Friday, July 21, 2023

The Cosmic Context of Greek Philosophy, Part Two

Today's guest post is the second part of  The Cosmic Context of Greek Philosophy by my wife, Laura Knight-Jadczyk.

I know I said in the previous post that I would get right to the discussion of philosophers and philosophy in this post, but as I review my 400 page text, I realize that a few other things should be covered first. It will become clear why it is essential to know what was going on to fully understand what the Greek philosophers were and what they were about.

Cúchulainn: The Comet of a Thousand Faces

It was the Egyptians who first used the description ‘hairy star’ which then became, in Greek, kometes or ‘hairy one’. An unidentified hieroglyph which, for many years, was interpreted as ‘woman with disheveled hair’ may, in fact, directly refer to a comet since this hieroglyph is almost identical to that of the sky goddess Nut, except for the addition of the flowing hair. (Clube and Napier (1982), p. 167.)

In Mesopotamian, Greek, Egyptian, Celtic and Native American mythology (and others), we are able to see the characteristics of comets, their celestial ‘Olympus’, and come to some reasonable understanding of their adventures. The representations of gods taking the form of animals and animal-headed gods can be seen in the many forms and configurations taken by comet heads and tails, not to mention their electrical activities. And obviously, there were some of the comets in the ancient sky that were regular, recognizable visitors that became the principal gods. Fragmenting comets acquired partners, children and extended families. Comets could have ‘virgin births’ or parents could devour their children or vice versa. The name of the principal comet can be traced in the various cultures and the time described when the founder of the dynasty of the gods was single and alone in the sky: the giant comet that entered the solar system perhaps 70,000 years ago. As years passed, the stories mixed and mingled in confusing ways. But still, the primary features remain clear as long as the ‘supernatural’ elements are not stripped out, (which is what I was doing myself in the early days of research). Mike Baillie gives an example using the Celtic god, Cúchulainn:

Cúchulainn became … a monstrous thing, hideous and shapeless, unheard of. His shanks and joints, every knuckle and angle and organ from head to foot, shook like a tree in the flood or a reed in the stream. His body made a furious twist inside his skin, so that his feet and shins and knees switched to the rear and his heels and calves switched to the front. The balled sinews of his calves switched to the front of his shins, each big knot the size of a warrior’s bunched fist. On his head, the temple-sinews stretched to the nape of his neck, each mighty, immense, measureless knob as big as the head of a month-old child. His face and features became a red bowl: he sucked one eye so deep into his head that a wild crane couldn’t probe it onto his cheek out of the depths of his skull; the other eye fell out along his cheek. His jaw weirdly distorted: his cheek peeled back from his jaws until the gullet appeared, his lungs and liver flapped in his mouth and throat, his lower jaw struck the upper a lion-killing blow. His heart boomed loud in his breast like the baying of a watch-dog at its feed or the sound of a lion among bears. Malignant mists and spurts of fire – the torches of the goddess Badb – flickered red in the vaporous clouds that rose boiling above his head, so fierce was his fury. The hair of his head twisted like the tangle of a red thorn bush stuck in a gap; if a royal apple tree with all its kingly fruit were shaken above him, scarce an apple would reach the ground but each would be spiked on a bristle of his hair as it stood up on his scalp with rage. The hero-halo rose out of his brow, long and broad as a warrior’s whetstone, long as a snout, and he went mad rattling his shield, urging on his charioteer and harassing the hosts. Then, tall and thick, steady and strong, high as the mast of a noble ship, rose up from the dead center of his skull a straight spout of black blood darkly and magically smoking… (Kenny (1986), ‘A Celtic Destruction Myth: Togail Bruidne Da Derga’, quoted by Baillie in his introduction to The Celtic Gods (2005).

This description of Cúchulainn is not what most people read in their edited children’s versions of the myths. This one describes Cúchulainn’s ‘riastradh’ or frenzy, which Baillie calls a “warp-spasm.” The point is that Cúchulainn is being described shaking violently, covered with lumps and bumps, making terrifying sounds, his hair twisted and standing up with “vaporous clouds boiling above his head” and with “a spout of dark blood jetting from his skull”. That pretty much describes a very, very close comet interacting electrically with the atmosphere and magnetic field of the earth.




Cúchulainn next climbs into his “thunder chariot” that was bristling with all kinds of spikes and bits of metal that are there to rip the enemy to shreds, then the chariot is “speedy as the wind … over the level plain” pulled by two horses with flowing manes. Cúchulainn starts killing people first a hundred at a blow, then two-hundred, then three-hundred, and so on. His chariot wheels sink so deeply into the earth that they tear up boulders, rocks, flagstones, gravel, creating a dyke high enough to be a fortress wall. He mowed more people down, leaving the bodies six deep. He made this “circuit of Ireland” seven times according to this particular story and “this slaughter … is one of the three uncountable slaughters on the Táin (One of Ireland’s great legendary epics.) … only the chiefs have been counted. … in this great carnage on Muirtheimne Plain, Cúchulainn slew one hundred and thirty kings. not one man in three escaped” without some injury.


Most people don’t know about this aspect of Cúchulainn since the woman who translated the tales from Irish into English (Lady Augusta Gregory), thought that “the grotesque accounts of Cúchulainn’s “distortion” only meant that in time of great strain or danger he had more than human strength, so she changed all that to “the appearance of a god.” Baillie reacts to this:

Reading these comments carefully, the idea that the full description of Cúchulainn’s frenzy reduces to ‘more than human strength’ does seem like an understatement. That he ‘took on the appearance of a god’ likewise does not do full justice to the awfulness. … But it appears that, in studying and trying to make sense of the myths, it is the supernatural elements – that seem to make no sense – that are regarded as gilding. They are seen as exaggerations, or padding, or the product of over-fertile imaginations. thus they are often the bits that are ignored, or left out of the tales … the result of this is that the tales tend to be left with only the natural elements. King Arthur, a Celtic god, ends up described only as a king; Cúchulainn becomes a heroic Irish youth. thus readers are pressurized towards regarding these heroes as real flesh and blood people, when in reality they were always supernatural or, if you like, gods. (Baillie & mccafferty (2005), The Celtic Gods: Comets in Irish Mythology, p. 15.)


Legends of the Fall and Genetic Mutations

Above: The Deluge by Nicolas Poussin (c. 1664).

Our civilization has known about the flood legends of the Bible for about two thousand years; it was only in the 19th century that we became aware that this story was derived from a more ancient source; the Sumerians. It was then, in the late 19th and early 20th century, that ethnologists and other experts began to collect the flood legends of the north Eurasian peoples and to compare them with similar stories of other peoples. What they found was that the north Eurasian peoples spoke not only of a water-flood, but also bombardments of fire and numerous evil suns in the sky, described as ‘burning mountains’. There were also fire-breathing serpents in the sky and earthquakes that lasted for days, violent storms, torrents of water falling for days and boiling waves as ‘high as a tent’ or mixed with stones. There were descriptions of roaring from the skies and other horrifying noises, followed by grey darkness in the day and nights as black as pitch. Snow storms that lasted for months rounded off the scenarios. Obviously, these stories did not exactly match the relatively benign – even if world-covering – Flood of Noah that resulted from a rain lasting 40 days and nights and the opening up of the “fountains of the deep.”


The appalling cosmic catastrophe had long-term consequences for all life on our planet, and was, obviously, a world-wide event in one respect or another.


Spirals and Cosmic Divers

A selection of the stories of the northern Eurasians – mainly those living between the Black sea and the Caspian sea (today’s Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia) – have been collected together, along with some of the geological and archaeological evidence, by Heinrich Koch in a book entitled The Diluvian Impact. (2000) It is highly recommended, with a small caveat: he seems to have conflated a number of events. Nevertheless, I found there the origin of certain stories that are said by Yuri Stoyanov (The Other God (2000)) to be the oldest forms of dualism. Here, I’m going to skip the lengthy extract of the primeval myth of the three suns that pervades the Palaeo-Siberian peoples myth cycles. It’s a terrifying story and worth reading, but it doesn't move us to our main topic, so I will omit it.


Clearly, it is in these cometary experiences described as struggles between various evil and noble forces that we find the origin of the Aryan dualistic principle that was at the foundation of gnostic religious formations such as that of Mani, the Bogomils and Cathars. Koch suggests that dualism is an infallible sign of the cataclysmic experience. Apparently, after such, no one in their right mind continues to believe only in a good and loving god who is master of the universe.


Werewolves, Vampires and Cannibals, Oh My!

In addition to the tales collected by Koch, a related book is a collection of the accounts from Native Americans: Man and Impact in the Americas by E. P. Grondine. One very interesting thing about both of the volumes mentioned is that the issue of genetic mutation is described in the myths. In both the Americas and Eurasia, the stories of the impacts and floods include related legends of giants, dwarves and cannibals which are not the instigators of the cataclysms as one might infer when recalling the Nephilim in the Bible, but rather the consequence of it. Generally, these stories are about very aggressive, warlike, humanoid monsters. The ancient Native American myths of the Windigo can be traced back to comet catastrophes. Nowadays, of course, the Windigo is thought of as a malevolent, cannabilistic spirit that can possess the bodies of humans and cause them to transform into a monster, rather like the legends of werewolves; but what if it is not possession but rather a reference to mutation? These monsters were strongly associated with protracted periods of cold and famine which can be the results of comet events and it is known from medical research that a ketogenic diet and cold adaptation can induce genetic upregulation or downregulation. Generally, these effects are beneficial and neuroprotective, but perhaps it depends on the individual genetic make-up? Windigos and their Eurasian counterparts were also described as greedy and never satisfied with killing; they were always on the march looking for new victims.


The Electrophonic Cosmic Logos

In respect of the idea of genetic mutations accompanying cometary cataclysms, I read an interesting paper discussing the possibility that the Tunguska event caused genetic changes. The abstract says:

One of the great mysteries of the Tunguska event is its genetic impact. Some genetic anomalies were reported in the plants, insects and people of the Tunguska region. Remarkably, the increased rate of biological mutations was found not only within the epicenter area, but also along the trajectory of the Tunguska Space Body (TSB). At that no traces of radioactivity were found, which could be reliably associated with the Tunguska event. The main hypotheses about the nature of the TSB, a stony asteroid, a comet nucleus or a carbonaceous chondrite, readily explain the absence of radioactivity but give no clues how to deal with the genetic anomaly. A choice between these hypotheses, as far as the genetic anomaly is concerned, is like to the choice between “blue devil, green devil and speckled devil”, to quote late academician N. V. Vasilyev. However, if another mysterious phenomenon, electrophonic meteors, is evoked, the origin of the Tunguska genetic anomaly becomes less obscure. (Silagadze (2003), ‘Tunguska Genetic Anomaly andElectrophonicMeteors’.

The author proposes the idea that electrophonic effects produced by comets/meteors can induce genetic changes in biological organisms. The paper also mentions a genetic mutation of a human being involving the Rh0D gene. The conclusion is that there was some “unknown stress factor” and that it might be electromagnetic radiation which is said to accompany electrophonic meteors.


Reports of noisy meteors date back to at least the year 817, when a Chinese observer documented a meteor with a sound “like a flock of cranes in flight.” In 1676, Italian astronomer Geminiano Montanari observed one that sounded like “the rattling of a great cart running over stones.” Montanari’s calculations put the meteor thirty-eight miles up in the sky, which was – as he well knew – too far away for its sound to reach him instantly so he doubted that he had actually heard it, though – thankfully – he recorded the data anyway. Later, in 1833, an intense Leonid meteor storm resulted in more reports of meteors that swished, whooshed, or “resembled the noise of a child’s popgun.” Once again, it was deemed impossible for the sound to have traveled that fast, so the reports were discounted.


