|
Posted by Kris Krieger on January 29, 2008, 2:48 pm
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jude Alexander wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for the link. Seems logical that there were lesser refined
>>>>>buildings (as these buildings are fairly refined) before people
>>>>>starting improving on their skills.
>>>>
>>>> Or that buildings being in done in quite different materials were
>>>> being replicated in stone. One example of this is the so-called
>>>> Hellenistic carvings of furniture and architectural elements like
>>>> beams in the caves of Bamiyan (probably blown up along with the
>>>> Buddhas under the Taliban) and similar elements in "Desert Cathay".
>>>> They were simply, in the first millenium BC, a way of expressing
>>>> quite another kind of home to the cave's somewhat sophisticated
>>>> inhabitants
>>>
>>> Probably so, but I think the point is that if they could do this in
>>> *ninth* millenium BC, it probably points to an even earlier mastery
>>> of acrhitectural technology, and even this site is pushing backwards
>>> the assumed date and circumstances when this technology was
>>> developed.
>>
>> THat's part of the fascination.
>>
>> It amazes me that so many "modern" people seem to prefer to believe
>> in BS about extraterrestrial builders, rather than realize that
>> ancient people were not only as mentally sophisticated as are people
>> nowadays, but, in my own theory, in many ways, actually smarter, in
>> that they did not have all of the "safety nets" that current society
>> provides, andtherfore had to be, if not more intelligent, then at
>> least more aware and more sensible.
>>
>>>
>>> The fact that people were doing amazing buildings so far back is one
>>> thing, but I really find it much more curious that this site was
>>> *intentionaly buried*.
>>
>> It seems reasonable to suggest, tho', that, having put so much into
>> the place, and most esp. if it *was* some sort fo sacred place, if
>> the people did have to move on due to soil depletion, climate change,
>> or some other problem, the builders chose to cover it rather than
>> leave it open to erosion and/or "defilement".
>>
>>
>>> I'm not sure of the date of covering, but even
>>> if animals were domesticated by then, it must have been a huge
>>> undertaking, and of great significance. Any bored fool can destroy
>>> stuff, but to *bury* it intact must have had meaning that we can
>>> only guess at for now.
>>
>> I think the various reasons are very understandable. It's natural to
>> bury, or otherwise hide, something which is of great personal
>> significance. I think that current thinking is so focused upon the
>> notion of money=value that many people can't relate to, or even
>> understand, the concept that value and money are two different
>> things. Modern people think that money/price creates value, when the
>> reality is that true value exists independent of money, and money is
>> merely a means of acquiring or creating that which one values.
>>
>> Obviously, the people who lived there must have assigned great value
>> to the place, since they did put so much into erecting the
>> structures, so IMO, it's perfectly reasonable that, if they did have
>> to leave, they would prefer to bury it, rather than have it fall into
>> the hands of those who would deface or even destroy it. If it was a
>> sacred place, than it also is reasonably to suggest that burying it
>> might also have been a way of preserving it, preserving the
>> sacredness by preventing it from being tromped upon/through by people
>> who might defile that sacredness.
>>
>>>
>>> Anyway, I'm glad Klaus Schmidt didn't quit school at twelve,
>>
>> Oh, quit harping on that damn string already, it only makes you
>> appear petty.
>>
>> Anyway, the original discussion was, IIRC, mroe about giving kids the
>> option of going tech-track, entering apprenticeships, as opposed to
>> *forcing* EVERYONE to follow the exact same educational track,
>> regardless of their talents or interests.
>>
>> So give it a rest already and let a decently-interesting thread
>> remain so, without the puerile sniping.
>
> It's now been three quarters of a day without anything but a civil, on
> topic post by Don, and I think he has resisted his temptations to
> respond to a minor provocation, so you'll note that I have also 'stood
> down', but not before seemingly accomplishing what I set out to do.
> Let's see how things unfold. There are no points for style in a street
> fight. I wrote that eight days ago. You should visit more often.
>
Heh, my copmputer should remain operational for longer periods of time.
Street fight are not things I've ever sought out. I tend to be a
defender rather than an aggressor, tho' admitteldy have made unwise
choices ergarding what is and isn't defensible.
Be that as it may, my annoyance was only based on my great enjoyment of
this topic (ancient tructures) in general and my appreciation for your
having posted the link and started a discussion of it, as opposed to the
injection of a "bicker-point" so to speak. THat's all. I don't like
fighting because I think it is nto only unproductive, but also
destrctive.
What ti all comes down to, for me, is what is interestingand
productive/constructive, versus what is not. I've been told that is part
of my "problem" (the Asperger's) and my "inability to connect
emotionally", and so on an dso forth and yadda aydda yadda blahblahblah.
IMO, it's the opposite - what I see as a problem is that people in
general allow their fleeting emotions to get the better of them, and
therefore end up syaing/doing things that are unproductive.
Which is in no way whatsoever the same as trying to saythat nobody shoudl
disagree - it's just that there is a productive/constructive way of
disagreeing, and a way that comes to no good and merely ends up widening
rifts.
There are things Don says that I don't agree with and some that irk me,
and a few that I just get pisse doff at - due to lack of time, I do tend
to ignore many of those, because I'm not much of a spontaneous
communicator, plus I type very slowly (and even there, still can't type
worth beans =:-o ). But that's true of pretty much everyone. Hell,
sometimes I even piss *myself* off =:-o But the point, to me, is not
to throw the proverbial baby out wiht the proverbial bath water - that's
how I was trained to react while growing up, and I lost out on a lot fo
interesting friendships because of it. So I've learned ot at least try
to be circumspect and avoid knee-jerk reactions.
Anyhoo, the point is not that I was trying to be snooty or talk down to
you or anything like that, but the opposite - when I say to soemone that
they ought not bicker, it's only because I think that certain behaviors
are *beaneath* that person, IOW, that the person is better than they are
allowing themselves to *appear* to be.
I know Don and you don't get along, btu my view is that I think both of
you have some interesting ideas, and have knowledge to offer, and I dont
reject either because of a disagreement that is between you and has
nothing to do, IMO, with me. To me, the main point is that
bickering/sniping is a waste of time and energy, plus is, as I said, not
worthy of the positive traits that I see in both you and Don.
'Nuff said, I hope, also I hope not *too much* =:-o since I know all
too well that brevity/succinctness is definitly *not* one of my strong
points...
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap