A Basis in History....???

[beastx]

Work on a recent section of my up and coming book led me to doing some research on the methods historians use for verifying accuracy. This was important in my research because so many "traditions" roam abroad with unsupported claims of ancient roots. I'm sharing this with you fine folks because it may help you decide which systems are worth working in and which are not. After all if the system is based in lies, you can only expect any claims of potential gain are also based in lies. Given the short lifespan we have and the fact that most of us were not born into this pursuit, time is precious.

Time brings us to our first point of measure when dealing in authenticating a system as ancient. Olden-Jørgensen and Thurén state that the closer the evidence examined is to the event it claims to describe, the more likely it is that we can trust the evidence given.

In the case of physical evidence (i.e. a plate, stone, or any other tangible item) this is more than obvious. As an example let us just pretend someone has found a spear which they claim was used by early Mesopotamian hunters. After undergoing the process of carbon dating it is revealed that this spear could not be any older than the end of the Roman Empire. We can confidently conclude that it is highly unlikely that this spear existed in it's "claimed" time period.

What about narrative evidence? Can the same type of measure be given? It certainly can! However a greater degree of difficulty is presented in this type of verification and so a number of procedures have been proposed. Bernheim and Langlois & Seignobos proposed a 7 step system and Garraghan gives 6 steps. It would seem there are many options available to establishing a method of verification. In this light I've sought a common field of variables and comprised my own list.

• Proximity of Origin
  
  
• Greater Value of Testimony
  
  
• Tendency of Bias
  
  
• Detail vs General Analysis
  
  
• Reference Verification
  
  
• Plausibility Verification
  
  
• Linear Relativity
  
  
• Statisical Relativity
  
  
• Analogical Function
  

As to not entirely bore you fine folks with exasperating detailed descriptions, I will sum each up with a brief sentence or two.

Proximity of Origin - The length of time between the actual occurrence and it's testimony. It is completely different when dealing with a narrative account from someone who was present during the occurrence versus someone who is trying to reconstruct it a hundred years later.

Greater Value of Testimony - Are there a large number of separate accounts from separate individuals? Do they all agree on ALL the points in consideration?

Tendency of Bias - Is there a set of circumstances which would cause the petitioner of the testimony to be biased to the occurrence? If so, what is the likelihood of the petitioner maintaining a neutral presentation?

Detail Vs General Analysis - Are ALL accounts detailed? If not is there a larger percentage that are detailed or general?

Reference Verification - Can the data presented be verified by sources of authority? How much empirical evidence can be gathered to support the reference.

Plausibility Verification - Is it reasonable to have occurred? Are the existing external conditions for its plausibility present?

Linear Relativity - Does the sequence of events leading up to and continuing afterward present its situation as relative? For instance the claim that Jesus was born between the time of Washington's Presidency and Adam's Presidency is clearly retarded.

Statistical Relativity - This deals more with gray areas (situations in which there is conflicting data) and can be utilized by comparison of higher statistical probability. This is obviously using hard science to measure the likelihood of the occurrence.

Analogical Function - When dealing with things of metaphor, one must measure the application of the metaphor during it's historical period. Obviously the Xtian's metaphor for "Feeding the Five Thousand" has nothing to do with biological cloning of fish and bread.

As it stands now this is my method. In contrast prior to my committal of this to my book, I'd like you folks to examine it or try it out and help me refine this.

Any Takers?

The Cult of Cthulhu Shall NEVER Die!!!

Beast Xeno
First Priest of R'lyeh
Cult of Cthulhu

[egodiabolus]

Very well written an definitely important for our consideration. My thoughts on this topic are in regard to the value of having these "ancient roots". In my experience is is always worth while to question any idea that has for its basis of support "history". While history is an important teacher, we should not simply accept that an idea has more validity due its long history of venerable tradition than an idea that does not make those claims. It should be weighed and measured based on its practical application in the here-and-now.

Stonehenge is an impressive structure in that it has an amazingly long history... it practically predates recorded history. Yet, other than inspiring wild theories about its origin or as an example of the accomplishments of ancient civilizations, it serves no purpose anymore. We have much simpler and more effective calendars and clocks in our homes.

The wheel has been a part of our machinery for a time that surpasses the age of Stonehenge, yet very few venerate and celebrate the wheel due to its longevity. It has a practical use that outweighs its significant history, making its history irrelevant.

It is not the history of an idea that is important, but its relevance. A system should be measured on its ability to produce results now, not that it was used in Ancient Babylon when bricks were still being made of mud. Indeed, the fact that a system was used alongside science and implements that were woefully insufficient in comparison to modern resources only highlights the importance of looking well past its history and focusing more on its practical, relevant use.

In regard to these "traditions" that place so much weight on their history, we should be asking "so what?" A sundial is nice for a garden, but I prefer my wristwatch to tell the time. I could stick you manually with needles and ink, but you would prefer my tattoo machine. A tradition that has nothing but history to show for itself is a dead tradition.

Ia Ia Cthulhu Fhtagn!

Ego Diabolus
Priest of R'lyeh
Cult of Cthulhu

[beastx]

Ego Diabolus,

As always well said. Your point is also well taken. The problem that you run into is that practical results sometimes require long periods of participation. I'm looking for a measure to determine the claim of such a thing.

I could easily claim that after 20 years of practicing some rare ancient Voodoo tradition, I ascended to the highest level of power. When asked to demonstrate my abilities, I could retort with a evasive defense. Something like "I cannot reveal my powers to someone who is not fully initiated themselves". Then I could point to events in history which I would suggest were due to my powers. You could easily just call bullshit and walk away... but what if there is something to gain?

... Apples and Oranges really. Still I have to agree with you entirely just because something has claim to "ancient tradition" does not make it useful today...

Awake!
Beast Xeno
First Priest of R'lyeh
Cult of Cthulhu

[egodiabolus]

Your point is well taken, and you are absolutely right. During my life, I could have claimed to have earned a million dollars or more, but I could be penniless today. The same principal applies. These traditions that claim and ancient and esoteric lineage may actually have the kind of history and subsequent knowledge that they describe, but may not have anything going right now as evidence of it. Their investment may be in a manner that is not obvious. The question is how to separate fact from fiction, and you definitely have an answer.

[beastx]

Is there a category of examination I don't cover? I was thinking quality of translation but I think that groups into Proximity of Origin.

Awake!

-BX

[beastx]

No takers? Shame...

-BX