These odd reports were unexplained until Colin Keay of the University of Newcastle in Australia suggested in 1980 that as meteors fall through the Earth’s magnetic field, they generate radio signals audible to the human ear. Keay postulated that falling meteors generate very low-frequency radio signals that travel at the speed of light to the ground, where they cause any number of things in the environment to vibrate, from your eyeglasses to your hair! That means that, at the exact time that you see the meteor, you may also hear crackling, whistling or swishing sounds; sounds like a jet airplane or whatever. That is to say, you are not actually hearing sound from the fireball but rather hearing sound from local objects vibrating in response to the intense VLF emission of the fireball. that is also why the phenomenon may be heard by one person and not another. ELF and VLF electromagnetic fields can be generated by comet or meteor explosions the same way an EMP can be generated by a nuclear explosion. (Colin Keay’s list of publications on the topic of electrophonic meteors can be found here: http://home.pacific.net.au/~ddcsk1/bibliog.htm)


And yes, there were reports of witnesses hearing the Tunguska object before its appearance. They said it sounded like low thunder, a cavernous roar. 


 As to genetic mutations, I’m going to omit here the long discussion of ELF/VLF radiation effects on genes except to report the conclusion which said that, after such exposure gene HSP70 can no longer buffer variation:


Therefore some mutations will become unmasked and individuals with abnormal phenotype will appear in the population. If a mutation proves to be beneficial in the new environmental conditions, the related traits will be preserved even after the HSP70 resumes its normal function. (Silagadze (2008), op. cit.) (italics, mine)

My guess is that the ancient reports of what must have been genetic mutations following Earth’s encounters with celestial objects were probably true and quite remarkable.  Tunguska was a modest event, so to say.  Who knows what a serious bombardment might produce.


Celestial Intentions

In a paper addressed to the European Office of Aerospace Research and Development, dated June 4th, 1996 and entitled, ‘The Hazard to Civilization From Fireballs and Comets’, Victor Clube wrote:

Asteroids which pass close to the Earth have been fully recognized by mankind for only about 20 years. Previously, the idea that substantial unobserved objects might be close enough to be a potential hazard to the earth was treated with as much derision as the unobserved aether. Scientists of course are in business to establish broad principles (e.g. relativity) and the Earth’s supposedly uneventful, uniformitarian environment was already very much in place. The result was that scientists who paid more than lip service to objects close enough to encounter the Earth did so in an atmosphere of barely disguised contempt. even now, it is difficult for laymen to appreciate the enormity of the intellectual blow with which most of the Body scientific has recently been struck and from which it is now seeking to recover. [The Comet Shoemaker-Levy impacts on Jupiter.]


The present report, then, is concerned with those other celestial bodies recorded by mankind since the dawn of civilization which either miss or impinge upon the Earth and which have also been despised. Now known respectively as comets (>1 kilometre in size) and meteoroids (<10m).


Confronted on many occasions in the past by the prospect of world-end, national elites have often found themselves having to suppress public panic – only to discover, too late, that the usual means of control commonly fail. Thus an institutionalized science is expected to withhold knowledge of the threat; a self-regulated press is expected to make light of any disaster; while an institutionalized religion is expected to oppose predestination and to secure such general belief in a fundamentally benevolent deity as can be mustered. […] 


There are fundamental paradoxes to be assimilated as a result of this unexpected situation. Thus the perceived culture of enterprise and enlightenment which underpins the two centuries culminating with the space age and which led mankind to spurn comets and fireballs may now be seen as the prelude to a profound paradigm shift: the restoration of an environmental outlook more in keeping with that which preceded American independence and which paid serious heed to comets and fireballs. [italics, mine]


the Christian, Islamic and Judaic cultures have all moved since the European Renaissance to adopt an unreasoning anti-apocalyptic stance, apparently unaware of the burgeoning science of catastrophes. History, it now seems, is repeating itself: it has taken the space age to revive the Platonist voice of reason but it emerges this time within a modern anti-fundamentalist, anti-apocalyptic tradition over which governments may, as before, be unable to exercise control. … Cynics (or modern sophists), in other words, would say that we do not need the celestial threat to disguise Cold War intentions; rather we need the Cold War to disguise celestial intentions! [emphasis in the original]


Köfels’ Impact Event

Here, I will skip over the fascinating discussion of the Köfels’ Impact Event which was recorded in cuneiform on a tablet found in the remains of the Royal Palace at Nineveh. It is now in the British museum as catalogue No. K8538. It was a copy of a contemporary Sumerian observation of an Aten asteroid over a kilometre in diameter that impacted Köfels in Austria on the 29th of June 3123 BCE.


I am also going to skip the discussion of the history of astronomy and astrology recounted in the book Comets by astronomers Bailey, Clube and Napier.


End of the Early Bronze Age

For almost 500 years the Hittites were the dominant power in Anatolia, the area that is mostly modern day Turkey, though they were completely forgotten for a very long time, remembered only in completely inaccurate renderings in the Bible. Modern studies reveal that the Hittites themselves were not a highly creative or innovative people, but that they drew most of the inspiration for their social, religious, literary and artistic renderings from the cultural traditions of both earlier and contemporary Near Eastern civilizations. Their greatest legacy is that, by absorbing the elements of their neighbors, they preserved them. This is typical of a regime that is ‘new’ or different within a given population: to seek to validate their legitimacy by connecting themselves in some way to the traditions of the native population.


We should note here that the arrival and rise of the Hittites in Anatolia follows a period of historical discontinuity, i.e. probably as a result of cometary destruction considering all that we have learned was going on in the skies in those times.

Scientists have found the first evidence that a devastating meteor impact in the middle east might have triggered the mysterious collapse of civilisations more than 4,000 years ago. Studies of satellite images of southern Iraq have revealed a two-mile-wide circular depression which scientists say bears all the hallmarks of an impact crater. If confirmed, it would point to the Middle East being struck by a meteor with the violence equivalent to hundreds of nuclear bombs. Today’s crater lies on what would have been shallow sea 4,000 years ago, and any impact would have caused devastating fires and flooding. The catastrophic effect of these could explain the mystery of why so many early cultures went into sudden decline around 2300 BCE. …

The crater’s faint outline was found by Dr Sharad Master, a geologist at the University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, on satellite images of the Al ‘Amarah region, about 10 miles north-west of the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates and home of the Marsh Arabs. … Dr Benny Peiser, who lectures on the effects of meteor impacts at John Moores University, Liverpool, said [if confirmed, it would be] one of the most significant discoveries in recent years and would corroborate research he and others have done. He said that craters recently found in Argentina date from around the same period – suggesting that the earth may have been hit by a shower of large meteors at about the same time. (Matthews, ‘Meteor Clue to End of Middle East Civilisations’, The Sunday Telegraph,4 November 2001. retrieved here: https://web.archive.org/web/20110622053028/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1361474/Meteor-clue-to-end-of-Middle-East-civilisations.html)

Hundreds of years after the event, a cuneiform collection of ‘prodigies’, omen predictions of the collapse of Akkad, preserved the record that “many stars were falling from the sky” (Bjorkman 1973:106). Closer to the event, perhaps as early as 2100 BCE, the author of the Curse of Akkad alluded to “flaming potsherds raining from the sky” (Attinger 1984). Davis (1996) has reminded us of Clube and Napier’s impact theory, and asked “Where is the archaeological and geological evidence for the role of their ‘Taurid demons’ in human history?” The abrupt climate change at 2200 BCE, regardless of an improbable impact explanation, situates hemispheric and social collapse in a global, but ultimately cosmic, context. (Weiss (1997), Late Third Millennium Abrupt Climate Change and Social Collapse in West Asia and Egypt, p. 720.)

It is not a surprise that, of all the various factors and data examined for clues that could explain the environmental and social upheavals at the end of the early Bronze age, catastrophe is the subject matter most avoided by archaeologists and historians. Yet most archaeologists are certainly aware of Claude Schaeffer’s enormous work, Stratigraphie Comparée et Chronologie de l’Asie Occidentale, which is an incredible collection of archaeological evidence demonstrating extensive earthquake and other catastrophic damage detected in Bronze Age settlements throughout the near and middle east. (Schaeffer (1898-1982) was a French archaeologist. His work led to the uncovering of the Ugaritic religious texts. Ugarit was a port city in northern Syria.)

Claude Schaeffer, the 20th century’s most eminent French archaeologist, was the first researcher to present evidence for widespread seismic catastrophes in large parts of Asia Minor and the Levant at around 2300 BCE. Based on a comparative study of destruction layers in more than 40 sites, he ordered and classified earthquake horizons as synchronous and interrelated benchmarks in archaeological stratigraphy and chronology. Evidence for major earthquake damage in early Bronze Age strata had been detected in many Anatolian and Near Eastern settlements, such as Troy, Alaca Hüyük, Boghazköy, Alishar, Tarsos, Ugarit, Byblos, Qalaat, Hama, Megiddo, Tell Hesi, Beit Mirsim, Beth Shan, Tell Brak and Chagar Bazar (Gammon 1980; 1982).


Most scholars, however, have refrained from taking Schaeffer’s main research- findings into consideration. The recent and most comprehensive textbook on 3rd millennium BCE civilisation collapse fails to mention his research altogether (Dalfes et al. 1997). One looks in vain for any reference to his theory of early Bronze Age collapse. This reticence is even more remarkable in view of the fact that Schaeffer was also, to my knowledge, the first archaeologist to claim that a distinct shift in climate was synchronous with civilisation collapse… «au Caucase et dans certains régions de l’Europe protohistorique, des changements de climat semblent, à cette période, avoir amené des transformations dans l’occupation et l’économie du pays». (translation: “in the Caucasus and in some parts of protohistoric Europe, climate changes seem, at this time, to have brought changes in the occupation and economy of the country.” [italics, mine.] (Schaeffer (1948: 555/556), quoted by Peiser (1998), ‘Comparative Analysis of Late Holocene Environmental and Social Upheaval: Evidence for a Global Disaster around 4000 BP’, in Natural Catastrophes During Bronze Age Civilizations: Archaeological, Geological, Astronomical, and Cultural Perspectives, Peiser et al. (eds.), pp. 117-139.)



The HITTITES



What was going on between the end of the Early Bronze Age and the end of the Late Bronze Age?


Hittite and Luwian texts have been found in large numbers; they are the earliest complete texts in any Indo-European language. The Hittites played an important role in transmitting the customs, traditions and institutions first attested in the earliest societies of Mesopotamia. The Hittite religion was a composite of rituals and beliefs of the native Hattians, the Indo-Europeans, Hurrian and other early Mesopotamian elements. Hittite literature was also composite, consisting of stories that were Hattian, Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian and Hurrian.


According to the standard view, civilization began in Mesopotamia with the advent of agriculture, the wheel, cities, writing (to keep accounts), and so on. It is taken as a given that control over vast numbers of people, the ability to mobilize them into armies to kill vast numbers of other people, and to thus have the means of establishing vast empires, is ‘civilization’. David W. Anthony writes:

[A]rchaeologists generally do not understand migration very well, and migration is an important vector of language change … Migration disappeared entirely from the explanatory toolkit of Western archaeologists in the 1970s and 1980s. But migration is a hugely important human behavior…


Scholars noticed more than a hundred years ago that the oldest well-documented Indo-European languages – imperial Hittite, Mycenaean Greek, and the most ancient form of Sanskrit, or Old Indic – were spoken by militaristic societies that seemed to erupt into the ancient world driving chariots pulled by swift horses. …


If Indo-European speakers were the first to have chariots, this could explain their early expansion; If they were the first to domesticate horses, then this could explain the central role horses played as symbols of strength and power in the rituals of the old Indic Aryans, Greeks, Hittites, and other Iindo-European speakers.  


...Inscriptions place Hittite speakers in Anatolia as early as 1900 BCE. ... The Hittite capital city, Hattusas, was burned in a general calamity that brought down the Hittite kings, their army, and their cities about 1180 BCE.  The Hittite language then quickly disappeared; apparently only the ruling elite ever spoke it. ... (Anthony (2010), The Horse, The Wheel and Language)


The Mycenaean civilization also appeared rather suddenly at about the same time as the rise of the Hittite empire. What is clear is that they didn’t come from the same place because the languages were so different. Greek – as recorded in the Linear B tablets – was the language of the warrior kings who ruled at Mycenaea and – surprise, surprise – were destroyed during the same period as the Hittite empire. There are numerous indications that Mycenaean Greek was an intrusive language in a land where non-Greek languages had been spoken. The Greek speakers who showed up in Greece, which wasn’t Greece until they got there, obviously came from somewhere else.


Mycenaean Lion Gate.  Note the similar architecture to that of the Hittites above.


Ancient Mesopotamian Myths

I am skipping here a lengthy series of expositions of ancient myths included in my text and will only include the following:


There are other myths, apparently not native to the Hittites, that were preserved in the Hittite archives. these texts were literary because they were written down for their own sake and were not part of the ritual performance tradition (as was the myth of the disappearing god). The most important of these imported myths was the Hurrian cycle which starred Kumarbi, the ‘father of the gods’. This Theogony is about the struggle between successive generations of gods: Alalu is overcome by Anu; Anu is overcome by Alalu’s son, Kumarbi, who bites off and swallows Anu’s genitals, thereby becoming impregnated with the Storm God Teshub, the Tigris river and Tasmisu. The text is fragmentary, so not much more is known about the outcome, but we can guess because it is strikingly similar to the Greek poet Hesiod’s Theogony.


The gods of three successive generations in the Kumarbi myth correspond exactly to Ouranos, Kronos and Zeus. And, in each case, this marks the beginning of a new era. The main difference between the Near Eastern and the Greek traditions is that the former begin one generation earlier in respect of the male gods: Alalu has no counterpart in Hesiod’s Theogony, which begins with Ouranos. Hesiod’s version says that all the gods belong to one family: Gaea, the mother and wife of Ouranos. In the near eastern version, the warring gods come from two different families and appear in alternate generations. To me, this suggests that the Greek version is the older since it actually does include the ‘first generation’, only it is Gaea, the mother of Ouranos, who later becomes his wife as well. If we consider the theory of the giant comet breaking up into many pieces, or gods, then it makes perfect sense for them to have been conceived of as being all of one family. Moreover, the element of Gaea – Earth – and Ouranos – Heaven – being engaged together in the production of the elements of the conflict would reflect the dynamic interactions between a comet and the Earth. this is exactly what is reflected in Hesiod’s poem, which has nothing to do with ritual; It tells a story and establishes a genealogical frame for the comet-gods. Herodotus tells us about Hesiod:

[2:53] … It was only yesterday or the day before, so to speak, that the Greeks came to know the provenance of each of the gods, and whether they have all existed for ever, and what they each look like. After all, I think that Hesiod and Homer lived no more than four hundred years before my time, and they were the ones who created the gods’ family trees for the Greek world, gave them their names, assigned them their honours and areas of expertise, and told us what they looked like. Any poets who are supposed to have lived before Homer and Hesiod actually came after them, in my opinion. [4:32] … Hesiod, however, has mentioned the Hyperboreans, and so has Homer in the Epigoni. (Waterfield (1998), The Histories, translation)

This last remark is quite interesting because it suggests an ancient Homeric connection to Northern peoples and the possible origins of the Myceneans and Hittites.


Trevor Bryce, in Life and Society in the Hittite World (2002), notes that a common feature of these ancient myth cycles of the Hittites is that no matter how decisively the evil is defeated, even to the point of being totally fragmented and scattered all over the place, like in Terminator II, he manages to reassemble himself and come back. That is to say, the Storm God’s triumph is only temporary. In one story, the enemy Kumarbi mates with a mountain peak to produce a diorite monster to be a champion.

Henceforth let Ullikummi be his name. Let him go up to heaven to kingship. Let him suppress the fine city of Kummiya (storm god’s home town). Let him strike Teshub. Let him chop him up fine like chaff. Let him grind him under foot like an ant. Let him snap off Tasmisu like a brittle reed. Let him scatter all the gods down from the sky like flour. Let him smash them like empty pottery bowls. Let him grow higher each month, each day. (Hoffner (1990), op. cit., quoted by Bryce (2002).)

The cometary imagery in the above extract is quite clear. Bryce writes:

When he has grown so large that the sea comes only to his middle, the sun god sees him and is greatly alarmed. He reports the news to Teshub, who resolves to do battle with the monster. But when he sees him he is filled with dismay: ‘Who can any longer behold the struggle of such a one? Who go on fighting? Who can behold the terrors of such a one any longer?’ Teshub is powerless against such an opponent. His sister Shaushka volunteers to approach Ullikummi and attempt to win him over by her songs and her charms. to no avail. ‘For whose benefit are you singing?’ a great sea-wave asks of her. ‘For whose benefit are you filling your mouth with wind? Ullikummi is deaf; he cannot hear. he is blind in his eyes; he cannot see. he has no compassion. So go away, Shaushka, and find your brother before Ullikummi becomes really valiant, before the skull of his head becomes really terrifying. (Bryce (2002), op. cit., pp. 226-227.)

Again, we observe the cometary nature of the god, a god whose head can become terrifying in the same way Cúchulainn was described in the midst of his “warp Spasm.”




The obvious question asked by scholars about these myths is: Why were they preserved at all? they certainly do not provide any sort of spiritual or moral teachings. And the answer is, of course, that they were recording things that actually happened and everyone knew it: a giant comet entered the solar system, broke up into numerous still-large pieces, as comets are wont to do, and, being on an earth-crossing orbit, periodically interacted with our planet with cataclysmic results.



Above: Comet Encke in the process of fragmenting.


As noted, the Near Eastern gods, and the gods of Greece, as well, offered nothing to their supplicants in terms that were morally or spiritually uplifting; they were just human beings on a grand scale. The gods experienced love, anger, jealousy, fear, and could be liars and cheaters. They enjoyed sex, dancing, music and horse races; they were pacified by comedy, plays and athletic contests. However, unlike human beings, they were endowed with immortality and great powers. They could represent either natural forces or social institutions. Moreover, because of their natures, they could not possibly be ordered into a rigid hierarchy because you never knew when one or the other would break out of the mold and wreak havoc on the rest!


The gods’ interests in justice, morality and right conduct were not for the sake of those virtues, but because it was in their own best interests that human society should order their conduct. A human being who lived his life in obedience to certain values was better able to serve the gods. Oaths and contracts were the basis of social order, and thus the gods were interested that they should be upheld. It was understood that the god’s wrath would fall on everyone in contact with the ‘sinner’, too. in king Mursili II’s prayer, we read:

It is indeed true that man is sinful. My father sinned and offended against the word of the Storm God, My Lord. Though I myself have in no way sinned, it is indeed true that the father’s sin falls upon his son, and my father’s sin has fallen upon me. …


When someone arouses a god's anger, is it only on him that the god takes revenge?  Does he not also take vengeance on his wife, his children, his descendants, his family, his male and female slaves, his cattle and sheep together with his crop?  Will he not destroy him utterly?  Be sure to show special reverence for the word of a God!  (King of the Hittite Empire (New Kingdom), c. 1321 - 1295 BCE.  From the Instructions to Temple Officials, KUB XIII 4 and CTH 264)

Again we discern the sweepingly destructive cometary nature of the gods. The recorded Hittite prayers exhibit the character of a legal defense presented in a court of law. In the first lines of the Hittite Appu myth, we read of a deity “who always vindicates just men but chops down evil men like trees.” Bryce states that the unnamed deity is undoubtedly the Sun God, the supreme lord of justice whose counterpart in Babylon was Shamash. He invariably appeared first in the lists of deities who witnessed treaties. Of all the surviving Hittite royal prayers, more than half are addressed to the solar deities. There are two possible reasons for this: 1) blazing comets and earth-impacting fireballs perceived to be sun-like, or possibly sons of the sun; 2) the absence of sunlight due to cometary dust loading and consequent crop failure. Another point to be noted is that it appears that a supreme lord of justice, an all-seeing sun god, was a deity acknowledged everywhere in the ancient world as omnipresent in some sense. Despite this, the notion of an spiritually omnipresent god, or one that is absolutely supreme over all throughout time,  simply does not appear in the religious tradition which, again, suggests that this was not a ‘god’ in any sense of the word that we understand today.


As the Hittites expanded their political influence, they also expanded their pantheon of gods. When they would capture a city, they would physically remove the statues of the local gods to their own temples, thereby declaring their adoption of the new deity and, hopefully, the new deity would adopt them as well. It could be said that the Hittites went far beyond the relatively systematic godly pantheons of their neighbors, and boasted that Hatti was ‘the land of a thousand gods’. The end result was that their divine assemblies were a majority of foreign gods. This was not without its advantages, of course. It was a dimension of the tolerance that the Hittite kings worked to cultivate among their subjected peoples; it was “conscious politically conditioned religious tolerance”. (Akurgal (1962), The Art of the Hittites, p.76.) The absence of any official religion or dogma may have been one of the reasons that the Hittites survived as long as they did and achieved the power they did. It was during the final period of the empire that attempts were made, at the highest levels, to impose political order on the religious beliefs of the populace. Perhaps that was one of the things that contributed to the downfall of the empire?


The Storm God

Image Source: plate .550, The Art of the Ancient Near East
by Pierre Amiet)
[http://www.daimonas.com/pages/trident-briefly.html]
Note the plasma fork 'thunderbolt' in his hand.

As might be expected, the Storm God, depicted in art with an axe and a lightning bolt, was preeminent all over the ancient near east. It was his wrath that devastated the lands, destroyed empires, cities, crops and human beings. He was Taru, Tarhung, Teshub, Adad/Hadad, Ba’lu, and certainly, the much later Yahweh of the Jews had much in common with him; his chief powers and functions were those of the Greek Zeus. What is curious about this storm god is that he was never thought of as a universal god of all peoples; in each individual region, he was a god specific to the people of that region alone, their god, and they were his people that he would ‘pass over’ in his raging furies and certainly would inflict his anger on anybody they asked him to destroy if they could just get the right prayers, do the right rituals and behave in the right way to invoke his protection. Again, we see the reaction to arbitrary cosmic destruction.


In conclusion, the Hittite religion – and religions of the near east in general– were not very much concerned with theology or contemplation, they were purely and simply attempts to understand an environment that was plagued with repeated brutal and arbitrary destruction from the sky.


Here, I would like to say something about the problem of transmission of information. We are talking here about a main event 13,000 or more years ago, and then numerous subsequent events that either included actual physical bombardment of the planet, or events that consisted of dust loading and related climate stress with probable frequent meteor storms. Obviously, the transmission of information over a period of 13,000 years is problematical. It is only for the past 3-4 thousand years that we have had written accounts and, for the most part, what has survived has been badly mangled by modern interpretations. This means that for about two thirds of that time, as far as we know, oral systems played the major part in the transmission of legends of destruction. 

Gilgamesh



I have discussed the Hittites in particular because of the problem of the Epic of Gilgamesh. The question that interests us here is: why is the Hittite version of the Epic of Gilgamesh so similar to The Odyssey? The similarities cannot be explained by suggesting the creation of similar stories at widely separated times and locations. In some cases, the similarities are almost word for word.


The name was originally Bilgamesh, but that was changed early on, so ‘Gilgamesh’ it is. Exactly as Baillie has described, the experts studying the epic and myths have come to the conclusion that Gilgamesh is likely to have been a real person, a king who ruled the Sumerian city of Uruk in the era from 2700 BCE to 2500 BCE. However, there are no known inscriptions that establish this. There is only one person he is associated with in a story that is actually attested by inscriptional evidence, a King Enmebaragessi. But that’s as close as it gets. Gilgamesh was associated with the expansion of the Ziggurat at Uruk, but the inscription that claims this dates only to 1800 BCE.


It is assumed that the stories about Gilgamesh were circulating in his own time and were later written down. The earliest written stories about him date to the reign of King Shulgi around 2000 BCE, i.e. at least 500 years later. These stories were written in Sumerian and King Shulgi made the claim that the gods and ancient kings of Uruk (including Gilgamesh) were his ancestors and thus legitimized his kingship. One hymn produced at the time is a back-and-forth paean to each other, put in the mouths of Gilgamesh and Shulgi. In short, we can think that the stories produced at this time were little more than political propaganda based on some already existing myth about a very powerful being such as Cúchulainn, i.e. a comet. So, at that time, offerings were made to Gilgamesh as a divinized ancestor, But after the end of Shulgi’s dynasty, official support for the cult of Gilgamesh faded.


