Fwd: Re: [tied] Re: That old Ariovistus scenario.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "gknysh" <gknysh@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, gknysh@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- On Sun, 7/5/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A Snorri qoute to make you happy:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://omacl.org/Heimskringla/ynglinga.html
> > > >
> > > > '8. ODIN'S LAWGIVING.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Odin established the same law in his land that had been in force
> > > > in Asaland. Thus he established by law that all dead men should
> > > > be burned, and their belongings laid with them upon the pile,
> > > > and the ashes be cast into the sea or buried in the earth.
> > > > Thus, said he, every one will come to Valhalla with the riches
> > > > he had with him upon the pile; and he would also enjoy whatever
> > > > he himself had buried in the earth. For men of consequence a
> > > > mound should be raised to their memory, and for all other
> > > > warriors who had been distinguished for manhood a standing
> > > > stone; which custom remained long after Odin's time.'
> > > >
> > > > ie. inhumation for his own men (those of consequence),
> > > > cremation for everyone else, like a dictator from the steppes
> > > > would do, if he intended to stay.
> > > >
> > > > GK: Your interpretation seems to be in conflict with the
> > > > evidence at Old Uppsala:
> > > >
> > > > Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamla_Uppsala#Archaeology
> > > >
> > > > *****
> > > >
> > > (TP)http://omacl.org/Heimskringla/ynglinga.html
> > ****GK: Cut for economy, since none of this has any relevance to
> > the fact that Swedish kings were cremated at Old Uppsala in the 6th
> > century. According to your latest thesis, they must have been "men
> > of no consequence" (:=)))... The answer, of course, is that you
> > have misunderstood your source.
>
> The answer is that you are talking through your hat.
> http://tinyurl.com/kqsscf
>
> > To state that a mound is erected does not imply that this is done
> > over an inhumation.
>
> Nor that it is done over a cremation.
>
> > Whatever Odin was, he was no Yazig dictator from the steppes.****
>
> That remains to be seen.
>
>
>
> The case of Sweden is special. Sweden housed two powers then:
> Götar
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6tar
> which I see as the original inhabitants, cf.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6tar#Jutish_hypothesis
> (the linguistic objections are invalid if the Götar/Goths/Jutar were not originally Germanic-speakers)
> and Svear,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svear
> which I see as the intruders.
>
> 'According to early sources, such as the Norse sagas, and especially Heimskringla, the Swedes were a powerful tribe whose kings claimed descendence from the god Freyr'
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freyr
> 'In the Icelandic books the Poetic Edda and the Prose Edda, Freyr is presented as one of the Vanir, the son of the sea god Njörðr, brother of the goddess Freyja.'
>
> which means they would not necessarily have followed Odin (Æsir) custom at Old Uppsala.
>
>
> Torsten

****GK: (From James Burnham):

"An ideologue--one who thinks ideologically- can't
lose. He can't lose because his answer, his
interpretation and his attitude have been determined
in advance of the particular experience or
observation. They are derived from the ideology and
are not subject to the facts. There is no possible
argument, observation or experiment that could
disprove a firm ideological belief for the very simple
reason that an ideologue will not accept any argument,
observation or experiment as constituting disproof.
It is a characteristic of ideological thinking,
whatever the given ideology, that it cannot be refuted
by logical analysis or empirical evidence. Actually,
the internal logical structure of a developed ideology
is usually quite good anyway, rather like the logical
structure of paranoiac obsessions, which ideologies
resemble in other ways also; and when a logical gap
appears-- as happened to liberalism in the doctrinal
shift from limited to welfare state-- sufficient
ingenuity can always patch it up again, as`we duly
noted. The ideology is a way of interpreting the
world, an attitude toward the world and a method for
dealing with the world. So long as I adhere faithfully
to the ideology there is no specific happening, no
observation or experiment that can unmistakably
contradict it. I can always adjust my categories and
my attitude to allow for whatever it is that happens
or that I observe; if necessary I can shut my eyes."

Torsten is a Snorrist ideologue. His responses
above are an excellent example of his "reasoning". Which can obviously go on forever. To (badly) paraphrase Hobbes: Torsten's current "argumentation" is nothing but the ghost of his previous Snorrist elucubrations "sitting crowned on the grave thereof."