From lippard@PrimeNet.Com Sat Aug 13 14:48:57 1994
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 16:59:38 -0700 (MST)
From: "James J. Lippard" <lippard@PrimeNet.Com>
To: lippard@rtd.com
Subject: add to ftp stuff
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Ev Cochrane: Philistine, Anti-Scholar & Reductionist, I [CLE]
Date: 8 Aug 94 20:29:50 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Lines: 283
Message-ID: <btd.776377790@pv7440.vincent.iastate.edu>
[posted for CLE by btd.]
Everett Cochrane: Philistine, Anti-Scholar & Redustionist, Part I
For Everett Cochrane, herinafter EC, to take leave of the debate
with Ellenberer, herinafter CLE, with three posts unanswered (1: 20 Jun, a
"magnum opus: specifically demanded by EC with two repostings of his
challenge as though CLE has no reply, 2: 7 Jul, "Ducks Again!", the no
seasons in the Golden Age bit, and 3: 22 Jul, "The Folly of Interplanetary
Catastrophism") is most disingeneous. EC's failure to engage CLE's
rejoinders and challenges runs counter to the canons of debate of which Sean
Mewhinney once noted, "In an honest debate, when one's opponent scores a
point, you concede it, assess the damage to your case, and go on to discuss
other points. A dishonest debater denies any error or misrepresentation and
draws attention away from the issue by making countercharges" (KRONOS XI:2,
1986; when CLE was "Sr. Ed." and EC, a mere "Assoc. Ed."). The following
comments are based on EC's 20 Jul, 312 line, "Re: Cochrane Answers
Ellenberger," which provides very little that qualifies as an "answer,"
although it is well written.
The keen observer will realize that EC uses every debater's trick in
the book to mischaracterize and trivialize his opposition and to place his own
dubious claims in a rosy light. EC repeats slanders against CLE's scholar-
ship and mental health originally made by Rose and Greenberg. Rose and EC
are wrong that CLE has made no original scholarly contribution because as
an investigator CLE corrected the "myth of the 'science' listing" (KRONOS
IX:2, 1983) and refuted Rose's notion that no chapter in _Worlds in
Collision_ is so erroneous that it needs to be retracted in "Altered Temple
Axes," a section in Part 2 of the invited memoir that EC cancelled in June
1993, but which had been circulated on a postcard in June 1990.
Greenberg's report, elaborated by EC, that Griffard considered CLE
"clinical" (EC says "certifiably bonkers") is probably a pun and certainly is
less serious than the various neurotic pathologies affliciting certain other
Kronoi Griffard shared with CLE in '83-'84 over drinks at the Airport Days
Inn, Krueger's and McGurk's in St. Louis.
Since psychological well-being is culturally defined, that the
intellectual turncoat CLE does not fit EC's definition of sanity can be taken
as a compliment because CLE certainly does not share EC's warped mytho-
historico-astronomical cultural framework. Whistleblowers in organizations
are typically and quickly labelled "crazy." Soviet dissidents were placed
in psychological sanitariums.
Griffard had no sympathy whatsoever for the "Saturn myth" delusion;
but as a behaviorist, i.e., believer in the stimulus-response model, he
thought something in the sky determined our ancestors' behavior in formu-
lating rituals and religion, etc. Contrary to EC's obtuseness on the point,
anyone who knows what behaviorism is about (and EC claims to be "trained
in psychology") understands why "God is an intermittent reinforcer."
In not respecting the continuity of the argument, EC reveals himself
as a dishonest debater. For example, 1) his challenge to CLE on the
antiquity of Sumerian configurational astronomy was answered in spades on 20
Jun along with a critique of Dave Talbott's work. Talbott's 3 Jul reply was
answered 14 Jul. In commenting on CLE's reply to Talbott, EC pointed out
that the Sumerian issue was dropped -- but it was irrelevant to Talbott's
issues and had been conclusively dealt with 20 Jun, as Lippard has already
noted in his 20 Jul annotation of an EC post. 2) Talbott denied ever
discussing Earth swapping moons when he did so on 12 Jun; but EC defends
Talbott by saying the discussion was brief, not major, thereby changing the
point at issue from actuality to extent. 3) In an attempt at denigration, EC
refers to "Mo Mandelkehr" [sic, Moe] as "the author of at least one short
article on ancient catastrophism in SISR" followed by more disparaging
remarks while ignoring CLE's having cited Mandelkehr's THREE MAJOR PAPERS in
SISR which, incidentally, its editor considers three of the ten best papers
ever published by them. Since EC chides Mandelkehr for supposedly never
publishing "anything of significance on myth," neither has EC done so in the
peer-reviewed literature. 4) EC closes his diatribe saying CLE "is simply
incapable of offering an objective assessment of The Saturn Myth" which
ignores the *devastating* criticism CLE quoted from book reviews in Pub.
Weekly and Lib. J.
EC refers often to the postcards CLE sends to Velikovskians and other
interested parties from time to time and says he's "seen several hundred" and
"read literally hundreds" of them. This cannot be true because EC was not
on the mailing list until 1991 and because between the demise of KRONOS in
mid-1988 and June 1994 only 171 postcard mailings have been made: average,
2.31 cards per month with a std. dev. of 2.17 cards. The monthly volume
ranged from zero (16 mos.) to twelve (3/90). This allegation must be more
Velikovskian hyperbole, as with the "thousands of footnotes" often ascribed
to _Worlds in Collision_ when the number is ca. 700. They have mastered
hyperbole but metaphor eludes them! Naturally, if CLE had as ready access to
AEON as he did to KRONOS between 1979 and 1985 and was able to publish 30+
page articles at will as EC, Talbott, and Cardona do, there'd be no need of
postcard campaigns. Also, it can be categorically denied that CLE ever sold
"Velikvosky's Was Right!" t-shirts on the street corner. The logo was
"Velikovsky's right!" and the shirts were sold exclusively by mail order and
at KRONOS seminars at Holiday Inns in Princeton and San Jose. EC cannot be
taken at his word on even simple factual matters.
EC fancies himself a "scholar," but there is more to scholarship than
using footnotes with Latin abbreviations. For example, scholars follow the
literature in their field and stay current. We have seen EC is either
unaware or ignores key ideas in KRONOS. A draft essay sent to EC in March
for comment cited Wolfgang Heimpel, "The Sun at Night and the Gates of Heaven
in Babylonian Texts," _J. Cuneiform Studies_ 38, 1986, 127-151. This
stimulated EC to phone CLE for a copy of the paper which deals with a topic
on which he was preparing an article for AEON and he was unaware of this JCS
paper despite having corresponded with Heimpel recently. When EC sent CLE
$5.00 in reimbursement, a note said, "Thanks, I owe you." What EC owes CLE
is an apology for all the slanderous remarks on talk.origins and some honest
replies when EC's position is shown to be wrong. More on EC as anti-scholar
in the conclusion.
EC says "we're unaware of any evidence raised by Leroy which presents
a significant problem for our theory." This is nothing but egegious chutzpah
and unadulterated b.s. because the ice core evidence for uninterrupted
seasons refutes their version of the Golden Age with no seasons. Also, the
Moon's circular, resonant orbit refutes the former existence of any "polar
configuration" such as modelled by Grubaugh. If they are unaware of negative
evidence, then they have departed the world of reality for cloud cuckooland
and points beyond. If the quoted remark is intended to apply to mythical
evidence, then another quote from KRONOS that EC and his "Saturnists" should
ponder is George Robert Talbott's dictum: "The basis of any historical
inference must be physical evidence" (KRONOS V:3, 1980). This is a fitting
companion to the 'oft cited quote: "But it is not possible to understand the
relation of myth to reality without some independant knowledge of the
reality" (TLS, 4-14-72). Naturally, EC and his "Saturnists" never discuss
physical evidence that affects their model. However, the biggest problem
with EC's delusion, as anyone familiar with Wolfgang Pauli's attitude towards
meshugga ideas knows, is that "it is not even wrong."
