From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:41:40 -0400 Archived: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:08:39 -0500 Subject: Re: Psychic Rendlesham >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 15:33:27 -0600 >Subject: Re: Psychic Rendlesham >>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 15:00:26 -0400 >>Subject: Re: Psychic Rendlesham >>>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul> >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul> >>>Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 20:39:32 +0000 >>>Subject: Psychic Rendlesham >>>If you thought that the 'binary message' was as low as the sorry >>>saga which is Rendlesham could get, it appears now that a group >>>of psychics plus the ubiquitous Nick Pope are getting in on the >>>act according to this promotional trailer: >>>And someone claimed that ufology is not a religion? >>Don't know about any binary connection. It seems to me to be as >>out there but perhaps less absurd than Ian Ridpath's lighthouse >>theory. >>I find more religious connotation in fairies and angels. What's >>your take on that premise? When one gets a degree, for example, >>in Folklore Studies would that put them on a par with biblical >>studies? Are they related; a branch thereof? >Don, >These questions are rather mangled, I'm afraid. I encourage you >to read a book on folklore. Or, specifically, you could read my >chapter on fairy experience in my own book, Hidden Realms. >Folklore is not tied in particular to religion, except to the >degree that, in common with all human activity (e.g., sex, >sports, the entertainment industry, your neighbors' doings, >work, politics) - you name it - religion generates a body of >evolving, protean oral lore, rumor, and speculation. Which means >only that, like everything else, religious belief, doctrine, and >the like are processed in normal, recognizable human ways by >non-elites. Biblical scholarship at an academic level is neither >folklore nor folkloristics, but a discipline that fuses >linguistics, history, philosophy, and theology. >Nor, on a whole other level, are the fairies of tradition tied >to religion in any meaningful sense. In the meaningless sense, >if one ties _all_ anomalous, supernatural, or non-consensus >reality experience to "religion", then the term essentially >means whatever you want it to mean, in other words not much the >rest of us need worry about. >It is true that the less secular ordinary folk of other eras >sometimes struggled to understand fairies and other mysteries, >natural and supernatural - just as they struggled to understand >everything else in their environment - through a biblical >filter. Mostly, they came to the nonscriptural conclusion that >fairies exist on some level between the divine and the human. >Mostly, though, they just feared them, viewing them as one more >menace in an already dangerous world. >_Non_traditional fairies - those that figure in Spiritualism or >New Age mysticism - are figures that one can call religiously >generated inasmuch as they've been drafted into modernist >theological frameworks. But since you're talking about folklore, >I assume you mean the fairies of tradition, where fairies had as >much, or as little, religious significance as giants, monsters, >and ghosts. You just made my point for me Jerry. My blanket dismissal of the folklore surrounding fairys and angels is exactly what Joe did when he claimed a blanket religious connotation associated with the interest shown in the Rendlesham case. I could have just as easily thrown in ghosts or swan mays. Don Ledger Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp