just because Eisenhower had differences with Churchill does not mean that they weren't allied against the Nazis.

Instead we are treated to the usual sweeping statements and generalisations, and your own key phrases which are repeated ad
infinitum and backed up with a combination of CGIs and predominently modern artistic imagery.

Consider the medium as part of the message. CGI's depict what the sky may have looked like under the theory. There is plenty of literature for those that want to know more details.

In part 1 (~1:20 mins) you describe Berossus as 'the Babylonian priest-astronomer'. Well, yes, Berossus was indeed Babylonian but he lived a long time after the heyday of Babylonian astronomy (he was c. 290-278 BCE), was a man of learning rather than an astonomer who is most famous for his History of Babylonia, and, in any case, none of his works have come down to us and what we do have comes from secondary sources.

So Berossus is worthless? Much information is derived from the Greco-Roman era, simply because there were philosophers who transmitted their thoughts to us. There is very little pre hellenistic scientific or historical analysis of anything. What we have is myth, religious ceremony, official records, archaelogical derived evidence, etc. I see nothing wrong with citations of Berossus, or of someone who relates to us what Berossus said.

In part 3 you describe Velikovsky as a 'distinguished scholar and colleague of Albert Einstein'. Velikovsky was not a distinguished scholar, he was a psychiatrist who got slaughtered (rightly or wrongly) when he entered the scholarly world. He may well have been a correspondent and even friend of Einstein but he was not a colleague in the true meaning of that word. This name-dropping, is in itself disingenuous as the EU model is highly critical of much of Einstein's work.

Colleague, definition: an associate that one works with. Velikovsky edited the Scripta Universitatis in 1923, Einstein prepared the mathematical-physical section. That would qualify them as "colleagues." That former professional relationship was the basis for their friendship after WW II.
He was also a colleague of Freud and Jung, having corresponded with both and published in Freud's Imago. He also published a paper suggesting that epilepsy is characterized by pathological electroencephlagrams, now a standard diagnostic technique.
This is not name dropping, since Velikovsky was more often than not at odds with these famous men, but rather illustrates that pre catastrophic Velikovsky was already a noted scholar even though he was later vilified as a CP. As far as the EU disagreeing with Einstein's theories, perhaps that is why Einstein told Velikovsky...set fire to other houses but leave mine alone! (paraphrase) Because the core of their debates centered on the role of electromagnetism in space.

I would suggest that if, instead of cherry-picking words and phrases from various sources and using them to suport your theory,

I will leave most of the myths you have cited, as this is not the problem. The problem is the disagreement over methodology. Hence the use of the accusation of "cherry picking." Finding commonalities between seperate myths from seperate cultures needs to be explained, especially when those commonalities are incongruent. (Such as a hairy serpent, feathered star, bearded star, feathered serpent, etc.) If they are not rooted in some external common experience an alternative explanation must be given.
Here are links to essays by Cochrane on Venus, Mother Goddess, Aphrodite, etc.
http://www.maverickscience.com/venus.htm
http://www.maverickscience.com/venus-aphrodite.htm
If you can't get over how he titled his book, then don't read these.

nick c

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Nick,
You wrote:

This does not make sense. The child's hypothesis certainly does not fit the facts; nobody came down the chimney...

It doesn't fit the facts but it does fit the hypothesis: the room is full of presents and the carott and mince pie have gone. That there may be an alternative hypothise/explanation is what the child and DT miss.

As I have explained to Lloyd and StenevJay, my point is not whether these other theories are right or wrong but why has DT failed to address them while at the same time using them for sources etc. The fact that they are uniformitarian is neither here nor there, and, in any case, does not mean that one can arbitrarily dismiss every word they have written. Scholars routinely use the theories of others in their works and just as routinely attempt to prove why their theory is superior to these alternatives.

Consider the medium as part of the message.

Oh, I do. The sweeping generalisations, the lack of given sources, the repetitative imagery, the atmospheric music, the sonorous voice modulation...