The highly-touted explanatory power of the "Saturn myth" (ignoring
the fact that explanatory power says nothing about a theory's validity) is
illusory because all contradictory data are ignored. Ed krupp's column in
the Sept. 1994 _Sky & Telescope_, pp. 60-61, captures the essence of Saturn
lore.
Since EC repeatedly asserts words to the effect that "The earliest
gods were indeed planets," let us examine this naive notion. Admittedly,
this is a popular misconception arising from astrologically based impressions
of Greek and Roman religion, such as presented in the movies; but this notion
simply does not survive scrutiny. G.A. Wainwright, _The Sky-Religion in
Egypt_, flatly contradicts it in examining the religion of pre-dynastic
Egyptians before they entered the Nile valley. EC and his fellow
"Saturnists" ignore Wainwright in favor of the Book of the Dead and the
Pyramid Texts, rooted firmly in early dynastic times (ca. mid-3rd millennium
B.C.), which is "old," but not "early" and which they interpret in terms of
the "p.c." Contrary to EC, the Sumerian Gilgamesh Epic predates the Egyptian
Book of the Dead. These texts refer to the "thigh of the bull," the Egyptian
name for Ursa Major, the Big Dipper, which has no significance in the "p.c."
Not to worry: the Egyptologists are wrong in this identification since the
"thigh of the bull" did not refer to the Big Dipper in "p.c." times, as
Talbott deflected the point once in a telecon.
Robert Ashton's much maligned "Bedrock of Myth" (reportedly rejected
by EC in his 1994 reading, *was accepted* for publication in AEON by Talbott
in 1987) traces certain religious themes and imagery used by the "Saturnists"
to Catal Huyuk (ca. 6000 B.C.) and earlier to the caves of Neolithic Europe
with no obvious astronomical association.
The earliest Sumerian pantheon contained no planets: An (sky), Enlil
(storm), Ninhursaga (fertility), Enki (unerground water), Nanna (moon), Utu
(Sun), Ereshkigal (underworld), Ezen (grain), etc. Much later, five planets
were named after gods whose origin had nothing to do with planets, three of
whom were borrowed from local solar deities: Nergal (Mars), Marduk (Jupiter),
and Ninurta (Saturn). Inanna was a rival to Ninhursaga who eventually
became dominant and associated with Venus. Acording to T. Jacobsen in _The
Encyclopedia of Religion_ [ER] (NY, 1987) v. 9, "At Uruk -- in antiquity as
today a center of date culture -- there was Amaushumgalana, the power for
animal growth and new life of the date palm, and his consort Inanna, earlier
Ninana ("mistress of the date clusters")...(p.451).
Jastrow's many discussions make clear the association of gods with
planets was essentially arbitrary and a late development. This is borne out
by W. J. Fulco in ER, v. 7, "Comparative Semitic evidence suggests that the
Akkadian Venus deity was originally masculine but became completely feminized
when identified with the female Sumerian deity Inanna. Because of the
eventual syncretism of the Sumerian and Akkadian pantheons, the traditions
concerning Inanna-Ishtar are exteremely complicated. By one such tradition
she is the daughter of the sky god An, by another the daughter of the moon
god Nanna-Sin (and thereby siter of the sun god Utu-Shamash), and by still
another, the daughter of Enlil or Ashur" (p.145). Jastrow (1911) is qutie
unequivocal: "The Conception of a god of heaven [i.e., Anu] fits in,
moreover, with the comparatively advanced period when the seats of the gods
were placed in the skies, and the gods identified with the stars. Such an
astral theology, however, is not a part of the earlier religious beliefs of
the Babylonians ..." (p. 82).