It is likely that it was Shulgi who commissioned the writing of the earliest Gilgamesh stories (though the epic as we now know it did not exist at that time) and authentic traditions were thereby consciously composed with a view to furthering the agenda of this ambitious king. No tablets dating back to this period actually exist, only later copies, some of which are more elaborate than others, and some have contradictory details. Obviously, we can’t be sure of having all the stories, but thus far, the separate epics consist of the following:

Gilgamesh and Agga – This short story describes a strange confrontation between Agga of Kish (son of the aforementioned Enmebaragessi) and King Gilgamesh of Uruk, After a meeting of elders and young men. Gilgamesh has a “terrifying aura” that basically smites the army of King Agga, though Gilgamesh spares Agga. The “terrifying aura” that smites an army natrally inclines one to think of a cometary event à la Cúchulainn, not to mention Moses. The echoes of this story that are retained in the later epic are the consultations with the elders and the young men, and Gilgamesh sparing Humbaba instead of Agga.


Humbaba


Gilgamesh and Huwawa (Humbaba) – This story is known in two versions, a long one and a short one, with variations from city to city where it is found. Gilgamesh sees a dead body floating in the river and this excites his fear of death. He proposes to his servant, Enkidu, to embark on a heroic quest to ensure his fame, thus achieving a kind of immortality. The task chosen is to go to the Cedar Forest and kill its monstrous guardian, Huwawa. The Sun God provides some helpful demons, and a crew of fifty men is selected for the voyage. (This is already starting to sound like Perseus against Medusa meets the Argonauts.) This story, too, includes some strange auras, only this time they belong to Huwawa. The effect of the auras on Gilgamesh is that he is overcome, stunned, and experiences terrifying visions. (Shades of the Old Testament prophets!) In one version, he describes the visions and Enkidu encourages him to go on and complete the quest. In another, it is Enkidu who has the visions and then tries to dissuade Gilgamesh from continuing. Gilgamesh tricks Huwawa (variations exist on the types of trickery), and Huwawa gives up his auras and Gilgamesh shackles him. Then Gilgamesh feels sorry for Huwawa and wants to release him, but Enkidu doesn’t like that idea; he kills Huwawa and puts his head in a sack to give to the god Enlil (shades of Perseus and Medusa and David and Goliath). However, Enlil curses both of the adventurers for killing the divinely appointed guardian of the Cedar Forest and distributes the seven auras to Nature. Most of this makes it into the later complete epic of Gilgamesh. Nevertheless, for our purposes here, Humbaba/Huwawa is an interesting comparison to Cúchulainn. His face was “as that of a lion. When he looks at someone, it is the look of death.” His roar was as that of a flood, his “mouth is death and his breath is fire!” His face is described as like coiled entrails, which harkens back to the ‘warp-spasm’ of Cúchulainn. (See image above.)


Gilgamesh and the Bull of Heaven – this story is not well preserved in any version, missing the beginning, most of the middle, and the very end. The text begins with the Goddess Inanna refusing to allow Gilgamesh to administer justice in her sanctuary. She demands the Bull of Heaven from her father, Anu. At first he refuses, but she threatens to cry out to all the other gods which scares Anu into complying. He gives her the Bull and Inana sends it to Uruk. Probably Gilgamesh and Enkidu kill the bull. This story is included in the later epic by the middle Babylonian period, though it was probably not part of the earliest version of the whole epic. Obviously, the Bull of Heaven is a comet story. The Bull of Heaven is also familiar from Egyptian mythology. The irish saga where Cúchulainn goes into his ‘warp-spasm’ is called the ‘Táin Bó Cúailnge’ (the Cattle Raid of Cooley) and involves great battles (including Cúchulainn’s ‘warp-spasm’) over a magnificent brown bull.

Gilgamesh and the Bull of Heaven.


Gilgamesh in the Netherworld – Early texts are fragmentary and what comes across is that it is a death lament. One passage states: “The great mountain Enlil, the father of the gods, … decreed kingship as Gilgamesh’s destiny, but did not decree for him eternal life.” Then, later: “He lay on the bed of destined fate, unable to get up.” It’s hard to make much of this because it is so fragmentary. But, we do note Enlil described as a "great mountain".  Perhaps the cometary Gilgamesh fragmented as his "destined fate" and disappeared.


In addition to this small selection of specific Gilgamesh stories, the later formulated Gilgamesh Epic incorporated other traditional Sumerian literary productions that were not originally connected to Gilgamesh. The early life of Enkidu, as it is told in the Gilgamesh epic, seems to be based on a portrayal of primitive man as described in a text entitled ‘Lahar and Asnan’, where we read: “Mankind of that time knew not the eating of bread, knew not the wearing of garments. The people went around with skins on their bodies, drank water from ditches.” The creation of Enkidu by the Mother Goddess, as described in the first tablet of the Gilgamesh epic, may be another tale that has not yet been discovered elsewhere.



The Flood of Utanapishtim – In the standard version of the Epic, Gilgamesh asks Utanapishtim how he attained eternal life like the gods even though he was obviously a mere mortal. Utanapishtim then tells him “a hidden thing, a secret of the god”, which is how he survived the Great Flood. This account of Utanapishtim is taken from the Akkadian ‘Myth of Atrahasis’ which was composed about 1600 BCE. The story talks about the creation of mankind, how mankind became noisy, corrupt, too numerous, etc., so the gods plot to exterminate all humanity. There is a great Flood which only Atrahasis and his family survive. What Utanapishtim tells Gilgamesh is just a short version of the Atrahasis Myth because the longer version, unrelated to Gilgamesh, includes a lengthy justification for the destruction of mankind while Utanapishtim presents the events as just a whim of the gods. What is curious is that the Flood Myth in no way advances the action of the Gilgamesh story and is, in fact, just a lengthy digression. The original old Babylonian version of the Gilgamesh epic only had an allusion to the Flood myth. However, we are fortunate that the myth of Atrahasis was included in the Epic of Gilgamesh since it is not well-preserved in texts on its own.

It is clear that the Gilgamesh Epic was created by assembling parts from basic stories about Gilgamesh, similar to the many stories about Cúchulainn, and other parts from unrelated myths and stories. This took place, it seems, over a period of a thousand years! The standard version was based on an earlier Epic of Gilgamesh that was first composed in the Old Babylonian period – 1800-1600 BCE – which came in several variants. There are other fragments from later periods that were found in Anatolia, Syria and Canaan. In Anatolia, the epic was also adapted or translated into Hurrian and Hittite during the Middle Babylonian period (c. 1595 – c. 1155 BCE. Began after the Hittites sacked the city of Babylon.)


In conclusion, it seems that the original epic was a creative assembling of already existing mythic literature about earlier comet interactions, none of which was focused on the theme that apparently occupied the thoughts of the author/editor of the final epic.


The Epic of Gilgamesh is full of adventures and encounters with creatures, interesting people, and even gods and goddesses, with the unifying topic being human relationships and emotions. There is loneliness contrasted with friendship, love contrasted with loss, revenge and regret, and, most of all, the fear of oblivion in death.


It appears that the philosophical slant of the complete epic confined it to mainly literary circles for much, if not all, of its existence. It was obviously known in Mesopotamian scribal circles for some 1,500 years, and in Anatolia and Syria-Palestine during the 2nd millennium BCE. However, the epic does not seem to have been something that was widely known to the masses of people; it was never a byword nor did it generate any colloquial expressions. No king ever claimed to be as strong or as wise as Gilgamesh. no writings invoke Gilgamesh and Enkidu as paragons of friendship as they do David and Jonathan from the Bible. In all the productions of writings from the culture of Mesopotamia, the few allusions to Gilgamesh occur only in scholarly writings. There are almost no artistic depictions of any element of the story except for the killing of Humbaba. This act appears on a few dozen cylinder seals and a few decorative objects and reliefs from the 15th to 5th centuries BCE. The killing of the Bull of Heaven also appears on a few cylinder seals from the mid-second millennium to the 7th century BCE.


The latest fragment of the epic dates to the first century BCE. It seems that, with the decline and ultimate disappearance of cuneiform writing, the Epic of Gilgamesh was doomed to oblivion, even in literary circles. With the exception of the translations into Hittite, virtually none of the Mesopotamian literature was translated into other languages. There is a complete lack of references to Gilgamesh in the Syro-Phoenician cultures of the first millennium, which is puzzling since cuneiform literature was otherwise widely known in this area during the second millennium BCE (because Akkadian was the language of international diplomacy). The Hebrew Bible has allusions to other persons or themes derived from Mesopotamian sources, including the flood story, but nary a mention of Gilgamesh or anybody like him.


However, in one of the oldest stories that talks about the Greek ‘gods’ – The Odyssey – we find an epic that is, in many ways, extraordinarily similar to the Epic of Gilgamesh yet cast in an entirely different culture with Odysseus taking the role of Gilgamesh.


The Hellenistic Greeks were interested in the ancient history of Mesopotamia, but not in the native Mesopotamian form. Berossus wrote in Greek of “the histories of heaven and earth and sea and the first birth and the kings and their deeds” between 280-261 BCE. He extracted his information from cuneiform documents and Gilgamesh probably only received a citation for being on a king list: name and length of reign.


In recent years, some scholars have been applying themselves to this problem, coming to the idea that the Near East had a pervasive influence on early Greek literature, particularly Homer and Hesiod. The story of the vanishing god is a case in point. This is one of a group of old Anatolian myths, not a Sumerian or Hurrian story (as far as is known to date). The basic story is similar to that of Persephone. The story is about the disappearance of fertility deities and the resulting withering of the land and loss of fertility.


End of the Late Bronze Age

Let’s skip now to around 1200 BCE, the end of the Bronze age. Claude Schaeffer, found that Bronze age sites over a huge area of the near and middle east showed evidence of four destructive episodes, the three most prominent being at 2300 BCE, 1650 BCE and 1200 BCE.


It was the 1200 BCE event that finished off the Bronze Age. the Shang Dynasty in China, and the Mycenaean civilization in Greece disappeared at the same time.  (1190 BCE, but who is counting?)


The problem is that even the biggest earthquakes have only local effects, which is one of the reasons Schaeffer’s analysis was put aside and is ignored, for the most part, today. The alternative explanation, that during the Bronze Age the Earth was hit not once but several times by debris from space, most likely from a comet broken into pieces, fits the evidence exactly. As we have noted, comets, meteors or asteroids do not have to hit the earth to destroy large areas; remember Tunguska.


The archaeology reveals widespread collapse of the eastern Mediterranean world at the beginning of this period, with cities being abandoned and/or destroyed. Many explanations attribute the fall of the Mycenaean civilization and the Bronze Age collapse to climatic or environmental catastrophe, combined with an invasion by Dorians or by the Sea Peoples or the widespread availability of new iron weapons.


In the period immediately prior to the full-bore onset of the disasters, there is evidence of large-scale revolts and attempts to overthrow existing kingdoms. This suggests economic and political instability. This appears to have been exacerbated due to the influx of surrounding peoples who were experiencing famine and hardship due to climate changes that appear to be associated with increased comet flux.


In respect of the Greek dark age, with the collapse of the palatial centers of Mycenaea, no more monumental stone buildings were built and the practice of wall painting ceased; writing in the Linear B script ceased; pottery became simple in style and minimal in quantity; vital trade links were lost, and towns and villages were abandoned. The population of Greece was massively reduced, and the world of organized state armies, kings, officials and redistributive systems disappeared. Some areas recovered more quickly than others; there was still farming, weaving, metalworking and pottery-making during these centuries, but it was on a staggeringly reduced level in both volume and technique. It appears that necessity was the mother of invention and hard times led to the survival of pockets of smarter, more creative and more socially engaged individuals. At the same time, such periods also encourage the survival of Machiavellian cheater types – authoritarian leaders looking for followers. It could be said that disaster purifies both the best and the worst of humanity.