I am not saying Berossus is worthless. Check the video (pt 1, 1:20), DT 's narration suggests that he is quoting Berossus, yet as I stated we don't have anything by Berossus. DT is also using the term 'Babylonian astronomer' because most people who have an interest in will know of the repute of these gentlemen, yet Breossus was not a Bablyonian astronomer in this sense.

Likewise the Velikovsky/Einstein relationship. Your hair-splitting about them both working for the same journal bears no relation to the context DT used in the video and what he was trying to imply by it.
The fact that V was a colleague of Jung and Freud is a point deducted from my perspective. Having read both of these clampets, I have no time for either. In any case, this has no bearing on my criticisms of DT post or the video.

I will leave most of the myths you have cited, as this is not the problem. The problem is the disagreement over methodology. Hence the use of the accusation of "cherry picking." Finding commonalities between seperate myths from seperate cultures needs to be explained,
especially when those commonalities are incongruent.

Surely the interpretations of the myths are central to this problem as mythology is at the core of the subject under discussion? Neither V. nor the Saturn theorists were the first to spot the commonalitees in the
world's mythologies. The problem is indeed one of methodology, the Saturn theorists and their vaunted 'comparative model' do do not attempt to interpret myth; they cherry-pick bits and bobs to fit their preconceived notions. As I alluded to in my original post, if DT et al were to attempt to interpret the various myths surrounding Ares they would perhaps find evidence of catastrophe.
On a similar note, may I also suggest the first two books/chapters of Nonus' Dionysiaca.

As for the Cochrane links, I've read his stuff and am less than impressed. As for the title of his book, I would say to you that 'the medium is the message' - do you think that any genuine scholar would even think of using a title like that?

[bboyer]

Inappropriate personal issues deleted. My call. Please restrain comments to points brought up within the topic and forego comments addressing posters' personalities, presumed or perceived emotional states etc etc etc. Thanks.

_____________________

"I have never learned anything from any man who agreed with me." -- Dudley Field Malone, from John T. Scopes 1925 "Monkey Trial" defense speech

[SpaceTravellor]

Hi Good Guys,

It is quite unbelievable that some modern human beings scientifically can equal the scientifically planet Venus with either the Earth Mother Goddess or the Great Milky Way Mother Goddess! The very same goes for equaling the scientifically planets of Saturn and Mars with either the Father Sun or the mythological Great Milky Way Father God.

1. Read about planet Venus in science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
2. Read about Mother Goddesses and note the many positive life-giving qualities here: . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_goddess
3. What are the differences between planet Venus and Mother Goddesses?
4. How on Earth can the scientifically planet Venus then be compared to Mother Goddesses and then again be assumed to be a part of the Velikovsky "Catastrophic Society"?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inanna
5. Inanna is Queen of the Underworld.
6. As the goddess of the planet Venus, Inanna was identified by the Akkadians with their own Venus deity.
7. Most curious is perhaps the story of Inanna's descent to the underworld, which is known from a poem on a relatively intact set of tablets.

Note the problem between # 6 and # 7: By equaling planet Venus with the Mother Goddess Inanna, the author gets problems understanding Inannas descent to the underworld.

In # 5 it is stated that Inanna is the Queen of the Underworld. All ancient religions divided the Earth hemispheres in 2: The Overworld presents the northern hemisphere, and the Underworld presents the southern hemisphere.

Familar Sky.Milky Way.jpg (32.57 KiB) Viewed 9967 times

This image shows the whole Milky Way contours with the major "god" figure to the left Overworld and the major "goddess" figure to the right Underworld. Locating Innana as the right "female" figure it is obvious that Inanna is the Queen of the Underworld.

And if you further on note the inserted swirling image on this figure, which represent the Milky Way center and the mythological telling of the Great Mother Goddess who gave birth to all living things in our Galaxy, you will perfectly understand the many positive lifegiving qualities, which hardly can be connected to any telling of ancient disasters.