By the mid-3rd millennium B.C., the Sumerian pantheon, later adopted
by the Babylonians, was structured with two superior triads over the body of
lesser gods dominated by those with planetary associations (due to their
importance in astrology). These are listed as follows with the sacred
harmonic number (often uses as the god's name) when known in parentheses: 1:
An (60), Enlil (50), Enki (40); 2: Nanna (30), Utu (20), Inanna (15); and
3: Ninurta (50), Marduk (10 -- changed to 50 by Babylonians), Neral (12,
later 14), Nabu (?), Adad (10), etc. To the Babylonians, the two superior
triads were 1: Anu, Enlil, and Ea, and 2: Sin, Shamash, and Ishtar. While
An-Anu was the administrative head of the pantheon, executive power resided
iwth Enlil and later Marduk, the patron deity of Babylon, when it attained
political domination of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. To the Assyrians,
Ashur, patron deity of Ashur, was the executive head of the pantheon, which
closely resembled that of Babylon otherwise. How arrogant of the amateur
mythologists at AEON to presume to re-write the history of Meopotamian
religion. Curiously, when EC mentions great storm gods, he omits the two
most important in Mesopotamia: Enlil and Adad.
If EC were as perspicacious as his posturing on the 'net would have
us believe, he would not reject out-of-hand the Sumerian harmonic numerology,
deduced by Ernest McClain, as he does. If EC were truly as perspicacious as
he seems to think he is, he would not use de Santillana and von Dechend in
_Hamlet's Mill_ to denigrate McClain, but would, instead, realize as a true
scholar the implicit imprimatur they give McClain's approach. Ironically, de
Santillana allows: "Mathematics was moving up to me from the depth of
centuries; not after myth, but before it ... *Number* gave the key [emphasis
added]. Way back in time, before writing was even invented, it was
_measures_ and _counting_ that provided the armature, the frame on which the
rich texture of real myth was to grow" (p. xi). Von Dechend assays "This
is meant to be only an essay. It is a first reconnnaissance of a realm
well-nigh unexplored and uncharted. From whichever way one enters it, one is
caught in the same bewildering circular complexity, as in a labyrinth, for it
has no deductive order in the abstract sense, but instead resenmbles an
organism tightly closed in itself, or even better, a monumental 'Art of the
Fuge'" (p. 1). One would not know from EC's Philistine-like reaction to
McClain that the list of world-class scholars who are *interested* in
McClains's insights includes: H. von Dechend (Frankfort), H.A.T. Reiche
(M.I.T., d. 25 VIII 94), S. Parpola (Helsinki) and A.D. Kilmer (Berkeley).
Interestingly, Bill Corliss's Jul-Aug 1994 _Science Frontiers_ features
McClain's Feb. 1994 article "Musical Theory and Ancient Cosmology," _The
World and I_, pp. 371-390.
Unlike the "ad hoc" numerology of pseudoscience, with which EC seeks
to associate McClain's work, the harmonic numerology of the Sumerians is
model-drive and proceeds from 30-60 and 360-720 "octaves" to larger bases in
order to achieve better whole number fraction approximations to the
irrational ratios that inhabit the octave, especially the square root of two
that harmonically bisects it.
Thus, we see Everett Cochrane -- Philistine in his knee-jerk
rejection of McClain, Ashton, Mandelkehr, and Clube and Napier (see
conclusion), anti-scholar in his maladroit attempt to don the trappings of
scholarship, and reductionist in his seeing Saturn everywhere in myth even
where Saturn isn't -- lost in cloud cukooland and clueless in the
mythosphere. Joe Canepa's recent exhortation for EC and CLE to debate
forthrightly assumes the legal "rational man" model and capacity, neither of
which EC has demonstrated he meets. However, it is possible that the real EC
has not been making all these meshugga posts which give every appearance of
having been made by some artificial intelligence program considering all of
the non sequiturs and lack of connection to the real world of the debate.
Will the real Everett Cochrane please step forth?
The conclusion to this analysis awaits feedback from correspondents.
Leroy Ellenberger, Pilgrim and spiritual comrade-in-arms
with William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, who routed
the Clans at Culloden Moor, Apr. 6, 1746
St. Louis, MO: 8 Aug 1994
References:
1. N. S. Hetherington (ed.), _Encyclopedia of Cosmology_ (NY and London,
1993), entries "Mesopotamian Account of Creation," pp. 387-97, and
"Mesopotamian Cosmology," pp. 398-407.
2. T. Jacobson, _The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian
Religion_ (New Haven, 1976). Frontispiece shows an anthropomorphic
Ninurta, later associated with Saturn, at ca. 3000 BC.
