Dragons Unicorns Pegasus Fairies Pixies Elves Angels Brownies Gnomes Leperchauns Merm

when judeism was in its infancy yup. I dont have the article, but im pretty sure someone on this thread does. I want to say Ashara, but i think thats a flash back to my Diablo II days LOL

[Chrysaetos]

Originally Posted by Time

I want to say Ashara, but i think thats a flash back to my Diablo II days LOL

lol, there's also a queen in Warcraft lore named after her.

Anyway, here's the 'real' one.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

God.... i wa nt that far off... LOL

ahh warcraft, ruining lives since 1999

Man that gets me thinking, what if someone finds the stratagy guide to diablo II 1000 years from now, theyll think were nuts ( more so then we actualy are) LOL

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Everything is subjective, Animus, but what happens when all you have is your subjectivity?

It isn't. It is true that our perceptions are subjective, and thus unreliable from a scientific point of view. But there are methods of establishing facts that limit or remove the coloring of the person's opinions. There are facts that one would be hard pressed to argue without using complex hypotheses that rely on
dozens of other things being proved wrong. When it comes to past lives I say it's unreliable and subjective because there can be no concrete factual information about them - if we cannot establish the existence of any kind of afterlife with certainty, it's a little far fetched that we can easily accept, from a scientific point of view, that people have spent lives on other planets. Modern psychology and neuroscience shows that our memories aren't always accurate, and can even be outrightly false.

But the catch is, it doesn't matter to me what others believe. I have many beliefs that others would find silly. But I do not think any kind of belief or feeling has a place amongst scientific theories. I don't think that is what you're trying to do by any means, but I have seen it done many times; which is something I find saddening. Because in stabling on our feelings we can miss the facts about the matter.
On the other hand, I actually think spiritual beliefs can be healthy, because they can help give us a poetic meaning and purpose that science cannot always provide (okay, RARELY can provide ). I simply think it's important to make the distinction between what I believe, and what is proven as being consistently factual.

Are all these mythical creatures simply the product of an over-active imagination, or do they - like most myths - have a basis in fact? Are they memories that have been discounted as memories because there is no proof, they are not deemed as objective?

That was my point, more or less. I think mythical creatures do have some basis in fact. I just think the facts tend to be a little more... hmm... mundane?

Originally Posted by Chrysaetos

By claiming that everything is subjective you are making an absolutist claim yourself, which is very similar to hard objectivity.
Hardly different. Two sides of the same coin.

I do wonder what people from the year 5000 will believe if they see our superheroes from comic books, video games, manga, and the movies.

In the ancient world people did not do things exactly like we do today. Some, like the Egyptians had their own way of writing things down, with symbols and images.
That doesn't mean it is literal. That is only one example. We always have to look at the context.

I don't do absolutes because I doubt such a thing even exists. In fact, I believe it's the opposite of hard objectivity. Objectivity seems to be more about the exclusion of thoughts and concepts, subjectivity is enjoying the freedom to explore other avenues even if they don't make sense. Very often something will make better sense in the longer term as we find out more information, etc.

I wasn't there when the Egyptians drew their hieroglyphs and the like, but would they have wanted their comic books (if they had them) as a reminder of their culture? I would have thought that the Egyptians and the Sumerians would have depicted what they saw as best as they could understand it. Just because they have no idea of aerodynamics it doesn't mean they can't draw an helicopter if they see one. They (and a few other cultures) also knew that Sirius was a binary star long before any other humans actually saw it. Using objective thinking, they must have had telescopes that the archaeologists haven't found, they couldn't have known about it any other way. Could they?

Originally Posted by Animus27

It isn't. It is true that our perceptions are subjective, and thus unreliable from a scientific point of view. But there are methods of establishing facts that limit or remove the coloring of the person's opinions. There are facts that one would be hard pressed to argue without using complex hypotheses that rely on dozens of other things being proved wrong.

Oh well, if that's the case then we may as well shut down this forum. But there aren't always ways of establishing the facts. Scientific knowledge is limited, and while some people revel in the scientific achievements there's still a lot of Universe we know squat about. Discussions on parallel Universes and different dimensions have been going on between Spiritual people for a long time and science is only recently catching up with the idea. Same with genetic memory, science knows there is such a thing but the secrets remain secret. The facts are limited to our understanding of what they are, and even that is skewed most times. Once upon a time it was a scientific fact that everything was made up of four elements. Now we have quantum theory - which is still a theory by the way. If you are going to use your objectivity then by all means use it, but use it to realise that science doesn't have all the answers and that there are mysteries 'out there' that we can only guess at or have yet to discover. There are also great mysteries to the human mind that science doesn't begin to understand.

Originally Posted by Animus27

It isn't. It is true that our perceptions are subjective, and thus unreliable from a scientific point of view. But there are methods of establishing facts that limit or remove the coloring of the person's opinions. There are facts that one would be hard pressed to argue without using complex hypotheses that rely on dozens of other things being proved wrong. When it comes to past lives I say it's unreliable and subjective because there can be no concrete factual information about them - if we cannot establish the existence of any kind of afterlife with certainty, it's a little far fetched that we can easily accept, from a scientific point of view, that people have spent lives on other planets. Modern psychology and neuroscience shows that our memories aren't always accurate, and can even be outrightly false.

Or maybe it's an indication that science needs to catch up? We know very little about our little corner of the Universe never mind whatever else is 'out there'.

Originally Posted by Animus27

But the catch is, it doesn't matter to me what others believe. I have many beliefs that others would find silly. But I do not think any kind of belief or feeling has a place amongst scientific theories. I don't think that is what you're trying to do by any means, but I have seen it done many times; which is something I find saddening. Because in stabling on our feelings we can miss the facts about the matter.
On the other hand, I actually think spiritual beliefs can be healthy, because they can help give us a poetic meaning and purpose that science cannot always provide (okay, RARELY can provide ). I simply think it's important to make the distinction between what I believe, and what is proven as being consistently factual.


That was my point, more or less. I think mythical creatures do have some basis in fact. I just think the facts tend to be a little more... hmm... mundane?

Uummmmmm. Last time I looked this was a Spiritual forum and not a science forum. And how many people have run with their feelings? If they had ignored them completely for subjectivity, perhaps we'd still be living in mud huts? Parallel Universes and dimensions are scientific theory at the moment, so what would happen if one day they become fact? Would people who have believed in that kind of thing for years be able to say "Told you so"? I have believed in dimensions for a long time, and a few years ago I was sent a link to a website that was called 'Imagining the Tenth'. What it was about was essentially trying to grasp the concept of how to perceive the fourth dimension and upwards. For me, it was scientific validation of what I believed in. Some would have said my beliefs were fantasy, but there was a website that was trying to understand it.

Perhaps you think it's important to make the distinction between what you believe, and what is proven as being consistently factual. I want to understand what's in my head and the reasons for it being there. It's not all fantasy, not if many other sane and rational people are confirming it for me.

We don't know for a fact that these creatures don't exist or have never existed. The only thing we do know for sure is that we don't have the scientific evidence to say one way or the other. But I have good memories of being on dragonback and have met creatures that may be the basis of a few of what we term as mythological creatures. If science (or anyone else) wants to prove me wrong, then let them present their case.

Well, we do have lots of evidence suggesting the contrary for some.

Dragons - The odds are dragons are an interpretation of dinosaur fossils.

Sasquatch - There have been to many sightings, from to far back , from to spread out to totaly discount this as lain myth. Yet concidering weve destroyed half the worlds forests, youd think wed have at least one pioece of indesputable evidence ( even an unknown prmate hair sample, unkown rimate fecal sample.... Yet the evidence isnt quite circumstancial either..... Out of anything on this list, sasquatch has the most likleyness of being eral.

Faries/elves/brownies etc - Im not to sure about these. All cultures speak of "nature spirits", which is all these are just in celtic understanding. I think something takes care of the woods, whether its a manifestation of our psyches or not.

Unicorns/peguses - Stricktly myth. I cant exactly remember the mythology, but as far as pegasus, its jstu a constallation, that was written down in a few mythologies ad different things. Unicorns.... Ive never been to sure abotu them, but if they were as wide spread as the mythos say, wed have found SOMETHING, a cave painting depicting them being hunted or something.... Then again the same goes for all of these...

Greenslade, its very simple... has anyone else that you know seen you riding along on dragon back? Ive "met " manythings but they are jsut a dream. Does that mean they are real or not? Depends on your definition of real.... You probably have seen them as most ancients have seen them, in their subconcious. They arent physicaly real, but that doesnt really make them fake. Its no different from god ( monothesitic sence), theres really NO proff at all, that god, or even jesus lived, yet a billion people still follow that path....

[LadyVirgoxoxo]

I just have a few questions for you guys trying to understand your posts.
Greenslade, is genetic memory the memory of past lives? And what is quantum theory?
Time, what is eral?

[Chrysaetos]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

I don't do absolutes because I doubt such a thing even exists. In fact, I believe it's the opposite of hard objectivity. Objectivity seems to be more about the exclusion of thoughts and concepts, subjectivity is enjoying the freedom to explore other avenues even if they don't make sense. Very often something will make better sense in the longer term as we find out more information, etc.

You claimed that there is no objectivity at all. That is a major absolutist claim. All is subjective comes very close to saying all is objective.
The claim 'there is no objectivity' is as extreme as saying 'there is only objectivity'.

It is obvious that both exist (objective and subjective) and it is obvious that there are established facts. We know the earth is round and just because a person wants to believe the earth is a huge octopus with thousand tentacles doesn't make it is real. That would be solipsism. The earth didn't suddenly became round in reality when we believed it to be so.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Oh well, if that's the case then we may as well shut down this forum. But there aren't always ways of establishing the facts. Scientific knowledge is limited, and while some people revel in the scientific achievements there's still a lot of Universe we know squat about.

I don't know any scientists who says science has all the answers. It is in fact some spiritual authorities who claim to have all the answers.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Discussions on parallel Universes and different dimensions have been going on between Spiritual people for a long time and science is only recently catching up with the idea.

The New Age uses scientific terms and reinterprets theories, but that doesn't make science ''catching up'' with the New Age.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Once upon a time it was a scientific fact that everything was made up of four elements.

No, that was a cultural belief. It wasn't a scientific fact.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Uummmmmm. Last time I looked this was a Spiritual forum and not a science forum.

This forum does not ask to us to have some defined established beliefs, does it? So whatever our approach is: sceptical, curious, close minded, religious, rational, irrational, believing-everything-without-questioning.. all are welcome imo. That is what makes for a rich place! :)

But as you put forth a distinction there, can you tell what a person has to believe in order to be ''spiritual''? Is finding out the truth not part of spirituality? Even if that means some religious beliefs turn out to be in error with established facts? Even if that means some are baloney while others are perhaps true?

Originally Posted by Greenslade

We don't know for a fact that these creatures don't exist or have never existed. The only thing we do know for sure is that we don't have the scientific evidence to say one way or the other. But I have good memories of being on dragonback and have met creatures that may be the basis of a few of what we term as mythological creatures. If science (or anyone else) wants to prove me wrong, then let them present their case.

Nobody said they never existed, or do not exist. All some of us do is approach this subject with healthy scepticism, and trying to come up with explanations for these phenomena.

Cheers.

Virgo - Genetic meory/ast lives depends on who you ask. There is some new research suggesting that our dna has a sort of "memory", but the details are pretty dim in my memory... Look it up, its pretty cools tuff

Quantum theory............ Theres no real simple explanation.... Physics is the study of the large scale, planets, solar systems, things liek that, while quantum theory is more the small scale, atams, quarks etc. ID research it myself if I were you, becasue its a large topic, and full of physics

[LadyVirgoxoxo]

Nobody said they never existed, or do not exist.

I definitely know people who said that.

Thank you Time I will look into the matter. But what is eral?