Originally posted by mgmirkin
It's interesting to see some of the specific graphics and read the more detailed descriptions / explanation offered by Talbott on the myth section of
the relatively new forum over at the Thunderbolts site. He makes relatively compelling arguments, though I think he's still in the process of trying
to convert a bunch of materials into a format
that's easy to put on the web in a way that's easy to follow. No doubt hard to "boil it down," especially with so many interlocking themes that
all appear to play a part in his interpretation of an "original cosmic drama." (Whether the reader accepts his explanations or not). It appears to
dovetail together in interesting ways that appear non-random and with some level of internal consistency (I haven't heard the full argument yet;
granted the fll argument would probably take up several BOOKS).
Anywho. It's an interesting approach, but undoubtedly not the ONLY one.
~Michael
Hi Michael,
I wouldn't put much stock in David Talbott's theories. As a theosophist and student of esoteric religions I can assure you that Talbott's
deductions of the arcane symbolism of proto-religions is at worst erroneous, and at best tenous and made to fit his egregious syncretism.
I don't think that he gives much credit to the ancient rites of initiation, and hidden and veiled theological truths and opts more towards an
exoteric and mundane interpretation of principally esoteric and arcane concepts.
In other words he purposely and conveniently 'dumbs down' these highly complex archetypal and allegorical concepts by interpreting them as simple
phenomenal astronomical events, and by extension insinuates that the ancients where incapable of metaphorical thought, but were just observing the
sky.
An when he does posit his theories on ancient allegory, he again skims off superficialities
without concrete, historically and astrologically correct inferences.
A case in point;
In "The Saturn Myth" he often cites Babylonian-Assyrian astrology and the importance of Saturn and by a process of false deduction equates Saturn
with Sha-mash, the Sun.
Although the Assyrians where the first to observe Saturn (around 700 B.C) it was not given a specific name "Star of Ninib" until after Jupiter and
Venus were specifically distinguished among the planets and obviously much later than the Sun, being named by their progenitors, the Babylonians
millenia before...
Surely such an observable gyrating fiery orb as a polar Saturn would have been documented by the Babylonians thousands of years before and given a
name apart from the sun.
Furthermore his reworking of Sanskrit iconography into his polar Saturn theory has been refuted by independent Sanskrit scholar and mythologist Roger
Ashton in his book aptly titled "The Unworkable Polar Saturn" (1998).
Other people like Paul Gans and Wayne Throop have also questioned Talbott here:
groups.google.com...
groups.google.com...
With so much of his theories dependent on observable and hence empirical data, no physics has ever been provided to substantiate them.
In defense of this fact Talbott though has admitted that his ideas do not conform to the known the laws of physics. However his "best" physical
model to date 'The Grubaugh Model' has also been refuted by two astronomers, Victor Slabinski and Tom Van Flandern.
Also Talbott's book was largely ignored by the main Velikovsky journals and his peers don't seem to support his largely conceptual and empirically
unsubstantiated theories.
'The Saturn Problem. Chronology & Catastrophism Review', 2000
Sorry about the ramble, largely OT too, but can't accept this all too easy vulgarization and corruption of purposely concealed TRUTHS.
[edit on 21-5-2008 by OEAOHOO]