3. T. Jacobson, _"Mesopotamian Religions," in M. Eliade (ed.-in-chief)
_Encyclopedia of Relgion_ (NY, 1987), v. 10: see also headings for indi-
vidual deities.
4. E.O. James, _The Worship of the Sky-God: A comparative Study in Semitic
and Indo-European Religion_ (London, 1963).
5. M. Jastrow, Jr., _The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_ (Boston, 1898)
6. M. Jastrow, Jr., _Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in Babylonia
and Assyria_ (Phila., 1911).
7. W. G. Lambert, "The Cosmology of Sumer and Babylon," in C. Blacker and M.
Loewe (eds.) _Ancient Cosmologies_ (London, 1975). Also contains J.M.
Plumley on ancient Egypt.
8. W. G. Lambert, "The Historical Development of the Mesopotamian Pantheon:
A Study in Sophisticated Polytheism," in H. Goedjcke and J.J.M. Roberts
(eds.), _Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, LIterature, and
Religion of the Ancient Near East_ (Balt. and London, 1975) pp. 191-200
9. J. Y. Lettvin, "The Use of Myth," _Technology Review_ (June 1976), pp.
52-57
10. G. A. Wainwright, _The Sky-Religion in Egypt_ (Cambridge, 1938 / Westport
1971).
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner Dept. of Physics and Astronomy PGP public key
btd@iastate.edu Iowa State University available on request
Jim Lippard Primenet: Arizona's Premier Internet Provider
lippard@primenet.com (602) 870-1010 ext. 108
(_Skeptic_: http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/skeptics-society.html)
>Path: news.iastate.edulpv7440.vincent.iastate.edu!btd
>From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T. Dehner)
>Newsgroups: talk.origins
>Subject: EVERETT COCHRANE: Philistine, Anti-Scholar & Reductionist II
>Date: 23 Aug 94 21:40:01 GMT
>Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
>Lines: 270
Message-ID: <btd.777678001@pv7440.vincent.iastate.edu>
.NNTP-Posting-Host: pv7440.vincent.iastate.edu
[posted for CLE by btd]
EVERETT COCHRANE: Philistine, Anti-Scholar & Reductionist, Part II
Background
This post will conclude the reply to "Re: Cochrane Answers
Ellenberger" from 20 Jul by Everett Cochrane (EC). After "Part I" on 8
Aug, EC asked the t.o audience "Does anyone out there care about this
stuff?" (9 Aug). Substantial interest was registered by such people as
J.G. Acker, L.D. Davis, J. Lippard, S.H. Mullins, and D. Suess. Next
EC viciously attacked Ben Dehner for making the case that Velikovsky
was "A scientific ignoramous," which prompted Ellenberger (CLE) to
defend Dehner with "An Open Letter to Everett Cochrane" (11 Aug) after
Dehner had replied to EC 10 Aug. Four posts by EC (11 Aug, 12 Aug & 2
on 14 Aug) stimulated CLE to post "Interim Reply to Cochrane" (17
Aug), pending this conclusion.
The reader is also reminded of CLE's "The Folly of Recent
Interplanetary Catastrophism" (22 Jul) which distinguished between
ordinary, i.e., astronomically feasible, catastrophism such as
espoused by Clube & Napier, et al. and the Velikovskian heresy
ignorantly promoted by EC and his "Saturnists" which is properly
called "interplanetary catastrophism." EC's once disavowing being a
"Velikovskian" because he does not accept either Velikovsky's revised
chronology or the specific scenario in _Worlds in Collision_ rings
hollow because he accepts both V.'s methodology for interpretation of
myth and the general theme of V.'s work, expressed in "Cosmic
Catastrophes During Human History," an unpublished essay in the series
that contains "Cosmos without Gravitation," that within the last 6,000
years or so cosmic catastrophes involving all the planets occurrred
"repeatedly" including a period when Earth and Saturn orbited close
together.
Significant problems (?)
EC insists that he and Dave Talbott are "unaware of any evidence
raised by [CLE] which presents a significant problem for our theory."
At least five points can be raised to nullify this delusion:
1. So far he has dodged the ice core evidence against "no seasons in
the Golden Age" even in the face of reposting "DUCKS, AGAIN!" (7 Jul
& 12 Aug). EC may choose not to be convinced by the ice core
evidence, but this is nothing but egregiously ignorant posturing
that even Cardona, to his credit, eschews. EC's insistence to
Mullins that critics "will need to demonstrate why 'no seasons'
follows from our thesis" (12 Aug) is irrelevant since Talbott has
stated this condition repeatedly in his publications in AEON. Ask
Talbott, Everett.
2. He has ignored the dynamical evidence in all the circular, resonant
satellite orbits at Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn that cannot
have arisen in the short time since the demise of the polar
configuration
(p.c.).
3. He has ridiculed McClain's work which explains the harmonic
numerical names of the major Mesopotamian deities while showing no
interest in giving a "Saturnist" explanation for these sacred
number names.
4. EC has also ridiculed, despite his oft' professed expertise in
psych-
ology, the idea that, to a behaviorist, God is an intermittent rein-
forcer, a point that non-psychologist Dehner even understood. The
p.c., as described by the "Saturnists," provides no intermittent
rein-
forcers, only unfailing constancy and regularity, unlike Clube &
Nap- ier's Taurid Complex model in which not every apparition of
proto- Encke produced calamity. In a review of _The Ancient
Mind_, edited by
C. Renfrew & E.B.W. Zubrow, Daniel Dennett recounts the experience
of pigeons in Skinner boxes on random reinforcement schedules who
develop
bizarre rituals and relates this to human experience: "Random rein-
forcement is still the best explanation we have for how elaborate
and costly...rituals could get started in the first place, but of
course once they do get started, they become highly
efficacious--for the group of priests or kings or others who
make a handsome living keeping the rituals going" (_New Scien._, 6
Aug 1994, 41-43). EC evidently only knows what psychology serves
his ad hominem purposes.
5. Here is added a new "significant problem": according to Henri
Frank- fort, KINGSHIP AND THE GODS: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern
Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature (Chicago,
1948/1978), in Egypt and Mesopotamia kingship and mankind's
relation to the gods
developed *differently* according to each culture's respective cli-
mate. This is not a reasonable expectation from the p.c. model
which would suggest a closer similarity between these two cultures.
Although Talbott cites Frankfort on trivial grounds, he never
reconciles, much less even acknowledges this stark contrast between
Egypt and Mesopotamia.
Anti-Scholar Rivisited
Part I identified EC as an "anti-scholar," analogous to an anti-
particle in physics which appears normal in some respects but is
oppo- site in others, who does not stay current with, or ignores
uncomfortable parts of, his own and related literatures. He is an
anti-scholar in other respects, too; in at least seven as follows:
1. Whereas scholars publish in peer-reviewed journals, EC publishes in
vanity-oriented fringe publications, Kronos and Aeon, as Acker
pointed out.
2. Whereas scholars adduce independent corroboration for their
hypothe- ses, EC does not.
3. Whereas scholars limit speculation in physical processes by laws of
physics, EC does not.
4. Whereas scholars acknowledge evidence that is problemmatical to
their hypothesis, EC does not.
5. Whereas scholars weigh the evidence, EC, in consonance wtih V'ians
and other pseudo-scientists, gives all evidence at least equal
weight, sometimes even giving greatest weight to the least
significant evi-
dence as in interpreting certain icons in pre-historic rock art.
6. Whereas scholars discuss alternative explanations, EC and his
"Saturnists" do not. For example, the key symbol, the "enclosed
sun," which consists of two concentric circles, R(2)/R(1)=ca. 5.5,
was first identified confidently as Saturn surrounded by a
doughnut-like ring, or halo, but has recently been re-imagined as
Venus against Saturn in
the p.c. However, the symbol quite plausibly represents a ring
around the Moon or the Sun with a halo (see Robert Greenler,
_Rainbows, Halos and Glories_ (1980)). Then E.A.S. Butterworth, in
_The Tree at the Navel of the Earth_ (1970), argues that *in cult
context* (shown in pairs) the symbols represent the omphalos, a
hollow pillar in cross section, by which the shaman climbs up to
heaven or down to the under- world. Trips to the underworld is a
theme not predicted by the "p.c. model", giving another refutation
besides the presence of seasons during the Golden Age.
7. Whereas scholars withhold criticism until reading something, EC is
not inhibited by such niceties so that, like many of V.'s critics,
without reading McClain, Mandelkehr, or E. Lyle he feels no
compunc- tion against ridiculing their work on the basis of CLE's
remarks (ironically intended to entice one to read the works).
EC even ridi- cules "some guy named E. Lyle," clueless that the
"E." stands for "Emily." Sadly, not once has the great,
self-professed scholar Coch-
rane asked CLE for additional information about any of the people he
has ridiculed in CLE's posts. He has his nerve, too, ridiculing
CLE's
lack of publications on "the subject of planets and their role in
an- cient religion" (14 Aug) when Kronos summarily rejected his
writing on this topic (e.g., a letter against Cardona's "Saturn: In
Myth and Religion" Kronos X:1 (1984) and CLE is barred from
AEON. [Interesting- ly, also in Kronos X:1, EC and Talbott could
quote Miller and Hart- mann "Instead of the old catastrophism
based on speculation or ancient writings, the new catastrophism is
based on *physical evidence* [emph-
asis added]" (_Science Digest_, 4/84), evidently to lend credence to
catastrophism, yet fail utterly to take cognizance of the need for
physical evidence.]
In a 10 Aug post, EC laments the possibility that he and Talbott
"have wasted our efforts the past two decades," as though they cannot
be wrong. But, like Velikovsky before them, they have not spent all
that time doing research. They have spent all that time culling the
litera-
ture looking for snippits they can force-fit into their pre-conceived
notion, ignoring all the discrepant data.
Clube & Napier
EC tries to denigrate Clube and Napier (C&N) by insinuating they
stole from Velikovsky. But C&N were inspired by H.S. Bellamy, an expon-
ent of Hoerbiger, and did not read _Worlds in Collision_ until their
model was well along, just as Velikovsky did not read Donnelly's _Rag-
narok_ until afer he had worked out WiC. Since the myths are in the
public domain and many before V. connected sky-combat myths with
comets, e.g., Whiston, Radlof, Donnelly, Hoerbiger, etc., V. has no
special claim to originality, especially since it is now realized by
all but EC and his "Saturnists" that Venus CANNOT have been a ocmet,
i.e., had a tail, because it is too massive and hold its atmosphere.
As for ancient references to what EC calls Venus (or other
planet), often such references are to Inanna/Ishtar (or some other
deity) which EC takes to be Venus (or other planet). But if a tail was
associated with the goddess Inanna (who *originally* was "mistress of
the date clusters"), then a real comet, not Venus, must have been
intended, and proto-Encke, as the progenitor of the Taurid meteor
streams, is the most likely candidate. Because proto-Encke would have
been prominent and presented a morning and evening aspect, just as
Venus does, at peri-
helion, the two would have been associated with each other, but not
necessarily confused, as EC suggests.
In reply to EC's asking, there is no "unequivocal reference to
the Encke-complex in historical records prior to 300 BCE or so," but
Encke and Taurid complex are the most likely active agents during the
Holocene and constitute a first choice working hypothesis wiht which
to interpret the comet lore the ancients bequeathed us. This does not
exclude the presence of other comets, such as P/Halley, etc., but the
provenance of the Taurid complex today argues forcefully that in
recent millennia it was a most prominent, recurring phenomenon. After
all, as Neil Forsyth shows in _The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat
Myth_ (Princeton, 1987), early written descriptions of Satan are
patently of a comet.
EC takes exception to a quote of Clube about "the 'revolutions'
of an invisible circulation in space [that] sometimes affect the
Earth" from Clube's contribution in Wm. Glen (ed.), _The
Mass-Extinction Debates_ (Stanford, 1994). These are the invisible
circulations of which the 5th century A.D. Neo-Platonist Proclus wrote
about in conjunction with the "host of fallen angels" which may be our
forebears' intuition regarding the daytime beta-Taurids.
