Mythoblogia

This blog is now located at http://mythoblogia.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://mythoblogia.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

OK, get out your grain of salt....

ARIES - The Martian. You are an alien amongst us all. You were cooked for 9 months, apparently immune to all astral influences until the instant when you popped out, fully formed yet tabula rasa: an empty slate, ready to be written upon. And at the precise moment of your birth - not when your bulbous head appeared, or your spindly arms or even your pudgy torso - but only when you were in a position to be "registered" as born (perhaps at that crucial point when the midwife tore off the gas mask and remembered to check their watch) - Mars stamped his warlike foot upon your brow.

Apart from "ouch", what does this mean to you? Who is this Mars character?

• Well you can go there right now, courtesy of Google Mars. Don't stay long, we have more for you here
  
• Or simply read about this spectacular red planet. You all come back now
• But this is not enough, for the real Mars is a Roman God, born of the Etruscan fields. Splendidly earthy stuff that explains why you love to dig dirt
  
• However that lovely bucolic Etruscan deity has become tainted by bloodlust. For Mars is forever linked to Ares (read Aries in English), the Greek god for just about the worst atrocities you can imagine, including the absolute barbarity that is war. Fabulous. I suppose some of you enjoy this sort of association, eh?
  

But you are here for the astrological side of things, so let's press on. You were born and stamped "Aries" because of your allocated Sun Sign. You were also kindly given an ascendant and all the rest of it. You were also allocated a fabulous new set of genes and a family of some sort, complete with an environment (good or bad) to grow up in. (But that's all of little importance as it's just the time and place that matters, for that's how astrology works.)

First up (an odd thing to say so far into the discussion) you must never trivialize or demean your allocated Sun Sign by looking at it in isolation. No, for whilst it is the dominant feature of your chart, it is a feature you must be prepared to modify relentlessly until you get the perfect fit with your self-perceived personality. You can do this by astute use of ascendants, other planets and their positions. This is after all the Art of the Astrologer, if not the science as well.

Having said all that, being a dominator yourself you'll understand that your Sun Sign is truly dominant - so let's discuss it now in some depth. Because you were born when and where you were (and assuming that to be Earth, for starters) you are automatically configured as a typical ARIES. So you are all - all of you - unfailingly outgoing, lovable and spontaneous people with a dark cloud hanging over you. That dark cloud seeks not only to give you a much-needed light shower every morning but to warn others that ARIES is to MARS as MARS is to snack bars. You are a market dominator with your enrobed bars and diversified range of snack products. Don't mess with an ARIES!

Yet you are also funny, an excellent kisser and quite slight in build with a shocking haircut. Despite this you remain adorable and lucky in relationships. Indeed, so lucky that you can't get enough of 'em. Oh, and family is very important to you as an Aries (unlike those other Sun Signs who spurn family ties, an Aries will collect such ties in a large closet). You are known also for a generous and giving nature that knows few bounds, bar the ones that bind. Hang with little old Aries you long enough - especially in a steamy, sordid relationship - and you are bound to get something (see your doctor if symptoms persist). Actually it's hard not to hang with you as you are as addictive as you are criminal in nature. Aries are great people for mass hangings, very loud and enthusiastic and of course always baying for more blood. But you know that.

And your best feature? You are always 'right'. This lends great stability to your personality and assists your friends in so many ways. Your proneness to increasingly persistent and impenetrable argument is both charming and disarming, causing your friends to wallow around in ecstatic circles, fawning over your immense intellect. Aries people represent simply the vast majority of the most powerful people on Earth, and you are all well aware of it.

• Favorite Aries color: Red
• Favorite Aries thing: Power
• Favorite Aries hobby: Sex
• Most common employment: Computer games industry
• Most Aries are: Baby-faced assassins

Labels: Aries, Astrology

Well astrology (and I mean Western astrology in a broad sense) is scientific in that there's a testable hypothesis; and there are plenty of people running longitudinal studies - or repeated experiments over time, if you like - to test the case. However these experiments are typically flawed in 2 major ways and probably a million smaller ways.

Firstly there is rarely a control in any of the tests, so we don't know for sure how the predicted reality compares with the "real" reality; or if there is some bias inherent in the testing process.

Secondly the tests assume that the basis of astrology is true; and the experiments that are typically run don't test the root assumptions, which remain untested. Which leads to many people repeating the same experiment over and over again, often "finding" the same result but with no confirmation available other than the "rightness" suggested by the result itself. In other words the subject "agrees" with the result, therefore it must be true. Which is of course hogwash (another technical term).

So how could it be tested? Well it has been tested as a process and indeed there's some slight evidence for a correlation between personality and the position of planet Mars. That's all, just Mars. And it's a small correlation, not a blindingly obvious one. You can stretch the point and find other tiny correlations in the data but essentially it's all very weak. Other people say other things, often compellingly negative; but that's what I know and believe - that there's a faint blip in the data that says "maybe". I wouldn't bet my house on it, that's for sure. Of course we could just be looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place.

You could also test it yourself by devising an experiment where multiple people have charts prepared and interpreted by random, multiple astrologers, including controls on the experiment to eliminate bias. I can tell you that almost all reputable astrologers will get these calculations "right"; and some astrologers will get common results in interpretation, often based on shared study of of certain learned books. And others will have completely variant interpretations. Often the "rightness" of these interpretations will be confirmed by the subjects, irrespective of technique; but as we know this proves only that the subjects "agree", not that it is objectively correct. When you look at the actual, testable and repeatable evidence for a correlation between sun sign and such things as occupation or personality it all starts to unravel.

At which point the astrologers will say 'but what about the ascendant?', or 'what about oppositions and conjunctions?'. Indeed we could explain it all away if we tried hard enough, by using arcane astrological procedures or even simply saying that the birth time is out by some minutes or hours or whatever. We'd then "adjust" the chart to suit our subject's "reality". Indeed - a little surprisingly - that's exactly what some astrologers do. And they honestly believe that's the right thing to do.

Which makes it all very hard. Personally I think the best interpretations come from strongly "psychic" astrologers who "feel" the subject during the 1:1 session and interact in a "counseling" way. Which suggests that the astrological process may simply be a cover for some other set of instincts or skills - and therefore open to further exploration.

I can also say - anecdotally! - that I have been surprised when an astrologer actually "gets" my rising sign at first meeting and without benefit of anything other than my physical appearance. That's surprising enough but I have also seen multiple people correctly identified in the same manner, which is more surprising again. I don't know "how" they did it but I'm open to the suggestion that there's "something in it".

Astrology is also fun - and a cool way to get to do some maths whilst playing with some rather ancient and interesting symbols. That there's a psychological component in it just adds to the compelling nature of it all. Treat it as fun and keep an open mind - that's my personal view.

Labels: Astrology

When you can't explain how something important started it's tempting to make up a story. Whoever makes that story up gets credit points, especially if the story gains currency. If you are convincing enough it can put you in a powerful shamanic position.

Sometimes the story simply and conveniently fills in the blanks (think of the Arthurian legends and how they have grown over time to cover changing situations); other times it's designed to support the politics of the present (almost all religious texts do this, to reinforce a few people in powerful positions). Sometimes it's a rewrite of an old story (think flood tales prior to Noah) that seek to explain 'how things are'. So where do we put Romulus and Remus and the story of Rome's beginning?

Interestingly we seem to have re-found the site of ancient 'Romulan' worship: “This could reasonably be the place bearing witness to the myth of Rome, one of the most well-known in the world, the legendary cave where the she-wolf suckled Romulus and Remus, saving them from death,” said Culture Minister Francesco Rutelli, presenting the discovery.

What does it say about Imperial Rome that Augustus fostered the worship of this apparent myth that Rome was suckled by a wolf-mother (great name for a rock band, btw)? Clearly it supports the culture that Augustus wanted. The idea that Romans were tough, fearsome warriors brought up by wild animals is a potent thought, especially for your enemies!

This concept that people could draw succour, support and strength from animals is also an ancient one with strong links to earth and animal gods. To get those forces on your side is also important, whether you personally believe in it or not. We always like to believe we are right and that our god(s) are on our side after all.