The major problem in the ”Velikovsky Heritage” still is and always will be:
By equaling the scientifically planet of Venus with either the Earth Mother Goddess or with the Milky Way Mother Goddesses, all kind of strange hypothesis is made up.

The very same mistakes takes place regarding the scientifically planets of Saturn and Mars equaling these with either the Father Sun or with the Great Milky Way Father figure.

Conclusions:

1. There is no scientifically evidence for the "Worlds in collision”.
2. For instants: The Velikovsky Heritage takes “A great Flood” to count for “a great disaster”, but this is mixed up for the mythological telling of the Milky Way river.
3. By right out refusing the spiritual importance of Mythology, the Velikovsky Heritage is completely missing the mythological and cosmological insight.
4. The Velikovsky Heritage only use mythological telling and archetypes in order to back up their catastrophic planetary hypothesis.
5. The Velikovsky Heritage are talking of mythological archetypes and referring to mythological deity qualities and attributes, but it all get completely unscientifically when they mix up the scientifically planets with the mythological telling and mythological images. Via this mix up they are connecting the right dots to the wrong celestial objects, which of course gives non sense at all.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Ivar,

While I agree wiith you that the Milky Way plays a role in mythology, I have few problems with your interpretation.
1. I don't think it is as central to mythological tales you do. I think that the constellations feature more than the Milky Way as such.

2. Your graphic of the Milky Way is just that, a graphic. I feel you are confusing the map for the territory. The actual MW does not look like exactly like that to the naked eye.

3. I don't understand the eight-spoked wheel that you have superimposed upon the graphic. Why eight spokes? What do the segments or the radials represent?

In your post about Inanna you said that "All ancient religions divided the Earth hemispheres in 2:..". I disagree strongly with this. The ancients divided the Universe in three - Heaven, Earth and the Underworld.

Inanna visiting the Underworld was just that - a visit. She returned to her home again afterwards. The queen of the Underworld was Ereshkigal.
Also, and this is a criticism I level at the Saturn theorists, if one is going to attempt to interpret a mythological story then one must account for all the actors in the drama not just cherry-pick the lead actor. One must also account for the other elements in the story, for example in the Descent, in preparation for the journey Inanna puts on seven layers of clothing, jewlry etc. On arriving at the Underworld she removes them in reverse order in seven steps.

Another trap to avoid when interpreting myths, and another criticism I've levelled at the Saturn theorists, is that often these tales operate at more than one level. For instance, I can interpret this tale as being about the descent of the soul into matter or the physical realm, and Inanna's re-ascent representing the soul's re-ascent after death. The seven steps being the seven planets. I am willing to concede that there may be other, equally valid, interpretations.

As a last point, I would say that gods and goddesses represent concepts not actual things. Physical things are invested with certain properties and these properties fall under one or more concepts so, for instance, a particular god can be associated with a planet, a constellation, or some physical thing down here on Earth. God = Milky Way, full stop is no more tenable than god = planet, full stop.

[SpaceTravellor]

Hi Grey Cloud,
Thanks for your tough but fair questions!

1. I don't think it is as central to mythological tales you do. I think that the constellations feature more than the Milky Way as such.

In my opinion the Milky Way Myths deals with the Story of Creation - very often told after a telling of how the 4 basical elements are working. If so, what can be more important?

Then, I also agree with you that Star Constellations - and some single stars - of course also plays some significant mythological roles. But, as I´m concentrating on bringing forward the forgotten Milky Way Myths, I have not the time to go in details with the other important deity issues for the time being. I hope for the good help from other people to deal with these other issues. I made an minor attempt with the Inanna example and I´ll try to be more specific.

2. Your graphic of the Milky Way is just that, a graphic. I feel you are confusing the map for the territory. The actual MW does not look like exactly like that to the naked eye.

You got of course a point here. The visibility of the Milky Way contours varies throughout the seasons. Your eye sight powers also play a role. Ones imaginative power also, your chose of symbols too. But generally my shown contours can be recognizable in the most Star Map Atlas.

3. I don't understand the eight-spoked wheel that you have superimposed upon the graphic. Why eight spokes? What do the segments or the radials represent?

The horisontal and vertical spokes represents the 4 cardinal directions in the Milky Way as observed from or Solar System. The other 4 diagonal directions represent an ancient division method, very often symbolized with 4 animals - as for instants in the Revelation of John. Se link: http://www.native-science.net/MilkyWay.SolarSystem.htm

In your post about Inanna you said that "All ancient religions divided the Earth hemispheres in 2:..". I disagree strongly with this. The ancients divided the Universe in three - Heaven, Earth and the Underworld

I also agree with you regarding the 3 World Dimensions of Earth, Stars and the Milky Way. But the Earth it self was divided "in things above the horizon and below the horizon" where - some of - the celestial bodies "went down under" to the underworld, hence the divison of the Upperworld and the Underworld i.e. the 2 Earth Hemispheres.

Also, and this is a criticism I level at the Saturn theorists, if one is going to attempt to interpret a mythological story then one must account for all the actors in the drama not just cherry-pick the lead actor.

I fully accept your terms of counting for every detail - but as mentioned already: I am focusing on bringing forward the forgotten Milky Way Myths and I cannot for the time being also work with too many details, but I shall do my very best. And again: I hope for other good people to give a helping hand on this matter.

Another trap to avoid when interpreting myths, and another criticism I've levelled at the Saturn theorists, is that often these tales operate at more than one level. For instance, I can interpret this tale as being about the descent of the soul into matter or the physical realm, and Inanna's re-ascent representing the soul's re-ascent after death.

And again we agree: If the mythological "deities" are archetypes, they can be interpreted on several levels, even as individual transitional rites as in the Native Way of gathering both individual, social and Cosmological knowledge.

As a last point, I would say that gods and goddesses represent concepts not actual things.

If you by that mean "concepts of creative elementary forces", yes to that.

Physical things are invested with certain properties and these properties fall under one or more concepts so, for instance, a particular god can be associated with a planet, a constellation, or some physical thing down here on Earth. God = Milky Way, full stop is no more tenable than god = planet, full stop.

- Before my restricted english vocabulary gets the better of me, please elaborate on the last quote - and translate it to my school english-danish.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Ivar,
En garde! [An ongoing private joke, if anyone is wondering]
A quick response to clarify that last piece you said you didn't understand.
An example would be Zeus. He can be the Universl mind, ie. everything; he can be the Sun, as in the Iliad for example, or he can be the planet Jupiter. He is associated with concepts such as justice, and of course thunder and lightning.
Also related to this is that a star or planet for example, can be associated with different gods or goddesses. The Moon, e.g., is associated with childbirth and so Artemis, but the Moon is also associated with mind and wisdom so Athene and Hermes are also connected with it.
Your "concepts of creative elementary forces" is as good a way as any of expressing it.

[SpaceTravellor]

@Grey Cloud,
Thanks for the clarification.

An example would be Zeus. He can be the Universl mind, ie. everything; he can be the Sun, as in the Iliad for example, or he can be the planet Jupiter. He is associated with concepts such as justice, and of course thunder and lightning.

Regarding "be the planets": Yes, if the scientifically qualities can be verified. But then again: I don´t associate the planet of Jupiter with your proposed associations. It makes me tink of planetary Astrology and therefore I associate the concept of "Zeus" to be the Northern hemisphere Milky Way deity-concept.

Also related to this is that a star or planet for example, can be associated with different gods or goddesses.

Agreed in the sense that the mythologial tellings of deity-concepts often have a line of context that includes a single star and/or a star constellation in order to tell a certain mythological story.

