Where does Crystal tokyo deconstruction come for

[Spica75]

We are presented with the Renaissance as a prosperous and happy society but it wasn't a utopia by any stretch of the imagination.

Prosperous and happy? The whole idea of the "renaissance" is almost complete and utter rubbish. It´s one of the classical myths of history.

A time of forced conformity and stagnation, religious fanaticism and persecution, built on the advances of the middle ages.

It was happy for the ruling class.

Not really.

[Crescent Pulsar S]

BZZZ WRONG. There are many example where this is NOT true.

A death that does not act as a definitive ending to life is not truly a death: that's more of a stumble on an endless path, a transitional event, not reaching the end of a road. Just because someone calls it "immortality" doesn't mean they're using it correctly. Take that centaur as an example of immortality. He wasn't subject to dying from poison, like a mortal would be. Rather than Zeus making it so he ceased to exist, he changed him so he lived on in another way. Osiris, too: he kept "dying," but ended up living on in the underworld. Izanami? Jesus? Spirits of people who live out the rest of eternity in the afterlife? There are tons of examples where immortality is accompanied by trivial/meaningless death.

As for Baldr, I'm pretty sure that his invulnerability was due to sworn oaths, not eating a fruit. He was vulnerable to the one thing that had not sworn to do him no harm. In addition to that, I do believe he is fated to be reborn in the new world following Ragnarok.

Also, as far as I recall, the fruit of which you speak did not grant immortality. It was a means of rejuvenation, to retain youth, so it wasn't a one and done deal. That's why the Aesir were so intent on getting Idun and her fruit back when they had been taken away from them.

[Maximara]

Maximara=BZZZ WRONG. There are many example where this is NOT true.


A death that does not act as a definitive ending to life is not truly a death: that's more of a stumble on an endless path, a transitional event, not reaching the end of a road. Just because someone calls it "immortality" doesn't mean they're using it correctly. Take that centaur as an example of immortality. He wasn't subject to dying from poison, like a mortal would be. Rather than Zeus making it so he ceased to exist, he changed him so he lived on in another way. Osiris, too: he kept "dying," but ended up living on in the underworld. Izanami? Jesus? Spirits of people who live out the rest of eternity in the afterlife? There are tons of examples where immortality is accompanied by trivial/meaningless death.

His name was Chiron and as with all the Greek-Roman myths there are variants. In the version retold by Hyginus in his De Astronomia the Hydra poison killed Chiron instantly.

As for Baldr, I'm pretty sure that his invulnerability was due to sworn oaths, not eating a fruit. He was vulnerable to the one thing that had not sworn to do him no harm. In addition to that, I do believe he is fated to be reborn in the new world following Ragnarok.

We are NOT talking about invulnerability but immortality and Norse mythology is quite clear on this: the god's immortality was due to eating the apples of Iðunn. (Freia). This in fact is a plot point in Der Ring des Nibelungen (The Ring of the Nibelung) be it the original tales, the opera, or the comic DC put out in 1989.

Also, as far as I recall, the fruit of which you speak did not grant immortality.

Yes it did.

"Idun ("She Who Renews") is the Norse Goddess of youth Who grows the magic apples of immortality that keep the Gods young."

"Norse Myths In Norse Myths immortality could be bestowed by special apples" - Ettington, Martin K. (2010) Physical Immortality Page 17

"Thjasse told Loke that he could not go unless he would promise to bring him the Apples of Idun. Loke was wicked enough for anything; but when it came to robbing the gods of their immortality, even he hesitated. " - Mabie, Hamilton Wright (2012, reprint of 1882 work) - Norse Mythology: Great Stories from the Eddas Page 39

"Greek, Roman and Norse mythologies all mention the “golden apples of immortality” in several legends." Teeter, Donald E. (2001) The Sacred Secret: the Return of the Christ

