I spent a lot of time in Google Books. I also use other quote
investigators but then investigate their conclusions to see if
they match to my satisfaction. I even had to subject one of my
favorites to it: Carl Sagan and his Star Stuff. I wanted to see
if it was his and really "From Ancient Times People Believed". I
wanted to believe that, and did because, well he's Carl. But
alas, I tracked it down as far as I could go, and it wasn't his.
I drew up this cruddy graphic to show the results of my
investigation. I was disappointed in Carl Sagan but then I had
to remind myself that he was a Science promoter and motivational
speaker, and complete accuracy wasn't really critical for his
teaching methods. Yeah, he lied. But I'm ok with that. Most of
what he talked about was fantastic and really, he's human and
had a job to do and did it very very well. He was waxing poetic
and I can forgive that but I like finding out when concepts
originated. It's not easy to figure out when concepts originated
within history. Words change with the times, Hard to find exact
quotes when you get beyond a certain point and so you have to
settle sometimes. There's mythological components to nearly
every area of human inquiry, including within the sciences, and
I like piecing apart where the traceable stuff is, and where the
mythology is. You can count that if you like. I'm going for
historical continuity that leads to today. If there's broken
lines, then I leave it behind with their originators. Another
example: Gnosticism. For me, gnosticism died out when the
gnostic movements broke up in the 2nd 3rd centures ad. Later on,
other groups considered themselves gnostic. But they weren't
gnostic to me, even if they picked up original texts and
attempted to start over from them. It's not the same. Culture is
gone and buried and dead and any recreation belongs with the
generation that did the reenactment, not with the originals.
Yes, I believe he did that as well. String of pearls threaded
through history... .although there's no traceable threads
inbetween. That's why I consider them separate occurrences of
similar ideas. It's likely he read it somewhere and was inspired
and then forgot where it came from. Happens to me all of the
time; a trait I'm trying to get rid of but it's not easy smile
emoticon We view history differently that's all. I see pockets
of civilizations and then look for the threads that connect
them, and then the threads that don't connect with continuity.
I'm not suggesting that everybody else think like me Not at all.
Evidence is in this thread. You see history one way, I see
history another. Do you suggest there is a singular manner in
which to approach history? I'm not saying they didn't.
I'm saying there's no historical continuity I can find that
links culture-to-culture with that belief. yes, I'm aware. I
study mythologies and tracing concepts within cultures.
We are in a culture right now. We have our own mythologies.
100 years from now, dominant cultures will have THEIR
mythologies. Some will link up to today. Perhaps someone will
find an ancient unknown text and start talking about it as if
people "always believed it" when we currently don't even know
about it.
You're not wrong. The Historical Methodology is not wrong.
I'm working at it from a different angle that's all. I'm sorry
if you don't like it. It's bad form to presume your
conversation partner is dumb. I don't believe I assumed you
were. If I did, I apologize. I trace concepts within cultures.
It requires a slightly different tactic.
