I think anyone who listens to Joe Rogan podcasts automatically disqualifies his or herself from commenting on anything even tangibly related to a subject discussed at length on a Joe Rogan podcast.
As my own two-bits, anyone who doesn't understand that Plato stories contain myths for the purpose of educating young aristocrats on the relationship between politics (the human good), and philosophy (the capital-t Truth) is a fool. Did they read about the Ring of Gyges in the Republic, correlate that with the One Ring in Tolkien, and think that corresponds to the real-life existence of a magical ring that could make its wearer invisible?
I think anyone who listens to Joe Rogan podcasts automatically disqualifies his or herself from commenting on anything even tangibly related to a subject discussed at length on a Joe Rogan podcast.
I had never heard of the guy before yesterday, and am still confused about who he is, and why we should care. I see that he has been a frequent recipient of an award for "MMA Personality of the Year," but also notice that he doesn't seem to be a professional fighter. How does that work??
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I had never heard of the guy before yesterday, and am still confused about who he is, and why we should care. I see that he has been a frequent recipient of an award for "MMA Personality of the Year," but also notice that he doesn't seem to be a professional fighter. How does that work??
I think he is a mediocre comedian that a lot of people seem to like because "he tells it like it is." He also has a lot of opinions on politics and religion. Lots.
I had a coworker who liked to put him on in the truck every so often. It was not really bearable.
I think he is a mediocre comedian that a lot of people seem to like because "he tells it like it is." He also has a lot of opinions on politics and religion. Lots.
I had a coworker who liked to put him on in the truck every so often. It was not really bearable.
Not even for fun? Maybe I'm an odd duck, but I am supremely entertained by crackpots of all shapes and stripes.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I think he is a mediocre comedian that a lot of people seem to like because "he tells it like it is." He also has a lot of opinions on politics and religion. Lots.
I had a coworker who liked to put him on in the truck every so often. It was not really bearable.
He also screams and yells a lot at MMA events, and is full of DMT.
I had never heard of the guy before yesterday, and am still confused about who he is, and why we should care. I see that he has been a frequent recipient of an award for "MMA Personality of the Year," but also notice that he doesn't seem to be a professional fighter. How does that work??
He is a stand up comedian, UFC commentator and has his own podcast. I have heard he is quite good as a UFC commentator so I assume that is why he has won that award. I haven't listen to that many of his podcasts but if you like him then I understand why people would listen to it. He has a wide variety of guests and he has a long discussion with them. He asks lots of questions and will challenge his guests but he is not a scientist and I wouldn't even consider him a skeptic. He use to believe the moon landing was a hoax but has since come around. He has had some guests that have been very pro-woo. I don't know if I would classify him as pro-woo but he is darn close. To me he comes across as a guy who would use the defense "I am just asking questions/not an expert/just the host" if challenged.
I don't know if I would classify him as pro-woo but he is darn close. To me he comes across as a guy who would use the defense "I am just asking questions/not an expert/just the host" if challenged.
What's pro-woo?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
I've also listened to maybe half a dozen of his podcasts and all have been good - basically, he's a bit of a sounding board; if the guest is interesting, the podcast will be. He's totally competent in that role. They run about 3 hours, so there's no real constraint on the guests going on at some length. He recently had a pretty great one with Jocko Willink, who's an ex Navy Seal.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I've also listened to maybe half a dozen of his podcasts and all have been good - basically, he's a bit of a sounding board; if the guest is interesting, the podcast will be. He's totally competent in that role. They run about 3 hours, so there's no real constraint on the guests going on at some length. He recently had a pretty great one with Jocko Willink, who's an ex Navy Seal.
Rogan is positively apologetic in episode #725 posted above, which is ridiculous and unforgivable. The whole podcast is an indulgence in misinformation and conspiracy theory. Rogan enthusiastically and uncritically endorses his guests' junk science, and then expresses righteous indignation at Hancock's tirades against the poisonous "dogma" of mainstream archaeology and history. The end of the podcast is hilarious, as all three of them weary themselves with self-congratulatory back-pats about the benefits of psychedelic drugs, and express incredulity at the dunderheaded academy who refuses to use them in their research.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I didn't listen to that one; it sounds silly and I don't have three hours to spend on it. As I said, I think you're better off picking and choosing among the guests you think will be interesting. This is the one I was referring to, which I thought was pretty interesting (totally off topic).
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Yep the Kevin Folta one is excellent, and I've only seen I think that one interview with Rogan, but it was neat to see someone dedicate almost 3hrs to one talk.
