-Caveat Lector-
Seeing now that Sitchin himself is apparently reading my posts, before this
topic turns into a flame-war, let me spell out the "good news" that, sadly,
is at risk of being eroded by the "bad news" of which I was messenger in my
accusations about "feet of clay "...
Sitchin does have a place in history for being the person to succeed in what
Erich von Daniken attempted but failed at -- the lifting of the "alien origin
hypothesis" to a plane where it can be SERIOUSLY considered, in the light of
the "mythology" ("religion" would be more accurate) of ancient cultures like
the Sumerian where it was held to be TRUE.
His greatest accomplishment is in COMPILING all those myths for us,
cross-culturally, and showing how SIMILAR they are in their depiction of the
presiding "gods" and their "creation" of Homo sapiens as a slave-laborer in
their service. Taken as "evidence,"
presented to more open-minded space-age readers, these texts speak for
themselves.
There is nothing particularly objectionable in Sitchin's summations and
attempts at interpretation -- where he does not stray TOO far in insisting on
bogus UNIFORMITY.
HOWEVER, he "crosses the line," in the opinion of many of us who are
well-informed,
when he DEFORMS a text by subordinating its LITERAL meaning to his BELIEF, by
making it CONFORM to the "single" and "universal" scenario HE offers as the
result of
over-broad RE-interpretation, in the process claiming to know what the
ORIGINATORS of the myth "understood" at some time LONG BEFORE the myth as it
NOW exists
was written. It's one thing to cite a text. It's another thing altogether
to INTERPRET a
text BEYOND ITSELF, reading things into it from a totally foreign context,
all the while
passing this off as "scholarship" --even as "scholarship" of a "higher
order"-- without
drawing attention to the fact that such is SPECULATION, based on ASSUMPTIONS,
and cannot be "proven" simply by waving about the credentials of the
scholars who translated the ORIGINAL texts --MINUS interpretations-- to
borrow "respectability."
It's the trumpeting of Sitchin's "superior scholarship" that is most
offensive, because
most of what he presents is the work of OTHERS who WERE scholars of note, and
his OWN contribution is primarily that of a COMPILER -- as a creative
JOURNALIST,
whose INTERPRETATIONS (interpretations cannot be "proven" by scholarly means,
particularly when the only "evidence" possible DOES NOT EXIST after 6000
years!)
flesh out a HYPOTHESIS that, scholarship or no, is worthy of serious
consideration.
He definitely overreaches himself when his "guesses" in "re-translation"
--based on ASSUMPTIONS and NOT on fact (assuming anyone is able to
differentiate between the two anymore) are passed off as demonstrations of a
"superior" scholarship rather than
as what they are, SPECULATION. Educated, insightful speculation has its own
merit
and there is nothing wrong with it, UNLESS it misrepresents itself as
something else.
The problem with Sitchin is that the structure he has laboriously built up
across several volumes --beginning with facts, developed through speculative
interpretation, ending
with certain conclusions requiring FAITH in the WHOLE PICTURE being
"factual"--
is now being presented to the public as a work of SCHOLARSHIP and is
subjectively DEFENDED as such, in opposition to GENUINE scholarship in
Sumerology and other related fields, in an irrational, quasi-"religious" way
-- in uncritical "cultlike" fashion.
If Sitchin himself believes he is the "inspired prophet" of just such a
religious cult, so much the worse -- he has lost all right to call himself a
"scholar," if his "scholarship"
has produced such a credulous, anti-intellectual, "cult of PERSONALITY"
following.
Recently, IMHO, he has even begun to argue AGAINST his OWN "evidence," simply
to preserve his belief in the religion of his fathers, which is actually
turned on its head by
logical analysis of what he has taken great pains to "reveal" in all his
earlier writings.
How "scholarly" is a man who contradicts his own work's logic, misleading his
readers
who by now are willing to accept "on faith" ANYTHING he says as a "cosmic
truth"?
His "scholarship" is long past. Nowadays he is buried under marketing
hyperbole and banal SELF-promotion, in a direction that will surely undo the
TRUE good he's done -- which was in popularizing a HYPOTHESIS worth
considering, not PROVING anything, and certainly NOT by dint of "superior
scholarship," undercut by an amateur's failings.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