Labels: animalism, Augustus, Remus, Rome, Romulus

Yes, OK, I'm on the case. Seems Arthur had a few names for his horses. That's assuming Arthur himself is for real. Which he probably isn't. The legendary Arthur that we know so well, or think we do, developed initially from the somewhat patchy and unreliable (but eminently readable) history of Britain written by Geoffrey of Monmouth, aided and abetted by the fabulous Welsh collection of anonymous fables known to us as the Mabinogion. And then of course the French got in on it and created a farce with a car chase and pretty, flirty girls getting older men into a twist. Ah, OK, I made that bit up.

Nevertheless it was that Frenchman Chrétien de Troyes who began what we know today to be the literary tradition of Arthurian romance. You can pick it up from Thomas Mallory's utterly wonderful Morte D'Arthur, published in 1485, too. Ahh, the valour and bravery of it all, the knights, the round table, the fabled sword Excalibur. Whilst there may be a grain of truth in it, English kings did not behave like French nobles, we know that for a fact. Lovely stories though.

So to the horses and their names. To quote legendofkingarthur.com (as you would), Welsh chronicles mention two names of horses owned by King Arthur. They are in the Tale of Culhwch ac Olwen, which is one of the stories that make up the Mabinogion. They attribute to Arthur a mare called Llamrei (or Llamrai) and another horse called Hengroen. Later French sources call his horse Passelande.. It's worth mentioning the Celtic horse-gods, too: Horsa and Hengist. Could be a link there, eh?

Labels: Hengist, Hengroen, Horsa, King Arthur, Llamrei, Passelande

Yeah, OK, Mazda is a car company. But before the name was linked to a car company, or a light bulb manufacturer for that matter - in fact long before - Ahura Mazda was (and is) the most powerful god of the Zoroastrians. Chief prophet of the Zoroastrians was Zoroaster, aka Zarathustra. With its almost-but-not-quite monotheistic concept of god, handy location in Iran and later India, and powerfully dualistic ideas of good vs evil, Zoroastrianism can be claimed to have had a likely large influence on later religions such as Islamism, Judaism and Christianity. Of course it didn't start out nearly so monotheistic, if that's what it is; and we just don't have enough evidence to be really sure about the whys and wherefores of that evolution - but we do know that Ahura Mazda was powerful beyond all other spirtual beings and dominated the scene. We also know that Zoroaster was urged by his god to do good and spread the word against earlier, bloodthirsty 'sacrificial' religions; that Ahura Mazda created the earth; there would be a last judgement; and that the good went to paradise and those who sided elsewhere died and went to a fiery place. Now we don't know when these ideas sprang into being - or even if there were precursors. But it all sounds a bit familiar, doesn't it? Indeed there are strong parallels with both Christian and Hindu beliefs.

One of the lesser beings that floated around in the Zoroastrian mindspace was the widely-believed Mithra, god of the Mitanni and yet another god of light and wisdom, again from the same region. Mithra spread from Iran to India, then Greece, Rome (as Mithras) and even to Britain. Whilst the light and wisdom was co-opted into Sun-worship as well, many people see Mithra as a model for the Christian Jesus. In various versions Mithra(s) has a (possibly) virgin birth (from solid rock) and is (possibly) resurrected from a cave. Indeed the cave as temple is a prominent idea in later Mithrasism (hmmm, did I just make that up?), as is (possibly) 'baptism' by the blood of a slain bull. Bulls have had a lot to do with religion and mythology over the years... here's more on that tale.

And a lot of the "parallels" between Mithra(s) and Jesus can be refuted if you try hard enough. At its core, however, it's my feeling that there's plenty of evidence that many ideas were circulating and shared between religions prior to the birth of Christ the prophet.

Labels: Ahura Mazda, Jesus, Mithra, Mithras, Zarathustra, Zoroaster

Ignoring the truth - or what we imagine to be the truth of written language spontaneously being invented at least 3 times in human history - what are the mythological origins of language? Surely there's a god or 2 involved here!

In ancient Egypt the invention of writing is attributed to the god Thoth. Thoth was handy with words and managed to invent speech as well. Even more Dune-like was Thoth's ability to transform speech into material objects. Speak and it shall come... into being.

In Mesopotamia, among the Sumerians it was Enlil who was the creator of writing. Although during the later Assyrian and Babylonian periods it was reputedly the god Nabu who invented both speech and writing. It had to be someone, after all. Like Thoth, these Mesopotamian language gods were also able to turn words into things.