I doubt it, it's not a very quantifiable thing. In fact the whole idea of substance-level cultures and pre-literal cultures putting a strong emphasis on storytelling is more what I'd call "a common view" in anthropology and folklore studies rather than a scientific fact. There are lots of reasons why this view might be simply a result of collective cognitive bias, but I won't get into it as it would be another long tangent of pure speculation.
I would say however that from what I've read of nomadic cultures, I'm comfortable in stating that storytelling is quite often a big deal for them, and that's really the only significant point I was making anyway.
Quote:
Moreover, within oral cultures, there is no way to know whether a story they attribute to their distant ancestors from thousands of years ago is not actually fused with events from only a few hundred years ago.
Very true. This is one of the many reasons why I agree that it's highly unlikely that the collection of old flood stories and myths point to a specific cataclysmic event. I would say that it's theoretically possible, and mostly a question that will can't ever be answered with absolute certainty.
(A theoretical possibility of something happening is of course not proof that it did happen. I'm just saying this to make my position clear.)
Quote:
What you miss in your description of oral tradition is its enormous flexibility that ensures a prioritisation of contemporary needs and values. Unless a story fulfills a current need or makes sense within the collecting group's present context, that particular story will not continue to be told, and will eventually disappear; replaced by another one that is more useful and meaningful.
This is true and something I've always found fascinating about stories and storytelling. There are however patterns to how those changed tend to happen. The things that change tend to be details and the moral of the story, which are changed to fit the needs of the storyteller, even when told in the same culture. However the basic elements generally remain. In Jack and the Beanstalk (or as it's academic classification is, The Boy who Stole the Ogre's Treasure), there are for example the elements of the boy, the giant/ogre and the treasure.
In the same way, if we allow the use of flood myths as evidence of an actual pre-historic flood, it would actually make sense that in those stories the flood is the kind of thing that could (theoretically) prevail over millennias.
The reason for the flood (God or gods generally) the other main characters (Noah, Gilgamesh...) and the moral of the story are the more likely parts to change.
Quote:
when basic needs change, the stories are almost certain to undergo dramatic changes, or to disappear altogether in favour of new ones that emerge from the fabric of older ones.
Agreed.
Quote:
Moreover, I also wonder if all types of stories are likely to survive intact—since myths are fundamentally different from moral tales that appear in the studies, I would challenge the notion that this is the case for all types of oral traditions. The common element to the folk tales in the studies I read is their entertainment value, fused with moralistic qualities. These qualities are quite different from those common to cultural and religious myths, which tend more strongly to address contemporary concerns. This would help to explain why mythologies are commonly quite distinct, whereas the folk tales in these studies are more stable.
I'm not convinced that there is a such a clear distinction between myths and folk tales as you say, but we're getting too deep into the subject for me to really argue the point.
Quote:
the models strongly suggest that traditions that circulate within purely oral cultures are extremely fragile, prone to rapid and dramatic change and adaptation, and are likely to survive only so long as they continue to be useful or meaningful. This will invariably mean that those stories that do survive do so at the expense of hundreds of thousands of predecessors that were forgotten.
In the end, I think it is a mistake to assume that every oral tradition that purports to be extremely ancient is actually thus. I can see that this is (probably remotely) possible for some types of stories, but would still maintain that this is the exception, and not the rule.
It doesn't change what we tend to discover within oral cultures, and that is that most of their traditions are comparatively recent. With regards to the flood myths from antiquity, it seems much more probable that these are locally derived, and without common descent to a single, massive cataclysm from over 12,000 years ago.
Agreed. Floods have happened all over the world, and they're often big events for the people in those areas. You don't really have to read more into it.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
I can't remember exactly where but there was some sort of evidence of a comet impact in Alberta around the time these two gents are claiming, I think it was a story in the Sun and it showed a map of the impact sites of a comet that broke up in fragrant's , I think there was another one in northern Ontario for Canada with another 4-5 in parts of the US.
Who knows for sure? 13,000 years is a long time ago, our planet has an uncanny way of hiding the true past.
I can't remember exactly where but there was some sort of evidence of a comet impact in Alberta around the time these two gents are claiming, I think it was a story in the Sun and it showed a map of the impact sites of a comet that broke up in fragrant's , I think there was another one in northern Ontario for Canada with another 4-5 in parts of the US.
Who knows for sure? 13,000 years is a long time ago, our planet has an uncanny way of hiding the true past.
The Sudbury basin is the result of a massive comet impact.
I watched a documentary on it a few years ago (can't remember what it was called) but it was quite interesting. There are rock shears around the basin that show the rock melted, smooth as silk. This was only discovered recently.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
