It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is really Prometheus?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragonlike
1) What's structural anthropology? 2)What kind of structure?


In his book The Elementary Structures of Kinship, Levi-Strauss argued that kinship relations--which are fundamental aspects of any culture's organization--represent a specific kind of structure; you might think of genealogical charts, with their symbols for father and mothers, sisters and brothers, as an example of kinship systems represented as structures

Its talking about looking at society and the way humans live and organize themselves and concerning yourself with studying how these organizations themself are used and operate within the society. So in the example above, you'd look at how people in the society define family, and then chart that out as an abstraction, then treat that as an object of study.
So in some cultures you have fathers as head of the household, with mothers in a subordinate position, and children lower in the structure. Whereas in other cultures you have one father but multiple mothers and sets of children who interact differently based on where in the structure their mother 'is' (not physically is, but how high ranking or what role she plays).


these oppositions confused me, can you explain a little?



These relations appear as binary pairs or opposites, as the title of his book implies: what is "raw" is opposed to what is "cooked," and the "raw" is associated with nature while the "cooked" is associated with culture. [relations appearing as binary pairs or opposites] form the basic structure for all ideas and concepts in a culture.


So you have, for example night in opposition to day, with the sun and moon being similar but opposite to one another, and the characteristics and connotations of "night" being associated with the moon, cold, somewhat malevolent, mysterious, physically changing, etc.

Or you have 'mother' and 'father', one seen as the authority and disciplinarian and teacher, the other as nurturer source, etc. "pairs, but somewhat opposite".


4)

structural sameness
It must be a terminology i don't understand

It might seem like they're talking about something esoteric or too complex to understand, but they're really talking extremely plainly.


He answers this question by looking at the structure of myths, rather than at their content. While the content, the specific characters and events of myths may differ widely, Levi-Strauss argues that their similarities are based on their structural sameness.


Strauss would, for example, take a myth and break it down to its most basic units, and then look at how those units within the myth interrelate. He would then do the same thing for another myth, and then compare how the units relate.

So you might have a story like that of St George, and the myth of zeus and typhon. The 'structures' and units are that you have a good guy, he fights a monstrosity, and then good things come from it. Thats a simplified version. Strauss would, I think, study native american myths, and also european myths after establishing the technique.

Its one of those things that are so simple, that they'd otherwise pass notice.
By using this simple method, he'd be able to disscuss the meaning and import and hint at the relations between all these myths, in a new way and in a more 'objective' and rigourous manner.



it is also language with the same structures that Saussure described belonging to any language

Just as a sentence has components, verbs, nouns, adjectives, subject, object, etc, and structure, participles, clauses, etc, so too did myths. When sentences have similar structures, and even similar units like the words, they mean the same thing. Change the structure, change the meaning. And sometimes the change in structure has meaning itself.


6)I find it hard to comprehend the ''reversible time'', ''binary oppositions'' and the ''linear time'' despite of reading the article again and again.

Linear time is what we tend to think of as time. There's a start, there's a middle, and there's an end. There was a creation to the universe, there was stuff that happened, and there's an end at some point. THis is reflected in our mythology/religion. The bible starts with Genesis, there's stuff in between, it leads up to and ends with Revelation.
Some cultures don't have this 'linear' concept. Linear, as an aside and illustration of structure, comes from the same 'root' as the word 'line', and means something similar to it. We can represent linear time by drawing a line. The structure of the words, the lin root (I don't know if 'lin' is how you'd technically represent the root), tells us that it has a similar meaning.
So some cultures don't have linear time. They don't think that there was a begining, that we're in the middle, and that we're heading to the end. They don't think of a past, seperate from a present, and distand from a future. Time can be 'reversible' for them. They can 'access' what we think of as 'the past time', usually by entering altered states, through trance, mediation, ritual, or just when they are dreaming etc. They can go in 'reverse', thus reversible time.
You've, infact, done it yourself, perhaps, if you've ever read a passage from the bible and thought 'these verses are talking about events that are happening today, or that could happen shortly'.
"Binary oppositions" is a technical term; binary mean 'two', so it means 'two things oppositte of one another', like a black marble and a white marble. Usually in this way of using it they have a connection between them too, so they're somewhat the same. Spider-Man's binary opposite is Venom, he's just like spider-man, but he's also not like him, one's a hero, the other a villian.

7)

While poetry is that which can't be translated, or paraphrased, Levi-Strauss says that myth can be translated, paraphrased, reduced, expanded, and otherwise manipulated--without losing its basic shape or structure. He doesn't use this term, but we might call that third aspect "malleability."



8)

bundles of relations

?????

A bundle is just a bunch of things together. Like if you take a bunch of twigs and sticks, hold them all together in your hands, its a bundle. Bundles of relations are just groups of relationships between items. So a figure in a myth can relate to other things in the myth in a bunch of ways. Jesus is messiah to the jews, saviour to the individual, teacher to the apostles, friend to lazarus, etc. Those relations are all bundled together in jesus, for example.


10)

algebraic formulae
&

if you can express it in purely mathematical terms, it must be right, and universal, and objective

A myth can be explained with mathematical operations?

Mathmatic operations can be used to describe and understand lots more than numbers. There are 'logical operations', for example. We can say "If Joe is hungry, then he goes to the Store. Joe is hungry, so joe goes to the store', or some such. WIth myth, we can do the same. The hero + the quest = the slaying of the dragon. Its just another way of distancing ourselves from the subject matter so that we can dispassionately look at it and try to understand it.


11)

it tells a story in layer after layer

????

I will use another bible example, since you said you are a beleiving christian. Jesus tells a story about a man, hurt, lying on the side of the road. A rich man comes by and refuses to help, he's in a hurry to make more money and can't be bothered. A regular guy from teh same town comes by, he refuses to help. A bum comes by and refuses to help, because whats the guy done for me. THen a samaritan comes by, and he helps.
One 'layer' of the story is the literal layer, its a strange little story about a guy that needs some help. Another layer is the 'deeper' interpreation, we are the the guy on the roadside, and the samaritan that helps us is jesus. Literally, we can't actually be that guy, he's a character.. Mythically, we are. At another level, we're not the guy, we're the people that refuse to help him, and jesus is the guy on the roadside, we reject him without even realizing it.



He concludes that the structural method of myth analysis brings order out of chaos

I want to learn about structural method, so i would be more than grateful if you could explain me the questions above

I would definitly recommend starting off with some of Joseph Campbell's stuff. Its written more with the rest of us in mind, whereas Levi-Straus was largely writting to other people who've spent a long time studying myths and these sorts of things. Campbell is more 'accessible'.
www.jcf.org...

"Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth with Bill Moyers" is a dvd, Campbell is interviewed by Moyers. Campbell was supposed to be a good lecturer, so hearing and seeing him talk is a benefit, and since moyers is learning like hte rest of us, he asks the sort of questions we might ask.

'Transformation of myth through time' is a collection of lectures, so its a good introduction. You can read a few, put the book away, and come back to it later. I'd say to definitly start with it, if it weren't for the fact that the dvd set is so low priced right now. I'd check the library if I were you, the school library or the local one, and see whats there.




posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk

if you check your bible (the original source on Satan/Lucife) you will find that he is connected with figures from Mesopotamia only such as Nebuchadrezzar where his name was translated when the bible was translated into greek from his actual title (the morning star) into Lucifer.


This is total bunk. Care to provide chapter and verse.


I checked my Bible and found no reference to Nebuchadrezzar.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by Sun Matrix]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   
For the record, Prometheus is Nimrod.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Actually SunMatrix you like to check out the the structural study of myths. Max Müller could be argued as having started the technique, and he, infact, made very convincing arguements that....all myths are in reality bascially a Sun myth.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Actually SunMatrix you like to check out the the structural study of myths. Max Müller could be argued as having started the technique, and he, infact, made very convincing arguements that....all myths are in reality bascially a Sun myth.


All of these myths are basically SUN myths. It is the sun matrix that has spread from Babylon after the flood. Satan becomes Baal at the death of Nimrod. I'm kind of amazed how many educated people are blind to it. But it is the deceiver.




posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   
You should definitly check out Max Muller's work.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
You should definitly check out Max Muller's work.


I have run across his name before. I will heed your advice and see where it goes.






I just read a short article. The guy was a missionary.

[edit on 1-12-2006 by Sun Matrix]



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   


This is total bunk. Care to provide chapter and verse.
I checked my Bible and found no reference to Nebuchadrezzar

search.freefind.com...

which version are you using
this one ?

you're claiming basically that the Babylonian king who sacked jerusalem and took all the Jews as slaves doesnt get a mention
so you are either reading the wrong book or you don't know anything about biblical history at all
like
tell me something I don't know already
ahahaha



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
you're claiming basically that the Babylonian king who sacked jerusalem and took all the Jews as slaves doesnt get a mention
so you are either reading the wrong book or you don't know anything about biblical history at all
like
tell me something I don't know already
ahahaha


No that is not my claim..........My claim is that you are in error again in your belief that Nebuchadrezzar is being referred to as Lucifer.

Nebuchadrezzar is not Lucifer and is not claimed to be Lucifer.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fixed quote

[edit on 3/12/06 by masqua]



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   
its a project from nasa for creating a nuclear powered ion based propulsion system or other nuclear powered systems for in space use

exploration.nasa.gov...



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Marduk

No that is not my claim..........My claim is that you are in error again in your belief that Nebuchadrezzar is being referred to as Lucifer.

Nebuchadrezzar is not Lucifer and is not claimed to be Lucifer



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   


if you check your bible (the original source on Satan/Lucife) you will find that he is connected with figures from Mesopotamia only such as Nebuchadrezzar where his name was translated when the bible was translated into greek from his actual title (the morning star) into Lucifer.


I checked my Bible and I saw no reference or suggestion or interpretation that the Babylonian King Nebuchadrezzar is being referred to as Lucifer the morning star.

Perhaps you could provide chapter and verse of to support your incorrect statement.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Wow, nice links Byrd, Nygdan. Sorry for the incovenience, but i have more questions,if you find me irritating let me know:

First, from the link:transcriptions.english.ucsb.edu...

1)


Say, for instance, we were confronted with a sequence of the type: 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 1, 2, 5, 7, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 . . . , the assignment being to put all the 1's together, all the 2's, the 3's, etc.; the result is a chart:

How did that chart come into be? I didn't understand the method he used to vreate it?

2)


All the hypothetical meanings (which may well remain hypothetical) refer to difficulties in walking straight and standing upright.

Why remain well hypothetical?

3)


The dragon is a chthonian being which has to be killed in order that mankind be born from the Earth

Why he sais man to be born from men, here? One women and one man isn't enough?

4)


Since the monsters are overcome by men, we may thus say that the common feature of the third column is denial of the autochthonous origin of man

The denial of autochthonous origin of man? and what he means by saying autochthonous origin?

5)


born from one or born from two

???????

6)


By a correlation of this type, the overrating of blood relations is to the underrating of blood relations as the attempt to escape autochthony is to the impossibility to succeed in it

Can this be explained in more simplified words?

Now let's talk about your views:



You have to know what purpose a concept or myth (or a group such as a business or a government) serves in society (for example, prejudices are a handy way of unthkingly analyzing the world.

you mean that through prejudices anthropologists understand the world? I give an example and tell me how true I am: If people feel taboo about the product A and more loose to product B then the sales will rank up in B. Merely a simplified version. How is that?



Linear, as an aside and illustration of structure, comes from the same 'root' as the word 'line', and means something similar to it.

Similar with what?


Time can be 'reversible' for them. They can 'access' what we think of as 'the past time', usually by entering altered states, through trance, mediation, ritual, or just when they are dreaming etc. They can go in 'reverse', thus reversible time.

the are doing ritual/trance/mediation to study the past? How can that be?


You've, infact, done it yourself, perhaps, if you've ever read a passage from the bible and thought 'these verses are talking about events that are happening today, or that could happen shortly'.

for example, I refused to help a beggar in the streets,right? I correlate with the biblical example you gave me.

Thanks for your attention



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   
I agree that anthropology is fun and a fascinating field of study, although harsh. I wish one day to become a great one some day.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   


I checked my Bible and I saw no reference or suggestion or interpretation that the Babylonian King Nebuchadrezzar is being referred to as Lucifer the morning star.

oh this is getting tiring now Sun Matrix
you tunr up here claiming to know the truth and apparently its biblically based and yet when someone states something that is known to be 100% true you have no idea what theyre talking about
like your earlier claim where you stated



This is total bunk. Care to provide chapter and verse.
I checked my Bible and found no reference to Nebuchadrezzar.

in response to my claim that


if you check your bible (the original source on Satan/Lucife) you will find that he is connected with figures from Mesopotamia only such as Nebuchadrezzar where his name was translated when the bible was translated into greek from his actual title (the morning star) into Lucifer.


so I posted these links for you
search.freefind.com...
which contains over 40 links to Nebuchadrezzar in the bible

after you claimed he wasn't mentioned
and now you're claiming


Perhaps you could provide chapter and verse of to support your incorrect statement

well here you go then

Isaiah 14:12


12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, that didst cast lots over the nations

this is the original Hebrew version



12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

this is the King James version

Isaiah is about the Babylonian captivity
en.wikipedia.org...


Babylonian captivity, or Babylonian exile, is the name generally given to the deportation and exile of the Jews of the ancient Kingdom of Judah to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar

so basically Sun Matrix you don't have the first clue what you're talking about do you
as I have just proved twice
now this may shock you but the only other person apart from Nebuchadrezzar who is referred to in the entire bible as the morning star (i.e. Lucifer) Is Jesus
now do you want chapter and verse again or do you think you can find it on your own this time without me needing to make you look uneducated
shall I give you a clue
its in part of the Bible that isn't inlcuded in the original version but is a major part of the King James Version
oh ok
you still need another clue
Its the last book in the totally redacted totally falsified King James Version that you can't find anything in
ok


[edit on 4-12-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
so basically Sun Matrix you don't have the first clue what you're talking about do you
as I have just proved twice


I'm up to the challenge...........Let's see which one of us is really clueless. I believe I can prove you are in error........YET AGAIN.




now this may shock you but the only other person apart from Nebuchadrezzar who is referred to in the entire bible as the morning star (i.e. Lucifer)


I have yet to see you show me where NeBuchadrezzar is referred to as the morning star. Sure we can find him in the Bible.........but where is he referred to as the morning star.........in Isaiah 14?



now do you want chapter and verse again or do you think you can find it on your own this time without me needing to make you look uneducated


I believe we are about to find out which of us is really uneducated. So where in the Bible is Nebuchadrezzar the morning star?



you still need another clue
Its the last book in the totally redacted totally falsified King James Version that you can't find anything in
ok


I'm still waiting for you to show me where Nebuchadrezzar is referred to as the morning star.

Please feel free to post the verses. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I suggest you re read my last post this time actually paying attention to what I said
i already discussed this with several other people and we all agreed you haven't got a clue
claiming ignorance when I just in fact showed you chaper and verse where Nebuchadrezzar is referred to as the morning star/lucifer is proving my point superbly
thankyou
now please carry on informing everyone reading this that you cannot under any circumstances accept or even recognise the truth when it is spelled out for you
that will aid other posters future acknowledgement of anything you say completely as they will know not to bother
but if you won't accept my truthful word on this subject then heres a link that actually S P E L L S it out for you very clearly
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com...



This is the only verse in the bible that mentions Lucifer. Although most Christians consider Lucifer to be Satan (the devil), there is little biblical justification for doing so. In this verse "Lucifer" refers to the king of Babylon (Nebuchadrezzar?) and Lucifer (the light bearer) is also called the "son of the morning" or morning star. The only other person that is referred to in that way is Jesus (Rev.22:16). Does this mean that Lucifer is Jesus?





I'm up to the challenge...........Let's see which one of us is really clueless. I believe I can prove you are in error........YET AGAIN.

this is an error on your part as well
currently anyone scoring this has
Marduk three points Sun Matrix ZERO



[edit on 4-12-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
I suggest you re read my last post this time actually paying attention to what I said
i already discussed this with several other people and we all agreed you haven't got a clue


All that proves is that there are more around here than just you that are clueless.




claiming ignorance when I just in fact showed you chaper and verse where Nebuchadrezzar is referred to as the morning star/lucifer is proving my point superbly
thankyou

I never saw anything in that Chapter (Isaiah 14) that mentions Nebuchadrezzar. I saw that it mentioned a Babylonian King but didn't name him.



now please carry on informing everyone reading this that you cannot under any circumstances accept or even recognise the truth when it is spelled out for you
that will aid other posters future acknowledgement of anything you say completely as they will know not to bother


You never spelled anything out. You made a comment that the Bible referred to Nebuchadrezzar as Lucifer. This is not the truth. It only mentions a Babylonian king and I can assure you that you are incorrect in saying that this Babylonian king is Nebuchadrezzar.




This is the only verse in the bible that mentions Lucifer. Although most Christians consider Lucifer to be Satan (the devil), there is little biblical justification for doing so. In this verse "Lucifer" refers to the king of Babylon (Nebuchadrezzar?) and Lucifer (the light bearer) is also called the "son of the morning" or morning star. The only other person that is referred to in that way is Jesus (Rev.22:16). Does this mean that Lucifer is Jesus?


Now, look up in your quote of the information you linked and you will see a question mark behind the name Nebuchadrezzar. What you are passing off as fact and truth is in fact in question even in the information you have provided. I can assure you that he Babylonian King in question is not Nebuchadrezzar.



currently anyone scoring this has
Marduk three points Sun Matrix ZERO


The facts say different. You haven't even figured out that Marduk is Nimrod.





posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
you can "assure me"
you haven't
at every request from you for links none have been forthcoming
because you have never proved one single bit of any of the ludicrous claims you have made since you started posting here
one thread you posted was booted out because you didn't realise that it had nothing to do with ancient history whatsoever
this seems to be the limit of your knowledge

you are assuring me that the Jews of Jerusalem on being taken wholesale as slaves by Nebuchadrezzar III around 550bce were writing about some other Babylonian king when they call him the morning star. which in the KJV is translated as Lucifer. You seem totally unaware that it was during this period that the Bible was actually put together for the first time and that Isaiah was written during the Babylonian exile
listen buddy the Jews who were exiled in Babylon didn't know any other babylonian king
so you can assure and speculate as much as you like because without any evidence its quite clear that you are a religious fundementalist who bases his truth on assumptions learned at sunday school

and as for claiming that I haven't figured out that Nimrod isn't Marduk thats right I haven't
and seeing as that is a claim that no other credible biblical scholar, believer or otherwise has ever made I don't see as how ignorance of that fact is anything to be ashamed of

the fact that you are claiming it once again without any evidence whatsoever and without any links to back your assertions makes it just as likely that Nimrod was Abe lincoln, George Dubya Bush and Captain America all at the same time
i.e. not very likely at all

now if you are going to continue posting and don't want to become a permanent figure of ridicule for everyone who reads your posts I suggest that in future when someone gives you irrefutable evidence of something that is both well known and accepted by other members of your faith and by secular types as well that you pay attention
because denying the word is sinful
and sinners go to hell
you'll probably meet Nimrod while you are there
because hes probably also Satan and Lucifer and Baelzebub as well


all of which are more likely than him ever being Bel Marduk
Clearly when you first tried to deny that Nebuchadrezzae was mentioned in the bible you were wrong
Clearly when you tried to deny that Nebuchadrezzar is referred to in Isaiah as the morning star and later as lucifer you were wrong
clearly every assertion you have made in every post you've wasted your time typing out at this forum has been wrong
so I'm asking you
do you actually know anything at all except the state of your shameful ignorance
or are you just here to waste everybodies time ?
because up til now thats all you've done
I'm bored with you now
go find someone who wants to play pointless ganes with you and leave the real stuff to people equipped mentally to handle the truth
clearly you can't even spell it
let alone hold it



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk

Clearly when you first tried to deny that Nebuchadrezzae was mentioned in the bible you were wrong


The point I was making is that you said that Nebuchadrezzar was referred to as Lucifer. My comment was I checked my Bible and found no reference to Nebuchadrezzar. That means no reference to Nevuchadrezzar being Lucifer.



Clearly when you tried to deny that Nebuchadrezzar is referred to in Isaiah as the morning star and later as lucifer you were wrong


Yes it is clear that I am denying that Nebuchadrezzar is referred to in Isaiah 14 as Lucifer as he is not. The link you brought forth had a question mark as if it was not ever sure it is Nevuchadrezzar being referred to. This is merely a case the blind that's not quite sure what it is talking about leading the blind that thinks he knows what he is talking about.


clearly every assertion you have made in every post you've wasted your time typing out at this forum has been wrong


Your clearlys are cloudy.



so I'm asking you
do you actually know anything at all except the state of your shameful ignorance
or are you just here to waste everybodies time ?
because up til now thats all you've done
I'm bored with you now
go find someone who wants to play pointless ganes with you and leave the real stuff to people equipped mentally to handle the truth
clearly you can't even spell it
let alone hold it


Oh are you going to cut and run before we prove who the Babylonian king being referred to in Isaiah 14 is.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join