From: tgpedersen
Message: 64354
Date: 2009-07-08
>Is your false claim that Scandinavia used cremation exclusively an argument, an observations or an experiment?
> --- 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."