The earliest evidence for iron-making is a small number of iron fragments with the appropriate amounts of carbon admixture found in the Proto-Hittite layers at Kaman-Kalehöyük and dated to 2200–2000 BCE. Iron implements were made in Central Anatolia in very limited quantities by 1800 BCE and were in general use by elites, though not by commoners, during the New Hittite Empire (1400–1200 BCE). It was during the Greek Dark Age that the smelting of iron was re-learned, exploited and improved, ultimately to replace weapons and armor previously cast and hammered from weaker bronze. It seems that the Greeks must have acquired this knowledge from the Hittites.


Ancient Greece is supposed to be the seminal culture of modern Western civilization. this is because Classical Greek culture was adopted, to some extent, by the Roman Empire, which then spread its hegemony over the ancient world, including the philosophical ideology of Greece, which morphed into Christianity with a bit of Orientalizing influence from Judaism. But we must remember that all of these were heavily influenced by Mesopotamia filtered through the Hittites, who were decidedly not natives to Mesopotamia.


Classical Greece is generally said to have begun about the 8th century BCE when an ‘Oriental influence’ was imported, including writing, which enabled the beginning of Greek literature, i.e. Homer and Hesiod and, later, Herodotus and others. These beginnings of Greek Civilization began after a ‘dark age’ that we may justifiably think was a period following global stress and disruption due to cometary bombardment. Supposedly, this dark age followed the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization (which had its own script), and which came with the general, overall collapse – more or less in its entirety – of the Bronze age civilization.


Homer was supposed to be Greek and the Homeric stories were supposed to be the bedrock of Greek culture and civilization. yet the Greeks and Trojans depicted by Homer were nothing at all like the Greeks that later accepted these stories as part of their heritage. In the Iliad and Odyssey, Homer calls the various groups Achaeans, Argives, and Danaans; they did not refer to themselves as Greeks.


Homeric Greece (though it obviously wasn’t Greece as we know Greece) was more like a tribal society linked by language; it was far more like Central Asian nomadic society, or even Norse society, than what we know of today as the Orientalized Greek society with its city-states. In Homer’s world, there was a ruling class called Basileis, and their responsibilities included providing the individual who would be king, war leader, judge, (and with religious duties included), with advice and counsel. The king’s power was based on the principle of ‘first among equals’ and was restricted by the Aristoi, or nobility, who comprised an advisory council. There was also the agora, an assembly of the warrior class who had the power of voting on issues. Women enjoyed high status, despite the fact that the society was patriarchal and acknowledged a common ancestor and a common king. The main pursuits of life seem to have been fighting, hunting, herding, rudimentary agriculture and the pursuit and enjoyment of ‘manly activities’. Hospitality was the chief virtue, and Bards were highly valued. In short, there was a significant lack of any formal government or any kind of economic system. Most transactions of goods appear to have been based on reciprocity. It was definitely not the ‘city-states’ of Greece nor did it bear any resemblance to the city states of Mesopotamia.  


The events depicted in the Iliad and Odyssey are supposed to date to around 1190 BCE, which would put it right in the middle of a serious cosmic onslaught and climate downturn; the composition by Homer dates to around 800 BCE (though some date him to the time of the Trojan War). The war supposedly originated in a quarrel between goddesses: Athena, Hera and Aphrodite. Right away, we detect the comet element and wonder if the Trojan War was a real war between human beings at all. Of course, the mythologists, historians and archaeologists are sure that something like the Trojan War happened and they spend a lot of time trying to figure it out and make square pegs fit round holes. In any event, the dating of the Iliad and Odyssey to 1190 BCE is due to this being the estimated time of said ‘war’, which we now strongly suspect to have been a battle in the heavens. I will note here that Baillie’s tree rings show the time of greatest stress to be in 1159 BCE just 30 years after 1190 BCE.

The tree-ring record points to global environmental traumas between 2354 and 2345 BCE, 1628 and 1623 BCE, 1159 and 1141 BCE, 208 and 204 BCE and CE 536 and 545. Baillie argues that the tree rings are recording first the Biblical Flood, then the disasters that befell Egypt at the Eexodus, famines at the end of King David’s reign, a famine in China that ended the Ch’in (sic) dynasty, and finally, the death of King Arthur and Merlin and the onset of the Dark Ages across the whole of what is now Britain.

His conclusion comes as a shock. not only did the five episodes coincide with the onset of ‘dark ages’ for society, but they were triggered by cometary impacts. If Baillie is right, history has overlooked probably the single most important explanation for the intermittent progress of civilisation. Worse, our modern confidence in benign skies is foolhardy, and our failure to appreciate the constant danger of comet ‘swarms’ is the result of a myopic trust in a mere 200 years of ‘scientific’ records. Our excuse is that Christianity probably suppressed the dire warnings of earlier sages in an effort to downplay their influence, as Baillie points out. The Biblical account of the Exodus and contemporary annals from China speak of cometary activity preceding calamity. Previous writers have wondered if the hail or red-hot stones that befell the Egyptians were due to the eruption of Santorini, the Aegean volcano that destroyed Minoan civilisation. The pillar of smoke that guided the Israelites may have been the plume. But a single volcano is an unlikely cause of a global downturn. So Baillie goes a step further, arguing that a series of cometary impacts around the size of the 20-megaton explosion at Tunguska in Siberia might be enough to trigger earthquakes, tidal waves, volcanic eruptions and ocean floor outgassing. This would explain why comets are seen as portents, along with the occurrence of flooding and poisonous fogs – all reported at the time of Exodus and during others of Baillie’s five catastrophes. (Rudder (1999), ‘Fire, Flood and comet’, New Scientist Book Review, p. 42.) [italics, mine] 

Homer’s world does not describe the world of the Greek City States. It also does not describe the world of the Hittite Empire nor the other Mesopotamian empires that shared the story of Gilgamesh the ostensible model for Homer according to Mary R. Bachvarova as argued in her book From Hittite to Homer: The Anatolian Background of Ancient Greek Epic, (2016. Cambridge University Press) The earliest versions are Sumerian, dating to at least 2150 to 2000 BCE and were a collection of stories rather than one long epic. It was only around the 17th or 18th centuries BCE when it was fashioned into a single tale of many adventures; this was the time of the arising of the Hittite empire which lasted about 500 years as a great power. After about 1180 BCE, the empire disintegrated, though several independent ‘Neo-Hittite’ city-states survived until the 8th century BCE.  Could it be from there that Homer got his inspiration?  The difference in time between the earliest complete epic version of the combined, originally separate, stories of Gilgamesh and the Homeric version that became the Odyssey, is around a thousand years.


Nevertheless, noting the extraordinary comparisons between the compositions, as Trevor Bryce does in Life and Society in the Hittite World, (2002) highlights exceptional faithfulness to, at the very least, particular mythic topos. The experts think that this is remarkable considering the fact that the empires of Mesopotamia had been in the dust for some time before Homer wrote the story down and it wasn’t until Berossus, writing in the 3rd century BCE, that texts from Babylon were translated, possibly commissioned by Antiochus I, so they are certain that Homer couldn’t have copied anything from the later composite Gilgamesh epic. It is certainly a puzzle that deserves research. 


The process by which the Gilgamesh Epic was assembled is mostly understood as described above. Even the various parts are recognized. But it was the Hittites who preserved it for us in translation. Whatever happened, Homer took these stories, and even sometimes exact sequences of events and words, and used them as the skeleton for his Odyssey


 The closest similarity of what he did that I can think of is the way the Old Testament was written using the works of Berossus, Manetho and Plato, as described by Biblical scholar, Russell Gmirkin. (Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch (Copenhagen International Series 15), New York, 2006 and Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible (Routledge) New York, 2016.) Gmirkin proposes that the biblical collection was ultimately composed in two phases: the first, the work of the Seventy under royal sponsorship in Alexandria; the second in later stages in Palestine in order to constitute not only a national literature, but also to be an educational program to train obedient citizens.) “The Hebrew Bible as a whole can best be understood as a literature intended for the education of the soul, utilizing all the tools in the Platonic psychogogic arsenal: poetry, myth and song, theology and prayers, pageant and spectacle, theater, drink and dance and persuasive rhetoric that appealed to the patriotic, praised the noble and exalted and condemned the wicked and disobedient, who were threatened with punishments in this life and terrors in the next” (p. 267).


To give an example of my own: imagine the story of Perseus and the Gorgon being transformed into the story of David and Goliath. More than that, was there a relationship between the terrible face of Moses, in comparison to the terrible visage of Huwawa, the guardian of the Cedar Forest. Huwawa was described as a giant protected by seven layers of terrifying radiance. He was killed by Gilgamesh and Enkidu in a story that is quite similar to the slaying of Goliath by David and Medusa by Perseus. Which way does the influence flow?


In any event, what ultimately emerged from this dark age was the early Greek civilization: city states similar to the city-states of the ancient Sumerians a few thousand years earlier.


At the time the Greeks emerged as a power in the ancient world, the natural world was perceived as a purpose-driven, overwhelming and overpowering system of larger-than-life forces which could, in the blink of an eye, act negatively toward human beings. This is the view of the world that comes through loud and clear in the works of Homer. The people of the time did not question this view of reality, and thus issues of morality were not debatable: you behaved according to the precepts outlined in the Odyssey and exemplified by Odysseus, or you suffered the fate of the suitors. 


Then with an angry glance from beneath his brows Odysseus of many wiles answered him: “Eurymachus, not even if you should give me in requital all that your fathers left you, even all that you now have, and should add other wealth thereto from whence ye might, not even so would I henceforth stay my hands from slaying until the wooers had paid the full price of all their transgression. Now it lies before you to fight in open fight, or to flee, if any man may avoid death and the fates; but many a one, methinks, shall not escape from utter destruction.” (Homer, Odyssey 22.60) 

 

Gustave Moreau: The Suitors (unfinished) 1852-1896

 These ideas and the related myths had apparently taken shape during the Dark Age.


Notice above, in the quote from Rudder, he says: “Christianity probably suppressed the dire warnings of earlier sages in an effort to downplay their influence”.


That seems to be exactly what the Greek Philosophers were about as we will see next.


Continue to Part 3


P.S.1. 23-07-23 13:22 From Quantamagazine: How Quantum Physicists Explained Earth’s Oscillating Weather Patterns


"Last December, David Tong, a quantum theorist at the University of Cambridge, looked at the same fluid equations that Thomson had used. But this time, he considered them from a topological perspective. Tong ended up connecting the fluids on Earth to the quantum Hall effect again, but through a different approach, using the language of quantum field theory. When he tweaked the variables in the fluid flow equations, he found that those equations were equivalent to Maxwell-Chern-Simons theory, which describes how electrons move in a magnetic field. In this new view of Earth’s flow, a wave’s height corresponds to a magnetic field and its speed corresponds to an electric field. From his work, Tong was able to explain the existence of the coastal Kelvin waves that Thomson originally discovered."

40 comments:

  1. Somewhat related subject:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PePrj7UomSk

    An examination of the beginnings of recorded Greek medicine, and the inability of post-modern historians to write coherently and rationally on this and related subjects.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have updated a couple of links in the post.

    ReplyDelete
  3. FYI: Professions of some of the authors quoted in the post:

    Victor Clube - astrophysicist
    Bill Napier - atronomer
    Mike Baillie - paleoecolgist, dendrochronologist
    Heinrich P. Koch - completed his studies in history, ethnology, and Finno-Ugristics with a second Ph.D. at the University of Vienna in 1998. He received his first Ph.D. in the natural sciences already in 1960, and a Master degree in Pharmacy in 1955.
    Z. K. Silagadze - physicist
    Colin Keay - physicist
    Claude Schaeffer - archeologist
    David W. Anthony - anthropologist

    ReplyDelete
  4. In a somewhat related substack post "Convergent Cosmogony" I am finding:

    "The Other Plato is a series of essays describing the so-called “Tübingen Interpretation” of Plato's Inner-Academic Teachings. According to the Tübingen Interpretation, Plato’s written dialogues were merely introductory texts designed for a public (exoteric) audience. Plato’s actual doctrines were left unwritten, to be conveyed verbally from master to student in the inner circle of his Academy.
    (...)
    Plato’s Indefinite Dyad and Aristotle’s Pure Potentia both represent potentiality, change, and multiplicity. They both allow for the differentiation and manifestation of the various forms in the world. They encompass the capacity for change and becoming, standing in contrast to the absolute and unchanging nature of the One/Pure Actuality."

    And then comes Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model....

    ReplyDelete
  5. "And then comes Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model....".

    In a way I would agree, although I think the person who probably wrote most beautifully about consciousness and time was Plotinus. I don't think I've met a philosopher yet who touched on these issues in such a way, and I've read a lot of them.

    The main text of the note, on the other hand, is missing one thing. The influence of Orphic thought on the thought of Plato and Pythagoras.

    Orphic theology and philosophy is often overlooked in very many philosophical studies. It is mentioned by Giovanni Reale, among others. The relationship between Orphism and Hermeticism, Platonism and then Neoplatonism is also exceptionally interesting.

    It seems to me that a certain form of Neoplatonism has also been very interestingly preserved in Sufi thought (Ibn Arabi), although I think that these reflections are also a kind of consequence of the writings of Iamblichus, nevertheless Ibn Arabi has pulled this thought in a beautiful way in his texts.

    If possible I would very much like a note on the Greek philosophers to address these issues or have them addressed later in the comments.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The following quote relates to my Science series, rather than to Greek philosophers, nevertheless, quote from Significant COVID-19 Vaccine Study Censored by Medical Journal Within 24 Hours

    "Dr. Vinay Prasad, professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California and author of more than 450 academic articles, wrote there should be more discussion about vaccines, but public debate on side effects is being censored. In a 2022 article, Prasad said censors are unaccountable and are as fallible as those they are trying to censor.

    “This is especially true in science, where, as history shows us, consensus views can turn out to be false, while controversial or heretical ideas can be vindicated.”"

    ReplyDelete
  7. To be honest I am not particularly interested when I read about Covid, politics or any current affairs. I am only interested in what might be reflected in eternity.

    All that is here and now is generally of little importance to me. And I don't feel emotion for it at all.

    I appreciate that you present it here, but it definitely doesn't interest me.

    What really interests me is time, consciousness and eternity. And nothing else rather interests me.

    Politics can be quite interesting as a mind game, but the people who do it are very uninteresting.

    I'm rather more interested in what Laura will write about the Greek philosophers in her next note, and I look forward to that.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @ Mathilde S. "To be honest I am not particularly interested when I read about Covid, politics or any current affairs. I am only interested in what might be reflected in eternity."

    Keep in mind always the Hermetic Maxim: As Above, So Below.

    To not be interested in the real world in all its manifestations is to basically manifest the wish that fully half of the Universe (assuming that the real world comes into being from Information) would disappear. Love is light is knowledge and that knowledge is acquired from literally everything. If God/Cosmos/Universe is the object of Love, then one would wish to know all. If one claims to love another person, is there any part of that person that is not loved and desired to be known? If so, then it is not love.
    The Apostle Paul wrote about this very thing in his epistle to the Romans:

    For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them. For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse. (1:19-20)

    Note carefully that the Nature of God is made intelligible "in and through the things that have been made", i.e. His "handiworks".

    What are the Handiworks of God/Cosmos? EVERYTHING. When you do not take the time to know God in any aspect, you have failed in the creative act of learning.

    Love expresses the eternal condition that, within the unqualified identity of the Absolute, ALL qualifications are allowed by largesse of Unlimited Potential.

    And ALL qualifications are equally worth knowing.

    Without duality, there would be no existence to discuss.

    From the One there is bilateral emergence.

    Exactly one half of God/All/Cosmos joyfully seeks life and creation and play and exploration… a sort of “love of adventure.”

    The other half expresses a fundamental fear of “losing self” in this play and exploration. This causes it to recoil upon itself and this establishes the “tension” of polarization which is the stuff of which the cosmos is constructed.

    This can be more easily understood as “Love of God through love of the world and existence,” i.e. by loving the creation unconditionally, as God, since there is nothing but God, even though differentiated into the handiworks of creation, as opposed to denying fully half of creation as being un-loveable because it does not suit your limited tastes.

    The one view sees all all-that-exists AS SELF in some sense, and loves All and seeks to serve others.

    The other sees only SELF and self's wants and seeks to “go back to the Cosmic Sleep of Oneness without creation,” so to speak.

    One analogy would be the difference between a free and adventurous child that is full of the sense of adventure as opposed to a child that wishes to “own the mother” and cling to her and incorporate her to himself; i.e. Jealousy.

    The “Darkness” is, in fact,a State of Consciousness that has existed from the very beginning of individuation and which COVETS ATTENTION FOR ITSELF ALONE.

    This consciousness hates, fears and deeply distrusts Creation, and just wants to effectively “roll over and go back to sleep” in eternal union with the “mother/father.”

    So, the bottom line is: this other “half” of the All, born along with the Creative upsurge, becomes focused on actualizing its own impulse – to undo creation – for it realizes that only then can it be at “peace.”

    Ibn al-Arabi discusses this issue at length, concluding that everything that exists is a "word" of God and worth knowing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Corrected comment*

    @Laura

    "Keep in mind always the Hermetic Maxim: As Above, So Below.".

    You hit on the maxim very well in terms of your response to me, as it's one of my favourites, as well as what you wrote in general.

    The thing is, however, that we have to choose what we do anyway, and we have also touched on this topic in the past.

    I just feel that I am inundated from all sides with politics, world events, information about suffering, pain and so on.

    I wrote a comment to which you are responding a little emotionally. For some time now, I have been trying not to focus excessively on the phenomena that newspapers, Internet portals or television talk about. Rather, I have concentrated on a kind of deduction from the world of ideas.

    On the one hand, I myself sometimes talk about how God is like a continuous spectrum and this is reflected in what we perceive in this temporal world, following the hermetic maxim you quoted.

    However, delving into these phenomena and reacting to them emotionally has a very negative effect on me, so I have started to avoid this for some time and have started to deal mainly with the ideological and metaphysical aspects in the various disciplines.

    It was simply the only way for me to be able to control my own psyche, which was actually the biggest problem for me, and for some time I started to see clearly that it was a reflection of the paradoxes that I wanted to solve and that I saw in this world, but any solutions only came when I looked at it all from this higher perspective. When I was going from the bottom up, from the phenomena, all I felt was that everything didn't add up. A multitude of seemingly contradictory thoughts, feelings and a huge chaos that I could not sort out. I therefore eventually found that category theory worked for me therapeutically. I started conducting my own psychoanalysis and using the methods of category theory in relation to my psyche so that I could cope with it.

    I was also helped by the quote you refer to, but also by another hermetic quote:

    "Everything is dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled.".

    However, we reconcile paradoxes at a higher level of abstraction than the level at which they arose.

    "Ibn al-Arabi discusses this issue at length, concluding that everything that exists is a "word" of God and worth knowing.".

    I agree, but can I calculate the determinant of each matrix if I do not know the general formula for calculating the determinant? Of course, this is an easy example, so knowing the determinants of several matrices (unless they are deliberately chosen to prevent me from discovering the general law) I can usually find the general formula and calculate the subsequent determinants. However, observation of phenomena can be deceptive, and it is difficult to be sure that these phenomena have not been selected in such a way as to prevent us from arriving at the truth.

    And there is another nice quote that I would like to share with you and I think you will agree with it:

    “Knowledge has three degrees—opinion, science, illumination. The means or instrument of the first is sense; of the second dialectic; of the third intuition. To the last I subordinate reason. It is absolute knowledge founded on the identity of the mind knowing with the object known.”

    - Plotinus.

    For me, idealism and some aspects of category theory are already close to illumination, while politics, many aspects of mainstream psychology and human behaviour are closer to the world of opinion.

    What I have now written is also, of course, a form of opinion, but it is extremely difficult to express illumination. Our profound experiences are very subjective and difficult to put into words for someone, certainly in a few words. It takes millions of words to put them into perspective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I wrote a comment to which you are responding a little emotionally."

      I see it differently. I see very clear reasoning.

      Delete
    2. I too do not see an emotional response from Laura, but I view your avoidance of current topics to be somewhat emotionally driven.

      Delete
  10. @Laura

    "The other half expresses a fundamental fear of “losing self” in this play and exploration. This causes it to recoil upon itself and this establishes the “tension” of polarization which is the stuff of which the cosmos is constructed.".

    I think that the fear of losing an individual's identity disappears irretrievably when we go deeper into that 'identity'. And then we discover what The One 'thought' when creating Nous.

    On the one hand, this temporal identity becomes like a point on the cone of the world, but on the other hand, we have a sentiment for it because it is what has carried us through time. At least for a while it seems so, and then it turns out to have a decidedly deeper bottom. In this view, a very interesting discussion about reincarnation would be possible.

    "The one view sees all all-that-exists AS SELF in some sense, and loves All and seeks to serve others.".

    Yes, I agree completely and again it brings me back to my favourite concepts, e.g. the development of the absolute spirit in Hegel's dialectic.

    Are we actually serving others or are we serving ourselves on this journey to the Absolute? However, on some level of abstraction there is no distinction...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "However, on some level of abstraction there is no distinction..."

      This is, in my opinion, very misleading and even dangerous. "On some level abstraction" everything, however wrong, can be justified.

      Delete
    2. @Ark

      "This is, in my opinion, very misleading and even dangerous. "On some level abstraction" everything, however wrong, can be justified.".

      This is not about justifying anything. Rather, it is about metaphysical concepts, e.g. the development of the absolute spirit, specifically the idea that there is a level of consciousness where plurality disappears, everything is monistic, it's like that The One in Plotinus' philosophy that turns to itself and creates the Nous.

      The problem is that, at this level of consideration, it is extremely easy to misunderstand someone's words. That is why category theory seems to be a better tool for expressing such abstruse concepts.

      From a mystical perspective, it can be described this way:

      Man sees that his true identity is the One and that the temporal identity is separated from the One, the barrier that introduces the separation is time, time here, however, is more than just time at the physical level. Time contains more components, physics does not pay attention to them, time is very reduced in physics. If we experience the ascension beyond time, we notice that we and other people are in depth only a differentiation of this Absolute.

      More or less, but still I have not fully expressed it now. This is why category theory is better than language. One can write down intricate concepts and avoid misunderstandings.

      A person can experience this and it is an incredibly unique experience. Describing this experience to others, on the other hand, is very difficult. Especially in a few short comments.

      Delete
  11. "I wrote a comment to which you are responding a little emotionally.".

    It should be: "I wrote a comment to which (this one, you are responding) a little emotionally.".

    I wrote about myself, but the sentence came out wrong. I wrote a comment on 23 July in which I reacted emotionally to a flurry of current world news.

    And, at the same time, this rush was not on this blog, but generally all around me. Because when I turn on e.g. the radio in the car I don't hear there information about idealistic philosophy, higher forms of existence and the Absolute, but about what some politician said and I was simply annoyed by it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. And there is another point worth considering here. Of course, temporal matters are one thing. And it can be said that one serves oneself because one has bought sweets for oneself and no more for others. He chose himself and ate the sweets himself.

    It's just that I don't think anyone's deepest desire is to eat the sweets, although perhaps some people actually feel nothing deeper than a desire for power or money. However, I think that it is not really possible to want power or money in the deepest sense. I think these desires are just a cover for something much deeper. To discover what is deeper, however, one has to go much deeper into one's own mind.

    However, if you identify your deepest desire as the desire to accompany others on their journey to 'home' then, as long as you have this continually in mind and nothing in your life is more important than this, if you are serving yourself in fulfilling this desire then you are actually serving others as a result. You are aware that your path to the Absolute will never be completed if you do not serve all manifestations of You. And these manifestations are other persons...