"his is paralleled with eating so many apples, for in Norse mythology the gods were immortal because they ate particular apples" - Ryan Dobran, ‎Josh Stanley, ‎Thomas Roebuck (2010) Glossator: Practice and Theory of the Commentary: Page 16

"Idun: Norse; keeper of apples of immortality." - Telesco, Patricia (2005) Kitchen Witch's Guide to Brews and Potions - Page 334

"Idun guarded the apples of immortality that kept the Norse gods young" - Burkhart, Dagmar (1984) Europäische Hochschulschriften

"She was very proud of her Apples, and she knew no earthly trees, however large and fair, bore the immortal fruit " - Mabie (1882)

Example after example of these apples giving the Norse gods immortality in the form of eternal youth but NOT the inability to be killed in battle can be found going back over 150 years.

I note that you didn't go near the other examples I providedL

The Highlanders can be killed but they are still called immortals.

The Sanjiyan Unkara of 3x3 Eyes in both the manga and anime are said to be immortal ("Sanjiyan Unkara beautiful in appearance an immortal three eye creature") but also able to die ("He whose life has been devoured shawl become one of the undead and his body shall never perish. His soul shall not be released until the Sanjiyan dies") - 3x3 Eyes Vol 1 Black Horse ISBN 1-56971-930-6

James Gunn in his The End of the Dreams has the short story "The Immortal" where at the end of the story the immortal is strangled to death.

DC had a character called Immortal Man who ever time he died "reincarnated" as someone else (actually body hopped). Strange thing is his immortality comes form the SAME source as Vandal Savage (a meteorite)

Then you have another DC immortal called Resurrection Man who stick is every time he dies he gets a different power set.

Face it example after example of immortality in the form of not aging rather then being totally unkillable appears again and again.

[Maximara]

Maximara=We are presented with the Renaissance as a prosperous and happy society but it wasn't a utopia by any stretch of the imagination.

Prosperous and happy? The whole idea of the "renaissance" is almost complete and utter rubbish. It´s one of the classical myths of history.

A time of forced conformity and stagnation, religious fanaticism and persecution, built on the advances of the middle ages.

Forced conformity and stagnation as well religious fanaticism and persecution also existed in the Middle Ages. The date for the Renaissance today varies from region to region but for a long time it was said to run from the fall of Constantinople in 1453 to the transformation of the Invisible College into the Royal Society in 1660.

John Wycliffe (1328 -1384) said many of the same things Luther would say in the Renaissance. Unlike Luther Wycliffe had no patron to go to to live in relative safety and spent his last days going from place to place to avoid the Church who very much wanted to kill him. 30 years after his death he was denounced as a heretic, his body exhumed and burned at the stake.

Jan Hus (1369-1415) was not so fortunate and was burned alive at the stake.

The translation of the Bible into local languages was forbidden throughout the Middle Ages.

In 1211 more than 80 Waldensians were burned as heretics at Strasbourg. In 1393 some 150 Waldensians were burned as heretics at Grenoble

Indulgences (the get out of Hell/Purgatory free card) had been around since the 6th century. All the printing press (a Renaissance development) did was allow the abuse these were prone to be more easily exploited.

Knights Templar were destroyed in 1307 (Middle Ages) via claims of apostasy (which means renouncing Christ), heresy, idolatry and even sodomy. The Church was more than happy to help Phillip IV destroy them for their money using method of torture that make the fictions attributed to the Renaissance Spanish Inquisition look pleasant by comparison.

Ironically the Renaissance Spanish Inquisition after Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros (Ximénes de Cisneros) 1500's house cleaning was the best court in Europe "Staffed by well-educated legal professionals, it was one of the most efficient and compassionate judicial bodies in Europe. No major court in Europe executed fewer people than the Spanish Inquisition" They in fact had the problem of people blaspheming to get into their court and out of the local secular ones. (Madden, Thomas F. "The Truth About the Spanish Inquisition"; (1994) "Myth of the Spanish Inquisition" BBC/A&E)

Joan of Arc (1429) was tried by her fellow Catholics who then violation of the rules for such trials and only 25 years later did the Church condemn her trial and death.

The Crusades (1095-1290) not only noted for the barbarity against other Christens and Mulims but the Jews as well. In fact, it was accounted that one would be Crusader commented why shoudl they go to the Holy Land when the killers of Christ were right there. What followed was a orgy of rape and killing rivaling any that would happen in the Holy land. As a historian commented 'What the Crusaders started in that village in the 12th century was finished by the Nazis in the 20th'

And then there is Richard I's slaughter of 2,700 Muslim prisoners for no other reason then it was taking too long for their ransom to be paid. It took three days to kill them all.

The idea that Middle Ages were any better in terms of forced conformity and stagnation or religious fanaticism and persecution then the Renaissance is delusional.

[Crescent Pulsar S]

His name was Chiron and as with all the Greek-Roman myths there are variants. In the version retold by Hyginus in his De Astronomia the Hydra poison killed Chiron instantly.

Oh, yes, one contradicting variant trumps all others. That makes perfect sense.

We are NOT talking about invulnerability but immortality and Norse mythology is quite clear on this: the god's immortality was due to eating the apples of Iðunn. (Freia). This in fact is a plot point in Der Ring des Nibelungen (The Ring of the Nibelung) be it the original tales, the opera, or the comic DC put out in 1989.

Of course we are, because I followed your lead. Don't give an example of someone dying in connection to something having to do with oaths and not expect me to follow up on it. You should have kept your example apple-specific and not have anything else connected to the event. Don't blame me for the example chosen.

Yes it did.

Just so you know, just because people use a certain word doesn't mean it's used correctly. Even in the examples you gave, I've seen others use different words to describe the apples' affects. You can throw as many examples that support your own view as you like, but it's ultimately just a bandwagon/popularity fallacy you're making: you're assuming you're right because of numbers.

Look, when you get right down to it, "immortal" literally means "not mortal." Now, tell me this: how are the Aesir not mortal if they need to eat these apples? How is that any different from a mortal needing to eat to ensure a prolonging of their life?

Even the first example that you gave is a clear indication of wrongness: one instance of renewal and two of youth. None of those concepts mean immortality. Staying young, or returning to youth, does not have anything to do with protecting or exempting one from death in general. They will only escape from death caused by aging. Hence, they are functionally ageless, not immortal.

Example after example of these apples giving the Norse gods immortality in the form of eternal youth but NOT the inability to be killed in battle can be found going back over 150 years.

And like I've stated a number of times before, if dying of age is the only type of death avoided, they're not truly immortal.

I note that you didn't go near the other examples I providedL

I didn't need to, and I would be a fool to allow myself to follow such a requirement to prove my point when it's not required. That, and I can't be guaranteed that there won't be a double standard or disregard for my efforts should I happen to "win" doing it your way.

Face it example after example of immortality in the form of not aging rather then being totally unkillable appears again and again.

Yes, I'm faced with a bunch of wrongfully-identified immortals. Even though the definition most strongly identifies with not dying and lasting eternally, and I've yet to see a dictionary that says anything about retaining youth in specific or dying in any way other than aging, people still use "immortal" incorrectly. There are more appropriate words to use for those who won't die from age but are still susceptible to death.

If you still disagree with me after all that, we should just do the agree to disagree thing. I'd rather not continue the argument at this point, in part because we've strayed from the main subject.

[Spica75]

Forced conformity and stagnation as well religious fanaticism and persecution also existed in the Middle Ages.

Really? I wonder how the cult of Isis could have its European high during that era then?

Or why it was during the middle ages that it was COMMON with 5-25% of populace in most areas being non-christian.

And religious conversion was rarely forced, instead things like the non-christian Yule were integrated as christmas to entice conversion...