There are more, but that'll do for now.

Labels: Enlil, language, Nabu, Thoth

Not so much a myth as a mystery, the Indus Valley Civilization (c. 3300–1700 BC) was - as the name suggests - an ancient riverine civilization that flourished in the Indus and Ghaggar-Hakra river valleys in what is now Pakistan and northwestern India.

Another name for this civilization is the Harappan Civilization, after the first excavated city of Harappa (uncovered in the 1920s). Not a lot is known about this civilisation or why it vanished, although there are many theories about rivers drying up, earthquakes and just plain old invasion. Near neighbours the Sumerians may have known this civilisation as Meluhha. The languauge - largely untranslated at this stage - is a likely candidate for Proto-Dravidian (that descended into current Tamil), or perhaps Proto-Indo-Iranian (that descended into, umm, Iranian, for example) and consisted of about 400 symbols and a base-8 number system. Pretty interesting and distinctive, in fact. Plenty more to read here at AncientScripts.com and at Harrappa.com.

Labels: ancient civilisation, Dravidian, Indus valley, language

OK, we know they don't - or didn't exist. Or we are pretty certain, anyway, because we've never found 'em for starters - dead or alive, fossilised or not. They also just plainly look wrong. Half-man, half horse? Why? How would that happen, grafting? Who would graft two species together?

Only a god, I guess. It's hard enough to find examples of real animals where you scratch your head and wonder "but how" - the duck-billed platypus may be one such example. And indeed you can figure out a how if you try. But a horse and a man? Not a man with one or two characteristics of a horse, but a complete half and half creation. Sound weird and unlikely? Sure is.

So how? It's been suggested that early horse-back riders appeared startlingly bizarre - indeed just like a combination of horse and man. If we aren't accustomed to seeing something, especially something unlikely, we may make up a myth to explain it. Sounds plausible.

There's more here and here on this curious myth.

Labels: Centaurs

Whilst Harry Potter is a fictional character it is clear that creator JK Rowling researched her subject. There was a Philosopher's Stone, or at least a belief in it; and there certainly was a 14th Century French alchemist called Nicholas Flamel. Cerberus, centaurs, gryphons... you name it, they are "real" enough in that mythical way we so love to read about. Don't stop with reading the Potter books, do some further research yourself.

Labels: Harry Potter, Nicholas Flamel, Philosopher's Stone, Potter

Forbes mag reports here on book-burnings, especially of Harry Potter novels. Now these fundamentalist views are right - author J K Rowling is indeed influencing your people in the direction of mystical, magical realms that probably have little foundation in truth. They are built on faith and belief, not testable fact. Sure, some of it is "fact", in the sense that it's been researched and is citing previous work. In the Harry Potter series we read about the Philosopher's stone and Nicholas Flamel, to pick just 2. And sure enough there was a real enough belief in such a stone and its power in Alchemy, as indeed there was a Nicholas Flamel. We can look all of this up in other books, check it out and see how "real" it all is for ourselves. Now some of us - especially the young and impressionable - may fall for it in a big way and just "believe" without questioning. Others will know instinctively that it's a modern fable. So do we burn it because it's a fable, and probably burn Grimm and Aesop as well? Do we do this because it's wrong, or because it threatens our own beliefs?

If we burn Potter should we not burn all myth and legend, or any belief we don't, umm, believe in ourselves? And ban it from our minds, just to be sure?

Labels: books, burning, fables, fundamentalist, Harry Potter, legends, myths, Potter, religion

It's not hard to guess why we have epic myths about creation, but religion goes much further. The typically well formed religion offers buffers against all sorts of ailments, distress and indecision. If you aren't sure about something - perhaps an ethical question, or how to treat loss - you can always seek an answer from a priest or from a book. In fact religion goes deeper again and provides solace and protection against even the thought of our inevitable death. Or so the research tells us. This is from SCIENCE, Volume 314, Issue 5803
dated November 24 2006 (originally published in J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 91, 553; 2006) and is worth quoting at some length:

"PSYCHOLOGY: Managing Terror by Gilbert Chin. Our awareness that we exist exposes us, unfortunately, to the inescapable terror of dying. Jonas and Fischer have explored the role of religious beliefs in allowing people to manage their terror in situations where mortality is made salient. In particular, they focus on the distinction between extrinsic (searching for safety and solace) and intrinsic (searching for meaning and value) religious beliefs. Just after the November 2003 bombings in Istanbul, customers in a Munich coffee shop were more likely to rise in defense of their cultural worldview (to disagree with newspaper articles that were inconsistent with their own assessments of the likelihood of an attack in Germany) if they scored low on an intrinsic religiousness scale than if they scored high; this difference in behavior dissipated with time as the reminder of death became less salient. In follow-up experiments involving students from a Jesuit school and a local university, they found that intrinsically religious people did not think more about dying when reminded of mortality (in contrast to extrinsically oriented individuals) and that this capacity to buffer one's state of mind contributed to their not having to mobilize terror management defenses in the face of death."


Now I see the word 'psychology' and imediately have doubts. I haven't seen the research but my rule of thumb is to doubt. Firstly how do you define someone on the 'intrinsic religiousness scale'? By survey, or by their actions? If by survey, how strongly correlated are their actions against the scale? Secondly how do you actually know what someone thought? Electrodes? Mind merge? They told you? Hmmm.

Could it be that the 'extrinsically oriented individuals' told something closer to the truth (as they had not been indoctrinated or 'taught' what to think)? And perhaps the 'intrinsically religious people' simply had been taught how to respond and merely did so? Now you may say 'ah-ha!' as if that's the point, but simply because people can't express a fear of death and instead mumble an incantation that they have learned at Church on Sundays doesn't mean they don't actually have a fear of death, rather that they just that they don't like telling researchers about it.

I can't not write about Revelations. It's apocalyptic. It's about the end of the Earth. Or of our days on Earth, maybe. Supposedly written by John, Revelations is based upon the "visions" that he received on the isle of Patmos. The first vision was related by a manlike, perhaps Christ-like figure in robes who spoke with a voice like a trumpet (which could mean very loud - perhaps he used a megaphone!). The second vision is creepier still with a a door opening in heaven and a description of the coming of the end of the world. Basically Satan has a last fling at Armageddon and loses, restoring peace to the world. You can read into it what you will but it's great stuff, full of imagination. Read more here.

In Greek mythology Zeus is the highest ranking of the Olympian gods and the god of the sky and thunder. He was the son of Cronus and Rhea, and the youngest of his siblings. He married to Hera, although he consorted with whoever he chose. Typically he took other forms to engage in trysts, often to win favour with local dieties who often preceded him (presumably by human design to winover followers to the new religion) . At the oracle of Dodona his consort was Dione, the "goddess". According to Homer's the Iliad, he is the father of Aphrodite by Dione.

Zeus is known for his numerous erotic conquests of nymphs - and one pederastic relationship with Ganymede. His numerous offspring included Athena by Metis; Apollo and Artemis by Leto; Hermes by Maia; Persephone by Demeter; Dionysus by Semele; Perseus by Danae; Heracles by Alcmene; Helen by Leda; Minos by Europa, the Muses by Mnemosyne; and Ares, Eileithyia, Hebe and Hephaestus by Hera. His Roman counterpart was Jupiter, and his Etruscan counterpart was Tinia (not to be confused with a foot fungus).

Zeus also slayed the monster Typhon.

Try this! Biiible search (no offence to Google!) And then counter it with this (the Evil Bible Top 10 list).

Occasionally I see a word that just has to be used, somewhere - anywhere. Today's word is palimpsest. According to Wikipedia a palimpsest is a document that has been wiped clean and used again (comes from the Greek to 'wipe clean', roughly speaking). Cicero and his fellow Romans used wax-coated tablets that - you guessed it - could be wiped clean and reused. Sounds like a technology we could (re)use today. Historically speaking palimpsests are especially useful when we are able to decipher what was written before. One 'original' document may have overwritten a previous version, like the Christian churches scrubbing out and writing over pagan beliefs (if not adapting them to suit their needs). It's a window into the past.