Ironically, the 1952 publication by Whipple and Hamid about
collis- ions in the Solar System within the past 4700 years, that has
been cited in the Velikovskian literature to legitimize the idea of
collisions, concerns retrocalculated events in the Taurid-Encke
complex!
Carlinsky/Talbott
EC really went over the top about CLE's account of Talbott's pre-
occupation with the possibility that CLE would show up at Aeon's meet-
ing at Thanksgiving, as Carlinsky related to CLE by phone in June.
Since EC's rejection of this account, Carlinsky has written that when
he visited Talbott in May, "he expressed concern that Leroy
Ellenberger might show up at the upcoming conference or use it as the
occasion for an attack. I thought his concern excessive and probably
unwarranted" (Carlinsky to Ellenberger, 8 Aug 94). Such an attitude on
Talbott's part, despite EC's denial, is given credence by the fact
that in August 1992 at Haliburton, Ontario, Charles Ginenthal was a
"nervous wreck," according to his host, anticipating CLE's arrival the
next day. What is "so laughable and obviously delusional" in EC's
reaction to this anecdote is that he would *still* think CLE would
invent such a story.
McClain Once More
The importance of music in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia is
largely unappreciated today. When the Assyrians sacked a city killing
all the residents, the booty they took back to Assur included gold,
silver, jewels, and musicians. The cover of the Sept. 1994 _Scientific
American_ also supports this importance. A principle in Egyptian art
is that pharaoh dominate the scene, according to Frankfort in KINGSHIP
AND THE GODS. Yet the tomb painting of Ramses III on the cover shows a
21-string harp bigger than pharaoh. The text contains a second picture
in which an 11-string harp is bigger than pharaoh. Finally, since EC
asked, Mayan cosmology has many resonances with Sumerian numerology,
as McClain describes in _The Myth of Invariance_, pp. 152-155.
Conclusion
EC has tried to dismiss CLE's posts as "drivel," "jibberish," and
"Gobbledegook," but such tactics only underscore EC's penchant for
deflecting criticisms, bobbing and weaving, and ducking the hard
issues. EC has distinguished himself as a Philistine with his ornery,
mean-
spirited rejection of all new ideas from Ashton, Mandelkehr, Lyle,
Hawkins and McClain. His devotion to the canons of scholarship show
him to be an anti-scholar, fully adapted to his closed, "Saturnian"
system of thinking. In reducing much of the world's mythology to
aspects of Saturn he is a reductionist _par excellence_ who in the
process makes a mockery of the interdisciplinary synthesis that was
the avowed methodology at Kronos.
As all "Fire-heads" (fans of Firesign Theatre) know, we're all
bozos on this bus; but some bozos are better than others at telling the
difference between gumdrops and the true fruit of reason--and using
the gong when necessary. CLE knows from his work as a chemical
engineer at Monsanto and financial analyst at American Airlines that
problems *can* be solved, and are. EC knows from his experience on the
tennis court that matches get won instead of getting stuck in
interminable rallies. There is no reason why the validity of the
Saturn myth/p.c. cannot be decided and agreed upon by all parties.
After all, as statisticians well know, "the data swamp prior belief."
When CLE returns from a holiday in Haliburton, Ontario, August 31st,
hopefully EC will have shown that he's learned how to be a real
scholar instead of a tunnel-visioned zealot. Will he at least admit
that Herakles was a hero and not a god, as he said erroneously in a
recent post?
Leroy Ellenberger, student of Russell Ackoff and formerly
confidant to Velikovsky (4/78-11/79)
FAX: 314-773-9273
23 August 1994
-------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner Dept. of Physics and Astronomy PGP public key
btd@iastate.edu Iowa State University available on request
Ames, IA 50011
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage Express 2.0">
<title>The content and opinions expressed on this Web page do not necessarily r
eflect the views of nor are they endorsed by the University of</title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p align="center"><font size="1"><em>The content and opinions
expressed on this Web page do not necessarily reflect the views
of nor are they endorsed by the University of Georgia or the
University System of Georgia.</em></font></p>
</body>
</html>