Not to mention how different christian sects were somewhat plentiful, with the church ARGUING internally about which should be considered correct, rather than just enforcing the official version.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Renais ... t_progress
many historians now point out that most of the negative social factors popularly associated with the medieval period – poverty, warfare, religious and political persecution, for example – seem to have worsened in this era which saw the rise of Machiavellian politics, the Wars of Religion, the corrupt Borgia Popes, and the intensified witch-hunts of the 16th century. Many people who lived during the Renaissance did not view it as the "golden age" imagined by certain 19th-century authors

Johan Huizinga (1872–1945) acknowledged the existence of the Renaissance but questioned whether it was a positive change. In his book The Waning of the Middle Ages, he argued that the Renaissance was a period of decline from the High Middle Ages, destroying much that was important.

The Latin language, for instance, had evolved greatly from the classical period and was still a living language used in the church and elsewhere. The Renaissance obsession with classical purity halted its further evolution and saw Latin revert to its classical form.

Robert S. Lopez has contended that it was a period of deep economic recession.

Meanwhile George Sarton and Lynn Thorndike have both argued that scientific progress was perhaps less original than has traditionally been supposed

Finally, Joan Kelly argued that the Renaissance led to greater gender dichotomy, lessening the agency women had had during the Middle Ages.

Some historians have begun to consider the word Renaissance to be unnecessarily loaded, implying an unambiguously positive rebirth from the supposedly more primitive "Dark Ages" (Middle Ages). Many historians now prefer to use the term "Early Modern" for this period, a more neutral designation that highlights the period as a transitional one between the Middle Ages and the modern era.

The idea that Middle Ages were any better in terms of forced conformity and stagnation or religious fanaticism and persecution then the Renaissance is delusional.

Only if you do not actually know how much worse matters became later.

Instead of persecution happening, it became the norm.

[Maximara]

Maximara=Forced conformity and stagnation as well religious fanaticism and persecution also existed in the Middle Ages.

Really? I wonder how the cult of Isis could have its European high during that era then?

Or why it was during the middle ages that it was COMMON with 5-25% of populace in most areas being non-christian.

And religious conversion was rarely forced, instead things like the non-christian Yule were integrated as christmas to entice conversion...

Not to mention how different christian sects were somewhat plentiful, with the church ARGUING internally about which should be considered correct, rather than just enforcing the official version.

As James Burke points out in both Connections and Day the Universe Changed until the High Middle Ages (1200-1300) the majority of communities were isolated hamlets. Also the Late Middle Ages covers much the same period as the Early Renaissance (1300-1500) which is why there is much debate as to where one ends and the other begins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Renaissance#Debates_about_progress
many historians now point out that most of the negative social factors popularly associated with the medieval period – poverty, warfare, religious and political persecution, for example – seem to have worsened in this era which saw the rise of Machiavellian politics, the Wars of Religion, the corrupt Borgia Popes, and the intensified witch-hunts of the 16th century. Many people who lived during the Renaissance did not view it as the "golden age" imagined by certain 19th-century authors

Johan Huizinga (1872–1945) acknowledged the existence of the Renaissance but questioned whether it was a positive change. In his book The Waning of the Middle Ages, he argued that the Renaissance was a period of decline from the High Middle Ages, destroying much that was important.

The Latin language, for instance, had evolved greatly from the classical period and was still a living language used in the church and elsewhere. The Renaissance obsession with classical purity halted its further evolution and saw Latin revert to its classical form.

Robert S. Lopez has contended that it was a period of deep economic recession.

Meanwhile George Sarton and Lynn Thorndike have both argued that scientific progress was perhaps less original than has traditionally been supposed

Finally, Joan Kelly argued that the Renaissance led to greater gender dichotomy, lessening the agency women had had during the Middle Ages.

Some historians have begun to consider the word Renaissance to be unnecessarily loaded, implying an unambiguously positive rebirth from the supposedly more primitive "Dark Ages" (Middle Ages). Many historians now prefer to use the term "Early Modern" for this period, a more neutral designation that highlights the period as a transitional one between the Middle Ages and the modern era.