The Moon, e.g., is associated with childbirth and so Artemis, but the Moon is also associated with mind and wisdom so Athene and Hermes are also connected with it.

I´m aware of the influence from the Moon regarding the tidal rhythms and the life in the oceans, but maybe we shal discuss the supposed Moon influence on the female reproduction rhythm a little closer?

It is my believe that it is not the Moon that influences the female reproduction rhythms. I rather think it is the rhythms of the Sun, you know: The Fire is first and then the other elements? In my opinion, the human female reproduction rhythm correlates very much with the rotation rhythm of the Sun, give or take a little because of the individual conditions. What do you think of this?

. . . the Moon is also associated with mind and wisdom

- I dont like to talk in astrological terms, but as far as I know, the Moon stands for the subconscious mind and "all what is hitten" whereas the Sun astrologically represents the concious mind.

... so Athene and Hermes are also connected with it. (Moon, my adding)

So, would you like to reconsider your "Mooney" connections here and find an other conceptual and acceptable source? (Moon coloured = White, going further on to Light = Sun, and going further on to The Central Light as in the Milky Way goldish glowing center in the Primeval Mound/Mount).

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Iver,
My fault, but when I said 'importance' of the Milky Way, I actually meant it in terms of the number of mythological stories involving it. I agree that the creation stories involve the MW but the number of stories involving the MW after that are not very numerous. And I mean
the MW as MW rather than constellastions. asterisms and stars.

The lion, bull, eagle and man mentioed in Revelation and many other places are Leo, Taurus, Scorpio and Aquarius. I thought that these were the cardinal points? (As you know, astronomy is not really my thing).

I still disagree about the to Earth hemispheres. The Greeks, for one, viewed the constellations which went below the horizon as bathing in the World River. Their Underworld was several things but I don't think that one of them was the southern hemisphere. I can't get my head around the Greek Underworld - still work in progress.

The Greeks did associate Zeus with the planet Jupiter, and, generally speaking, most other cultures associated the head of their pantheon with the largest planet. Waht's wrong with astrology? Ancient astrology is entirely logical and consistent with the philosophy.

I'm not an expert on female plumbing so I would rather forego that one.

Ultimately, the Sun influences everything, it is the conductor of the orchestra. Further, the Sun and the Moon work in tandem. This is one of the reasons Apollo and Artemis are twins. Golden Apollo has a silver bow and Artemis has a golden bow. The Moon's light is the Sun's. It is 'filtered', if you will, by the Moon. We receive a different form of energy at night but it still originates from the Sun.

Night time is for thinking and day time is for doing (broadly speaking). The Moon is your first point of contact to the Mother Goddess. This is why the Moon is associated with dreams and visions etc. This is more Mague's territory than mine. I don't subscribe to an 'unconscious' mind, to me it is a contradiction in terms. The unconscious mind comes from Freud ripping of Plato and mangling his philosophy. Plato, and the Perennial Philosophy generally, speak of the
higher mind.

The Moon is associated with Water because Water is a mean between Air and Earth. Air is Universal Mind and Earth is your brain (or lower mind),[oversimplification]. Air and Earth are opposites. Water shares some of the properties of both therefore it serves as a mean between the two and hence is associated with the higher-mind.

The Sun is male and action but it draws on the potential which is female. Female is first (always) - potential must pre-exist its realisation. From Tao comes One. Tao is the Dark Mother who nourishes the ten-thousand things.

[StevenJay]

The Sun is male and action but it draws on the potential which is female. Female is first (always) - potential must pre-exist its realisation. From Tao comes One. Tao is the Dark Mother who nourishes the ten-thousand things.

GC, even if we may disagree on virtually everything else, I must admit that I agree with the statement above, 100%. Go figure, eh?

Life experience is, if nothing else, STRANGE, yes? . . . at east, to the ever-pesky egoic mind.

