h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hello chaps.

Mustapha, just to let you know that I've scribbled out a few words to do with Alchemy. I found an entry on Alchemy subtitled 'Hmm. Unlikely' and I couldn't possibly let that pass without throwing in my own two pence worth. Would you be a dear and have a glance through, and if you deem it worthy add a link to it? If you don't think it historical, then fine. Just look for the formation of The Crackpot Secret Sciences Committee, that's all... maybe we can play the Historical Soc. at table football one day!

It can be found at A248230: Alchemy

Also:

Gargleblaster, looking forward to the Nag Hammadi / Dead Sea Scrolls articles. Sooner the better, huh?!

So nice you posted it twice? I'll check out the Entry on Alchemy, CD!

As for the "critique" of Christianity, I probably will include it, since I'm not averse to revisionism. We may not always agree with other peoples' versions of history, but if we don't hear their arguments, we may never if they're right or not. And anyway you can't have debates or discussions without some opposing views.

Some of you may have heard of David Irving, he's a revisionist historian (though he has no formal qualifications) who claims among other things that Hitler didn't know about the death camps, and that it was logistically impossible to kill as many as the rest of western civilisation says were killed in said camps.

In reality, he's a Nazi sympathiser, increasingly rightwing and more than willing to "share his views" with neo-Nazi groups and skinheads. And in my opinion, he's a thoroughly odious man because of it.

But if he provides credible evidence to back up his claims, then we should at least consider them, if only until other more qualified historians can rip them to shreds (which, God willing, should happen very, very soon*).


* Irving is apparently suing another historian for liable after she called him a liar in her book. Since truth is an absolute defence against defamation, that is what her lawyers will be arguing. Should she win, it will result in Irving's work being publicly discredited.

As Voltaire (supposedly) said "I disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it."

GB, while keeping in mind what I've just said, you'll excuse me if I give your Entry a less inflammatory title, say "Christianity Examined".

No es problema, Mustapha. If the PTB actually accept the article, I'm sure the title will be only one of the things to get axed.

Well, looks like I've got a double request for those other articles, so I'd best get cracking!

So is there any interest in the music-orientated articles?

Oops! Sorry if it looks like I'm over-publising my work - must have hit the button too many times in a frenzy of excitement.

Oops, sorry Mike! While my memory for things several hundred years ago is quite considerable, my memory for things more recent (such as where I left my wallet and driver's licence) is quite appalling. I just took a squiz at them and they're pretty good. I'll get on to it!

Nice!

I like to think so!

I'm bit-by-bit doing the history of the Isle of Wight, so far I've got an article on Henrican Castles on the Isle of Wight at:
http://www.h2g2.com/A248889

Preliminar version on the Nag Hammadi library is now at http://www.h2g2.com/A250426 .

Some additional info for ya, GB.

A list of some of the texts found at Nag Hammadi:

The Nag Hammadi Library: Allogenes (means Stranger or Alien), The Nature of the Archons, On the Origin of the World, The Book of Thomas the Contender, The Gospel of the Egyptians, Eugnostos the Blessed, The Apocalypse of Adam, The Thunder: Perfect Mind, The Concept of Our Great Power, The Dialogue on the Eighth and Ninth, The Paraphrase of Shem, The Three Steles of Seth, Zostrianos, Marsanes, Trimorphic Protennoia

And a link where you can go and have a bit of a read of them (at the Yashuan Archives), or you might want put it in the Entry so that others can do the same.

http://members.xoom.com/book_archive/01/indx.html

I'm aware of the other tractates (I have the entire volume sitting on my desk as I write this. Not the originals, of course. ), however, I felt that a comprehensive list would fail to add any extra enlightenment to the average reader. So I stuck to the highlights. The link is a good idea, though.

Mmm-hmm. They do make interesting, if incoherent, reading.

I think the Alchemy link is misplaced...although many scientists have been alchemists, it's more a theology/philosophy than anything else.

It probably deserves to be in both. While Western Alchemy did have some spiritual applications, its general purpose was to divine the nature of the cosmos and the world around them, regardless of what they believed that world to consist of. And they experimented and observed the results as any chemist would today.

Modern science didn't suddenly spring up over night, it grew out of a large body of research arrived at through trial and a great deal of error. Should I exclude an Entry from the Medicinal History on the work of Hippocrates or Avicenna, simply because some of their ideas on human physiology were way off the mark? Of course not. You have to know what went before, in order to understand how we arrived at present-day conclusions.

Now, if it were an Entry on Eastern Alchemy (Chinese, Indian) then I probably would be more tempted to put it solely in the Theology/Philosophy section, since it deals more with the spirit, but then it also deals with the physical body (such as Yoga and Tai Chi), so I could just as easily put it into the Medicinal section.

Easy now...I was just suggesting that it may be mis-catalogued. I would be the last one to argue for excluding anything. And you do have a point, most of these articles could fall into more than one category. It was only a suggestion, anyway.

Well, I've done my duty as an inaugural member of the society. I gave it a plug in my weekly column on the H2G2 Post, and it should be published next week, probably Tuesday.

Sorry if I appeared overly defensive before, but I like to think I don't categorise willy-nilly. However the Society isn't cast in stone and some sections may be altered as they grow.

And thanks for the plug!

Mustapha I've just noticed that my Alfred the Great article has him listed as King of England, which he neve was because of the Danelaw holding the North and East. The correct tilte is King of West Saxons, as stated in my Subtitle.

Hi. You probably already saw this, as it is on the front page, but in case it passed you by, there's a short but interesting article on Homer you might want to include on the list. http://www.h2g2.com/A179642