Please note that many of these things also fall into the Late Middle Age period (1300-1500)

As for corrupt Popes I refer to Terry Jones Medieval Lives where he talks about the dirty little secret at the heart of Medieval Christianity; the Palace of Paranoia that the Pope lived in where he quite literally had wealth stored under the floor. Also Popes so feared for their lives that meat had to be cut up for anyone dining with them because no one was to be in the Pope's presence with a knife.

And then there were the outlaws who did NOT rob from the rich to give to the poor but ransacked the country to fill their own pockets. As Jones says it was crime on a nightmare scale.

Then you have the knight. The Black Prince (1330 – 1376) who treatment of one town is as follows:

“You would then have seen pillagers, active to do mischief, running “through the town, slaying men, women, and children, according to their orders. It was a most melancholy business; for all ranks, ages and sexes cast themselves on their knees before the prince, begging for mercy; but he was so inflamed with passion and revenge that he listened to none, but all were put to the sword, wherever they could be found, even those who were not guilty: for I know not why the poor were not spared, who could not have had any part in this treason; but they suffered for it, and indeed more than those who had been the leaders of the treachery.
There was not that day in the city of Limoges any heart so hardened, or that had any sense of religion, who did not deeply bewail the unfortunate events passing before their eyes; for upwards of three thousand men, women and children were put to death that day. ”

Then there were the free companies (bands of knights who fought for money). In 1377 Sir John Hawkwood, under direct contract to Cardinal Roberto, was ordered to slaughter the entire village of Cesena by the Cardinal even after the Cardinal had promised amnesty if they disarmed (which they did). It was said by contemporary Francho Sacchetti that Hawkwood so successfully managed his affairs that there was little peace in Italy in his time.

“It would be hard to argue that Norman knights were more violent or bloodthirsty than other warriors throughout human history, or that chivalric knights like William Marshal or the Black Prince were less bloodthirsty than mercenary captains like Sir John Hawkwood. But in the fourteenth century people felt something had changed with the commercialization of warfare.” (Alan Ereira & Terry Jones. “Terry Jones' Medieval Lives.”)

I should mention Johan Huizinga died before a more detailed study of the Middle ages had really begun (investigation into the Children's Crusade of 1212 didn't happen until 1977 for example); the same is true of George Sarton (dead 1956),and Lynn Thorndike (dead 1965). Even Robert S. Lopex was dead (1986) before the massive research binge into the Middle Age of the 1990s occurred. So all your counterexample are from people using what is now known to be out of date information. Oops.

Maximara=Maximara=The idea that Middle Ages were any better in terms of forced conformity and stagnation or religious fanaticism and persecution then the Renaissance is delusional.

Only if you do not actually know how much worse matters became later.

Instead of persecution happening, it became the norm.

Cathar heresy resulted in yet another Crusade (1209–1229) and in its 20 year period saw depending on who you ask some 100,000 to 1,000,000 dead heretics in its wake. The often referenced statement 'kill them all and God will sort it out' (actually "Kill them all, God will know His own.") comes from this little Middle Age incident.

Persecution was the norm in the Middle Ages as well:

In the First Crusade (1096) flourishing communities on the Rhine and the Danube were utterly destroyed, a prime example being the Rhineland massacres.

In the Second Crusade (1147) the Jews in France were subject to frequent massacres.

The Jews were also subjected to attacks by the Shepherds' Crusades of 1251 and 1320. The Crusades were followed by expulsions, including in 1290, the banishing of all English Jews; in 1396, 100,000 Jews were expelled from France; and, in 1421 thousands were expelled from Austria. Many of the expelled Jews fled to Poland.

The Jews were blamed for the Black Death resulting in a ramping up of persecution beginning in 1348 and culminated in the Brussels massacre (1370) where the entire Jewish community of that city was wiped out.