[SpaceTravellor]

@Grey Cloud,

My fault, but when I said 'importance' of the Milky Way, I actually meant it in terms of the number of mythological stories involving it. I agree that the creation stories involve the MW but the number of stories involving the MW after that are not very numerous

OK. Many old cultures have their Creation Myth which is more or less elaborated and detailed. But, when thinking of numbers of myths, several cultures have build up new layers upon layers of mythical persons/deities which of course have increased the numbers of "the ordinary myths" whereas their Creation Stories haven’t change that much. Unfortunately these new layers also gives more confusion in order to get the grips of what the original myth really meant.

I still disagree about the to Earth hemispheres.

Well to me it seem a very natural thing to divide the Earth hemispheres in this way. Just think of the natural sunset and the moon and stars going under andcoming up.

The Greeks did associate Zeus with the planet Jupiter, and, generally speaking, most other cultures associated the head of their pantheon with the largest planet. Waht's wrong with astrology? Ancient astrology is entirely logical and consistent with the philosophy.

What is wrong with the http://www.theoi.com/ site? It is very often down and out. Well Wiki says: Without male assistance, Gaia gave birth to Uranus (the Sky) who then fertilized her. From that union were born first the Titans—six males: Coeus, Crius, Cronus, Hyperion, Iapetus, and Oceanus; and six females: Mnemosyne, Phoebe, Rhea, Theia, Themis, and Tethys.

The greek comparison of their major male deity to planet Jupiter must be a secularized romanisation, in my opinion. Therefore one has to go as far back as you can in the mytical tellings in order to find the roots. Wiki quote: Most Greeks considered Uranus to be primordial (protogenos), and gave him no parentage. Ouranos or Father Sky, is personified as the son and husband of Gaia, Mother Earth.

Of course Uranus - should be Ouranos - has nothing to do with Gaia as "Mother Earth", but with Gaia as the Great Mother Goddess of the Milky Way. Ouranos has nothing to do with the planet Uranus which clearly is confirmed by the general term Father Sky and by the image below here.

Note the resemblance with the symbol for the Milky Way Serpent Ouroboros - and Our-anos, the Father Sky.

The Moon is your first point of contact to the Mother Goddess. This is why the Moon is associated with dreams and visions etc.

Well, I´ve never seen the Moon in my dreams and visions http://www.native-science.net/Visions.Dreams.htm

The Moon is associated with Water

Are you sure this statement not also is a modernisation of the watery myths?

I forgot:

What's wrong with astrology? Ancient astrology is entirely logical and consistent with the philosophy.

Yeps to ANCIENT astrology - if they involve more than just the planets which I generally think are inferior on the border to very little or non influences compared to the Sun itself and the Milky Way Myths. The modern intepretation of Astrology? Dear, oh dear . . .

[Plasmatic]

Hi S.T., I haven't had much time for the forum at all lately. But I happened upon this thread and have a few questions so far.

As an alternative mythologist and cosmologist, I´m convinced that our Solar System was born directly out from the centre of our Milky Way, which all creation stories confirmingly describes with the "expelsion of the Eden". Se my explanations here: http://www.cosmology-unified.net/Cosmology.Holistic.htm

1. In your model how did the ancient myth tellers receive this "creation story"? I assume, in your model, civilization came after this "birth", correct?

As time permits Ill have more questions to come.

[SpaceTravellor]

@Plasmatic,
Thanks for asking.

1. In your model how did the ancient myth tellers receive this "creation story"? I assume, in your model, civilization came after this "birth", correct?

- It´s a little bit more complicated than that. In my opinion, the mythical arcetypes is "standing entities" which are cosmical "left overs" from the past which can be "looked" back at all time - a kind of a "Hubble looking back" phenomenon, really. But:

- Before I continue: How do you feel for "spirituel = intuitive learning mumbo jumbo theories"? Have you sometimes maybe learned something from your dreams or have experienced other strange out-of an-other-world-things?

- Looking forward to your answer and next questions!