Haruspices - you know, the ancient form of divination trusted by the Etruscans and refined by the Romans. The Babylonians were also into it. In its essence we are looking at the duck's guts - or a chicken's, or whatever animal conveniently comes to hand. It's messier than tarot cards and you can fall fowl (hehe) of the animal protection authorities. It was however a much respected practice and worth a read.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is an ancient story from Babylonia, and comprises of a series of Sumerian legends and poems about the hero-king Gilgamesh. He was born out of the mother goddess, like Kurduk, but is more man than god (although he reputedly lived 126 years which is pretty good for a guy back then). Anyway, we are looking at about the 3rd millennium BC, with the most complete version known to exist being preserved on 11 clay tablets in the library of the 7th century BC Assyrian king Ashurbanipal. Gilgamesh's tale appears to have been widely known and to have influenced literature from Europe to India, and certainly the tale of Utnapishtim and the deluge rings some bells. The story involves Gilgamesh, a demi-god-king who is down in the dumps and his friend Enkidu, born from the mother goddess as well but lured into man's domain by a woman (indeed by a 'harlot of the temple', which is presumably where you found harlots in those days). Enkidu and Gilgamesh do great man-like stuff full of bravado before Enkidu shuffles off his mortal coil. Gilgamesh is distraught and the tale goes on at length about his feelings of loss. At one point Gilgamesh crosses into the afterlife and back again (by boat, which is how you do such things) in search of a herb that gives you rebirth. He finds it, carries it carefully back to shore and has it stolen by a snake. Of course the snake then sloughs its skin - as snakes do - proving the worth of that herb. I could do with some, actually. Anyway, that leaves Gilgamesh unhappy again - all that work for nothing. It's quite a tale.

It's worth noting that some accounts of Marduk suggest that after cleaving Tiamat in 2 to form the heavens and the Earth he drained the blood of the god Kingu to give live to the bone and flesh of Man. Man of course to be the slave of the Gods, so that they could laze their days away watching TV or whatever.

So what have we got here? It's patriarchal, man defeating woman in the broadest sense. It's also an individual asserting himself over others. It's a creation myth, both of the world and of Man. It's Babylonian - the centre of civilisation at the time. So what does it really mean? Well Marduk was also Babylon's own home god, if you like, so it was asserting Babylon's dominance over everything else. The Marduk story evolved, as all stories do, to fit the political times. It reinforced male-dominated, power-based city-life over the old way of mother-Earth goddesses and a group awareness of spirituality mingled with a respect and worship of the sun, moon, stars and seasons. Well that's how I see it, anyway!

There's nothing quite as compelling as a great story of internecine family disputes, especially when it leads to Creation. Creation of us and Earth, because they were already here (they always are). Let's start in Babylon, as most things do, with the victory of Marduk over his great-great-great-grandmother Tiamat.

In brief - if this can be brief - it starts before Creation with the primal Apsu, Mummu (son) and Tiamat, the earth-mother (later the Greek Gaea) if you like. It's a story of a patriarchial system slandering and defeating the previous matriarchal system, which is again quite a common theme. It's done to justify the way we want to live our lives on Earth, but it must be played out in myth first to 'prove' a case. Most religions are like this - there's not just a meaning but an intent behind the stories,to defame what came before and justify the new. Anyway, what happened is familiar enough - they had kids. Lahmu and Lahamu, followed by Anshar and Kishar. Then Anu, then Ea. They were bigger and stronger than their fathers and grandfathers and collectively were wreaking havoc. Apsu asked Mummu for advice about these noisy kids and so it came about that they suggested to Tiamat that they 'dispose' of the children. Tiamat of course would hear nothing of it, quite rightly, and Apsu and Mummu went away to brood and plot. Well Ea was sensitive to brooding and plotting and sought to get in first by slaying Apsu (grandfather) and Mummu (brother). Now this is very icky in many ways as we have sibling rivalry and murder at work for starters, but it gets worse. Tiamat was a bit upset about Ea killing her husband, his grandfather, and flew into a rage. Now Ea went to his dad, Anshar, and he got his son Anu to confront Tiamat. However he was put off by Tiamat's rage and said 'no way, dad'. So they all got together these god-kids and their god-parents and Ea volunteered his son Marduk to defeat Tiamat. Marduk agreed but insisted on a clause in the contract that made him the ultimate God thereafter. So it was. Marduk slayed Tiamat, cleaved her in 2 and turned her carcass into the Earth and the heavens. It's a lovely tale that deserves further study, doesn't it?