    This then is what Hegel spoke of, namely that the desire of the individual who was previously less conscious becomes colinear with the desire of the all-embracing mind. At this point, the best service you can do for yourself is to serve others, and this is probably the only state in which a person can be truly deeply happy in a metaphysical way.

    And I have this level in mind when I write about the distinction disappearing.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Moreover, the idea that serving oneself can lead to serving others can be seen in the principle of enlightened self-interest, where one recognizes that personal benefit often comes from working for the benefit of all. However, here the word 'personal' is already something different from how we understand it in, for example, mainstream psychology. Here it is about a broader and deeper identity.

    In Buddhism, there are so-called Bodhisattvas who, out of compassion, give up their own total enlightenment until all beings are enlightened.

    In contemporary Christianity, people often worry about their salvation. However, I do not know if the salvation of the individual is possible. I think that for some individuals, heaven is not possible if they are aware that other beings are plunged into darkness.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I would just like to further point out that what I have written about the Boddhisattva is a strong oversimplification and the issue is much more complex, but that lends itself to a separate article rather than a blog comment.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Life is religion. Life experiences reflect how one interacts with God. Those who are asleep are those of little faith in terms of their interaction with the creation. Some people think that the world exists for them to overcome or ignore or shut out. For those individuals, the worlds will cease. They will become exactly what they give to life. They will become merely a dream in the "past." People who pay strict attention to objective reality right and left, become the reality of the "Future."

    Those who cannot stand the heat of the kitchen, don't get to eat at the table.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Laura

      "Life is religion. Life experiences reflect how one interacts with God.".

      I agree with this.

      "People who pay strict attention to objective reality right and left, become the reality of the "Future."".

      I generally agree with this too, but the term 'objective reality' is not entirely clear to me here.

      I would add that I am not equating here the terms 'empirical reality' used in the context of the exact sciences with the term 'objective reality'. I find the latter term much broader and more abstract. In addition, I also include metaphysical reality in the objective reality.

      The problem of 'objective reality' has been discussed on this blog in the past, and I must admit that it inspired the article I am currently working on. The article is about expressing key aspects of Plotinus' and Hegel's philosophy in terms of category theory. Selected aspects of theoretical physics will also be discussed. And the idea arose immediately just from the discussion of the nature of reality.

      Delete
    2. Objective reality: tables, chairs, bleeding, feeling pain. Evident examples. Wars, deaths, being scared of reality. Other examples.

      Delete
  16. "Objective reality: tables, chairs, bleeding, feeling pain. Evident examples. Wars, deaths, being scared of reality. Other examples.".

    A few notes ago, when asked about objective reality, you wrote that it is mind/consciousness.... Tables, chairs, etc. are undoubtedly examples of objects that we come to know empirically, but is that objective reality? After all, even their colours, shapes, particular characteristics, are not objective.

    "Wars, deaths, being scared of reality. Other examples.".

    And these are already entities that are ontologically different from tables or chairs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Tables, chairs, etc. are undoubtedly examples of objects that we come to know empirically, but is that objective reality?"

      These are just few examples.

      ""Wars, deaths, being scared of reality. Other examples.".

      And these are already entities that are ontologically different from tables or chairs."

      They also belong to objective reality. These are examples of the initial data from which every speculation should start.

      Other objective fact is that we are consciously aware of these data. Maybe not all of us. I am not sure.

      Delete
  17. "Other objective fact is that we are consciously aware of these data. Maybe not all of us. I am not sure.".

    I'm not sure either.

    The problem of chairs and ideas can be reduced to a question about the state of the system and the collapse of the wave function.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "The problem of chairs and ideas can be reduced to a question about the state of the system and the collapse of the wave function."

    "State of the system" and "wave function" are just concepts of a particular and highly incomplete mathematical model of reality. Reality comes first, models come second. They are useless if they do not describe reality. They are also useless if they do not help us to effectively deal with reality.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yes, I agree, nevertheless, that is why I am looking for a different model, but I think that science will move towards idealism, and I also deeply hope that this is what will happen. Chairs and tables are only certain realizations of a general state, while feeling, war or colour are still other categories ontologically. And hence I think that in constructing models of reality we should strive to describe these categories in such a way as to reconcile as many paradoxes as possible at the level of how our mind perceives paradoxes. And I think the direction is the world of ideas, and chairs are secondary. But this is another long topic, although of course it will probably be covered many more times.

    However, I do not intend to postulate that chairs do not exist. I am just sitting on one, so they exist, just as time exists, and I don't like it when physicists describe new theories and claim that time does not exist. These entities all exist, but I believe that the right question to ask is how they exist, and more specifically and formally, to which category of entities they should be assigned and what are the objects and morphisms within that category, and then only after that is it worth raising the problem of further details about these categories (homotopies, topology and algebraic structures).

    Here the so-called higher category theory is also very interesting.

    At the same time, I believe that it is wrong to start deliberations from material things or elementary events and that we should create deductive descriptions, from the top, not from the bottom, moreover, according to the sentence that as above so below, and is as below so above? In a way, maybe so, but if we observe only even numbers it will be difficult for us to arrive at quaternions. In contrast, the deduction from quaternions to even numbers as a special case of quaternions is immediate.

    Solipsism is, despite appearances, a very good starting point. Only that by the cognitive mind, again, I mean here the broader identity. But that's what I'm writing about in formal language, and I think it will be better understood than this collection of a few thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Solipsism is a very bad starting point because that is extremely problematic for many reasons, not least of which is being unable to truly walk in another person's shoes, that is, to have a reasonably accurate theory of mind. You might want to read Stanton E. Samenow's little book "Inside the Criminal Mind" to get a good idea of where solipsism generally leads. Yes, it is an exaggerated view of the process, but just like caricatures allow a person to recognize the essential features of the individual depicted, so do exaggerated psychological descriptions help us to spot where our own thinking might be going wrong.

      In one of your ranting messages sent to Ark, you said that what I wrote to you here in a friendly comment exchange was some kind of cultic manipulation.

      Apparently, you think that when anyone speaks to you honestly and straight, without games or subterfuge, they are manipulating you. Why would that be? Is the only thing you can accept without going into an emotional meltdown, total and unconditional agreement with anything you say or write? Now THAT is solipsistic in the extreme.

      You are hypersensitive towards yourself, but completely uncaring of the feelings of others. You assume extreme positions "for the sake of argument", but are then primed to retaliate for minor disagreements. You seem to have a very poor sense of the psychology of others and reality itself, but insist that everyone make allowances for your eccentricities and walk on eggshells so as not to set off your extreme emotional reactions. And most relevant to the Samenow work mentioned above, you consistently and repeatedly impose pejorative interpretations on other people's intentions regarding what they may say, write, or do. That seems to me to be solipsistic in the extreme. And here, I am using the term in a rather pragmatic way though I find pragmatism as a totalizing position unattractive.

      I enjoy soaring into realms of abstraction myself, but I know that it is not healthy to spend too much "time" there. A small dose goes a long way and most of our mental, psychic and physical energy should be devoted to our lessons here, in this reality. After all, if we really did not "fit" here, we would be somewhere else, would we not? But since we are here, we must assume that here is where we fit and set about the task of finding out what we really need to learn about THIS reality.

      What appears obvious is that the Universe is a school, a place where we are knowledge seeking creatures. If we apply the Hermetic Maxim, we have to assume that the best way to learn about higher realms is to learn everything we can about where we find ourselves, since our world is a REFLECTION of the higher realms.

      I actually think that part of our task is to work on being "god-like", that is, to strive to KNOW as much as possible that we CAN know for a certainty via various types of feedback from the real world in which we live. And the only way to do that is to practice, practice, practice here in the realm in which we find ourselves. To attempt to know things that we cannot confirm via any feedback mechanism is an iffy proposition. One can soar into abstract realms with mathematics as a feedback mechanism, but to fly without hard math is dangerous. Without math or other feedback, it is too easy to find oneself orthogonal to TRUTH and thus inviting chaos within, and manifesting it without.

      One thing I can assure you, as the bottom line, is this: There is no Free Lunch, and if you think there is, the YOU are lunch.

      Meddle not in the affairs of dragons because you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup. <- metaphor.

      Delete
  20. "You can see the stars but still not see the light."

    Back when I was in school, we joked that for some, getting their Ph.D. meant that the garbage in their heads was just "Piled higher and Deeper."

    Your brain works a certain way, Mathilde, and it is not really conducive to having an exchange with the majority of people on the planet. Only a small group of similarly wired individuals would find any pleasure or edification from it.

    I have always made it my goal to reduce things so that as many people as possible can enter the exchange and benefit from it. Yes, that sometimes means I must "dumb things down." But, over the years, I've seen that this is actually a very grounding approach. It means being able to see the forest and to not over-analyze the trees. Indeed, I can zoom in on a tree if I wish, if there is a reason to do so. But generally, I much prefer to see many others being lifted up by what I say instead of trying to lift myself up by going over people's heads and ignoring their needs, and breaking my arm to pat myself on the back for how much smarter and more holy I am than anyone else.

    "Objective reality" is what you can perceive with your senses, and for most people, that means the five physical senses. For a good number it also includes the "6th sense" which leads to paranormal awareness. For followers of esoteric paths, it can also mean the opening of the "eyes of the soul" in order to achieve what al-Arabi called "perspicacity." The "eyes of the soul" can only be opened by long and difficult training within a group setting; there is no other way because a certain type of feedback is necessary.

    You cannot acquire perspicacity by wandering in the realms abstraction.

    … The experience of unveiling opens up an infinite expanse of previously unseen realities to the heart of the spiritual traveler. One of the major tasks is to navigate the dangers and pitfalls faced by the soul when it meets the unknown.

    The realm into which the adept first enters is, after all, the World of Imagination, whose by-ways never end. It is the domain of the satans and other deceiving forces. One might say that unveiling opens the door to direct experience of the myriad worlds of Samsara. The traveler needs to keep a CLEAR HEAD during the journeys and not be misled by the swirling forces which lie just beyond the horizons of stability and balance.

    The law which governs the inward realm as much as it governs the outward realm, provides an indispensable framework for entering into the imaginal world. Without it the traveler will be thrown about by every blast of deceiving wind.

    …. Nowadays, most people interested in the spirituality of the East desire the ‘experiences.’ They may SAY that what they are after is intimate communion with God. Those familiar with the standards and norms of the spiritual experience set down by disciplined paths like Sufism are usually appalled at the way Westerners seize upon any apparition from the domain outside of normal consciousness as a manifestation of the ‘spiritual.’ In fact, there are innumerable realms in the unseen world, some of them far more dangerous than the worst jungles of the visible world. (Ibn al-Arabi)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Nastya works for Central Intelligence Agency on Petrovka Street, Moscow, her husband Lesha is an academician, mathematician.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Concerning these issues I did the I Ching today. Hexagram 4, changing line 5. Which reads:

    "THE JUDGMENT
    YOUTHFUL FOLLY has success.
    It is not I who seek the young fool;The young fool seeks me.
    At the first oracle I inform him.
    If he asks two or three times, it is importunity.
    If he importunes, I give him no information.
    Perseverance furthers."

    "Six in the fifth place:
    a) Childlike folly brings good fortune.
    b) The good fortune of the childlike fool comes from his being devoted and gentle.
    The fifth place is that of the ruler, but since the line is
    yielding and in relationship with the firm line in the second place, we have the idea of devotion, that is, courtesy of speech, and of gentleness, readiness to listen. The line stands at the top of the upper nuclear trigram K’un, which is by nature devoted."

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Harrison

    "Mathilde, it sounds like you're describing a "disintegrative" personality process. While it may be scary, it may also be beneficial not to avoid the process. Are you familiar with Kazimierz Dabrowski's work?".

    Yes, I suppose I have been going through this process for some time. I felt it especially intensely around November 2022, then in February 2023 there was something like a maximum, then for a few months I was totally excited about things I saw, slept 2-3 hours at a time and could write 300 pages in a day and a half, constantly doing something very creative. Then this partially died out, but there were still spikes.

    In my case, however, this overexcitability was mainly in the intellectual and imaginative spheres. The emotionality was there before, then it actually died out or somehow merged with the intellectual sphere.

    The sensual sphere also had spikes, for example, I remember feeling the touch of a box of tissues in a completely uncanny way. Touching that box made me feel like I was in paradise, it was so pleasant.

    But most of all, I had very many visions of paintings that I later painted, and visions of philosophical and mathematical abstraction.

    I also felt that I didn't have an identity, I had shed some layers of that identity from the surface, I only felt depth, the world that defined me before was no longer there.

    And there is a great deal more I could write, but you would have to ask me some specific questions, while in fact - something very strange has been happening to me for a few years now, and especially for a few months, and I feel that some kind of climax is approaching again.

    I should add that I usually have had ups and downs in my life, but not to the extent that this has happened recently. It's been a creative frenzy and ecstasy that have been interspersed with resignation and inability to come up with anything.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The positive disintegration web site has very useful links, like to:
    heory of Positive Disintegration
    As a Model of Personality Development for Exceptional Individuals, By Elizabeth Mika Read by Merlin Goery

    Yet in this particular case there are also other issues, as Laura mentioned in her comment on solipsism above

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Laura

    "Apparently, you think that when anyone speaks to you honestly and straight, without games or subterfuge, they are manipulating you. Why would that be? Is the only thing you can accept without going into an emotional meltdown, total and unconditional agreement with anything you say or write? Now THAT is solipsistic in the extreme.".

    This is not about unconditional agreement, but I am considering whether it made sense to enter into this discussion here, because when I write something in the comments it is at most some series of sentences that for me are understandable because of some specific experience of mine, especially in recent months, while for someone else it may not be understandable and may be completely misinterpreted. Sometimes you can get it right, but sometimes you can't, and it irritates me a lot when someone tries to pull me into some category based on snippets of information.

    However, the problem is a bit more complex, because in my case it is not that I deliberately force myself to be somehow overly scientific or philosophical. It's just the way I realistically think, and I'm rather inauthentic if I say anything straight. If I speak simply I perpetually feel that I have said very little and that I have not expressed what I meant at all. I feel as if I had to describe some complicated algebraic structure and I would simply say: "This is the kind of thing where there are actions." Meanwhile, it actually says almost nothing.

    I am not even normally able to feel sadness or happiness, sympathy or antipathy, everything is multiply complex for me, there are paradoxes, aporias, fractal structures, analogies of analogies etc. everywhere.

    This is my way of thinking. I even started to feel terribly tired when I was teaching a lesson or giving a lecture because I felt like I wasn't presenting any information, everything was too easy for me and that led to fatigue.

    It is really difficult for me to explain, but I am trying to outline the problem.

    To be continued...

    ReplyDelete
  26. @Laura

    "In one of your ranting messages sent to Ark, you said that what I wrote to you here in a friendly comment exchange was some kind of cultic manipulation.".

    I have written it, it is true. On the other hand, it is not actually the case that I think so and this is already 100% certain for me. Even this issue is much more complex. It was some form of hypothesis, it is not any illumination of mine.

    This was a feeling caused by several factors. Firstly, suggestions of rubbish in my head or looking at the stars and not seeing the light are unpleasant to me because I realise that, despite my sincere intentions, I am not able to give you an insight into my mind so that you can look inside and see what is really there.

    I just sometimes feel like you're looking for a pattern on me and you think you've found that pattern by simplifying everything I wanted to convey.

    Secondly, in both yours and Ark's way of speaking, I perceive a treatment of the other person from above, making the initial assumption that, whoever your interlocutor is, he or she is certainly stupid, shallow and is one of a thousand other cases.

    I don't see any respect for the interlocutor here, but I do see something of a call for compliance. I do not see an aspiration for agreement. I see attempts to force it so that I am the one who accepts whatever rationale you have and that's it, and if I continue to ask then it means there is something wrong with me because I should already accept it.

    And I just don't work like that. For some people the Bible is a convincing enough argument for them to claim to have found the answers to all questions, for others it is physics, for still others mathematics or philosophy, while for me, even if I have reached a point I will look for the inner structure of that point. I even dreamt about it today. I reached a point without volume and decided to see what was inside, even though it is a point, so it's paradoxical. And inside there was some fractal structure that was disturbed and I kept going down these fractals, deeper they seemed more ordered.

    The only thing that has changed recently is that I used to arrive at nihilism in this way, and now it feels more like iconic theology. Darkness and immense complexity, an ever-deepening darkness. And then suddenly it's bright again and I see Newton's disc rotating at infinite speed, but I don't see it in time, I see a superposition of states of this disc. Something like that. And there is only whiteness.

    On the other hand, I don't know if it makes sense to describe it, because these are some deep experiences of mine and for someone from the outside they might just be boring or incomprehensible.

    ReplyDelete
  27. And one more thing. If you think that I have some kind of hard view of the kind that Ark or you have bad intentions then you are wrong.

    I don't know your true intentions and I am in no position to judge them. I can at most suspect what kind of reactions some of my comments will cause, sometimes I judge it accurately, sometimes a little less accurately, but nevertheless I do not know the deepest reason for the state of affairs.

    I did not judge anyone. It is possible that in anger I wrote that I judged, nevertheless now I am not calm and I know very well that there is actually no clear judgment in my mind about you. There is at most some mosaic that is forming, but I do not know the theory of you.

    Instead, I have the impression that you are the one who is sometimes convinced that you already have the whole theory of me and it can be "published". And this irritates me extremely - it's true.

    Very simplistic: I feel as if someone says that a photon is such a particle and is so convinced of it that when he sees a wave he will pretend he didn't see it. Because, after all, it has already been said that a photon is a particle. How then could it be a wave?

    It's similar here. Cultic manipulation? Well, it is possible to create an analysis in which I pick out from you what fits under cultic manipulation and declare that I already know everything. Only that it would be a very flimsy and shallow theory...

    Nevertheless, this is one perspective I can take if I am lazy enough not to look deeper.

    ReplyDelete
  28. And one more thing you probably don't expect. Anyway, I'm opening up here. I don't have to write about my deep feelings here, but I do, and if I feel that all this is ridiculed, called garbage and mixed with mud, I am simply indescribably sorry.

    I definitely don't like this criticism because it's not constructive in any way for either side and I think it would be much better if I was asked to clarify what I mean instead of being judged outright.

    Solipsism has also been misinterpreted in my case, although I have written about the fact that by solipsism I do not mean solipsism in the context of my narrow identity, but this expanded identity, so we are actually entering Hegel's immanent philosophy.

    Just see... You'd have to ask me to specify what I'm writing. And on the other hand, I am not able to explain it in short comments. I would have to explain to you how I understand one term and in what contexts I perceive it, and if I wanted to explain it really well, I would have to send you a text of at least 1000 pages. Nevertheless, the solipsism I wrote about is not about me in the way you understand me. It's not that only I exist and others, like you, are untrue. Unfortunately, we are entering mystical experiences here, and these are usually such that the language is not abstract enough to express them properly. As a consequence, we use different placeholder words and there is what we see...

    ReplyDelete
  29. @Laura

    "You need to get a grip on your brain and your emotions or you will lose what little you have of a mind.

    The above is meant kindly.".

    This phrase "You will lose what little you have of a mind" is a somewhat insulting comment.

    Here is its breakdown:

    "You will lose": This suggests that the person will no longer have or possess something. In this case, that 'something' is being referred to as 'what little you have of a mind.'

    "What little you have of a mind": This is a disparaging remark about the person's intelligence or mental capability. The word 'little' implies that the speaker believes the person doesn't have much intelligence or mental capacity to begin with.

    So, put together, the phrase is a prediction or threat that the person is at risk of becoming even less intelligent or mentally capable than the speaker already believes they are. It's not a kind phrase, and it suggests a lack of respect for the person's cognitive abilities.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @Laura

    "You need to get a grip on your brain and your emotions or you will lose what little you have of a mind.

    The above is meant kindly.".

    This phrase "You will lose what little you have of a mind" is a somewhat insulting comment.

    Here is its breakdown:

    "You will lose": This suggests that the person will no longer have or possess something. In this case, that 'something' is being referred to as 'what little you have of a mind.'

    "What little you have of a mind": This is a disparaging remark about the person's intelligence or mental capability. The word 'little' implies that the speaker believes the person doesn't have much intelligence or mental capacity to begin with.

    So, put together, the phrase is a prediction or threat that the person is at risk of becoming even less intelligent or mentally capable than the speaker already believes they are. It's not a kind phrase, and it suggests a lack of respect for the person's cognitive abilities.

    How do you explain it? Were you just annoyed or do you have any better explanation?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mathilda, you demand “clarification” from others, but in your own case, the more you talk/write, the less clarity there is, which you admit above. Reading all you have written above, what additional posts on the topic have not been approved, what you have sent to me privately, has been quite exhausting. I can’t even imagine what it is like to live with all that cacophony in one’s head. And when you engage in outpourings of this kind, frankly, it seems like nothing short of verbal diarrhea. (Not calling it feces, to be clear, just the manner in which it all rushes out without control.)

    The topic is going to be closed since it has nothing to do with the post at this point, but before doing that, I’ll try to give you a brief response.
    Gurdjieff taught that the human being is split into three completely independent entities which he called “brains” or “centers” for lack of a better term. Modern psychological research has given some validity to these ideas. Read: Thinking: Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, Strangers to Ourselves by Timothy Wilson, “The Dunning–Kruger Effect: On Being Ignorant of One's Own Ignorance". by David Dunning, "Chapter Five – Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 44. Academic Press. pp. 247–296. (1 January 2011), etc.
    Gurdjieff gave an analogy for the problem this presents: the Carriage, Horse, Driver, Passenger.

    The carriage is the physical body, the driver is the brain, the horses are the emotions, and the passenger SHOULD be the master of the whole equipage, and I call it “mind” to avoid religious overtones of things like soul, spirit, psyche.

    "… almost every contemporary man of responsible age consists of nothing more nor less than simply a “hackney carriage,” and one moreover, composed as follows: a broken-down carriage “which has long ago seen its day,” a crock of a horse, and, on the box, a tatterdemalion, half-sleepy, half-drunken coachman whose time designated by Mother Nature for self-perfection passes while he waits on a corner, fantastically daydreaming, for any old chance passenger."

    For most people, the most important thing is missing: the Master, who is the passenger in the carriage, is either not present or is unconscious and unaware that the horses plunge madly this way and that in reaction to every environmental stimulus while the driver is drunk in the seat and unable or unwilling to exert the effort to train and control the horses. Thus, there is the very real possibility that the whole equipage will meet disaster after disaster, even, eventually, total breakdown,
    You have expressed above that your emotions (horses) control your brain and body, i.e. the driver and the carriage. Your brain is constantly drunk on the endless flow of what you think are YOUR thoughts. But nowhere is there any evidence of the Master of the carriage speaking and controlling what happens, when and where and why and how. If you are at all concerned about this, I would suggest first that you read the following essay: https://www.gurdjieff.org/salzmann3.htm

    You should probably read it a number of times since hardly anyone ever really understands it on first reading it. Print it and read it daily for awhile. You still won’t understand it until certain things happen to you and in you. Read the books I have suggested as well as Dabrowski suggested by Harrison. I can also suggest Castaneda’s works. Try meditating to quiet your mind. There are also medications that can help with a brain that is hypersensitive and goes off the rails such as you describe above.

    I don’t know if this is what you want, (birth of the real self, the Master) but if it is and you apply yourself diligently over a long period of time, (probably you will need help from your psychiatrist/psychologist), I think anything is possible even with all the challenges you face. It won't be easy, but it will be worth it.

    So, for here and now, the subject is closed. I will continue the series on the philosophers since we are now getting to the good parts.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for your comment..

Why? The Purpose of the Universe - Part Eight

 Laura Knight-Jadczyk In the previous post , we learned that Philip Goff disposes of one view of Cosmopsychism – that the consciousness of t...