As Terry Jones shows in his other series Crusades you had what amounted to a bunch of homicidal maniacs who had been told that they "could kill for God" and if they went on this Crusade all sins would be absolved. In fact the extreme religious fanaticism and persecution demonstrated by the Crusaders resulted in an equal religious fanaticism and persecution from their Islamic victims...which is with us to this day. ISIS and its ilk are grandchildren of the Middle Ages NOT the Renaissance as is the Holocaust.

[Maximara]

Just so you know, just because people use a certain word doesn't mean it's used correctly

"He edited the society's journal Iduna (named after the Old Norse goddess who provided Valhalla with the apples of immortality)" Sawyer, Peter (2001) The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings - Page 236

"Although Haustlöng calls Idun the “maiden who understood the eternal life of the æsir” but does not mention the apples, in Snorri's version of the story Idun's apples clearly function as a symbol of the immortality of the gods." Lindow, John (2002) Norse Mythology: A Guide to Gods, Heroes, Rituals, and Beliefs Oxford University Press

"Idun was young and beautiful and she supplied the gods with magic apples that gave them their immortality" Andrews, Tamra (2000) Dictionary of Nature Myths pg 175

So you are saying OXFORD UNIVERSITY doesn't use the words "immortality" and "Immortal" correctly?!?

"We see this in numerous myths, from the apples tended by the goddess Idunn that kept the Norse gods [i]immortal and healthy[/i]" Stuart-Hamilton, Ian (2011) An Introduction to Gerontology Cambridge University Press.

So you are saying CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY doesn't use the words "immortality" and "Immortal" correctly?!?

"...gnaw the roots of Yggdrasil, the world tree, as well as Freya's tree of golden apples which confer immortality upon the gods, ..."

Smith, Evans Lansing (1997) "The Hero Journey in Literature: Parables of Poesis" University Press of America Page 250

So you are saying that University Press of America which has "delivered high-quality research and textbooks into the hands of students and faculty in a timely manner since its founding in 1975" doesn't use the words "immortality" and "Immortal" correctly?!?

"For the golden apples break the spell of the fear of death— the fear of passing with the passage of time— and unite the will with its proper aim. They are the fare that sloughs away mortality. They are the sustenance of the immortals" Zimmer, Heinrich Robert ; ‎Joseph Campbell (1971) The King and the Corpse: Tales of the Soul's Conquest of Evil Princeton University Press Page 47

So you are saying PRINCETON UNIVERSITY and JOSEPH CAMPBELL don't use the words "immortality" and "Immortal" correctly?!?

Face it, the most notable universities in the Western world along with the man who literally defined mythology in the 20th century as well as others understood there are different forms of being immortal. So what is your problem in understanding that?

[Crescent Pulsar S]

Are you saying that they're infallible? That they've never made a mistake before? In addition to that, are you assuming that they observe absolute accuracy for every little detail? Because "immortal" is a word with a history of being used loosely for simplicity's sake (because of the various forms and factors surrounding a particular existence), even though its definition is quite specific, and these instances aren't focused on the subject of immortality in particular. After all, are they even correct in their usage of (golden) apples? I remember hearing something about there not being any apples introduced to the people in that region of the world at the time that this particular mythology had been wrought.

The only example that used it correctly, in another fashion, is the last one: by calling the Aesir immortals. Which simply implies that they're not mortals, as in beings separate/above/beyond/different from us. But, even in that one, they illustrate that the apples, which must continue to be eaten to maintain its effects, only wards away aging, and a lack of aging doesn't guarantee living forever or allow them to escape from death beyond aging. Again, how is having to eat in order to extend one's time alive any different from what a mortal does?

And what I understand is that I've rarely had a good relationship with authority, so I'm not particularly fond of the appeal to authority fallacy. Really, you make a lot of appeals. Ever thought of using your own words as the foundation for your argument? At worst I'll still disagree with you, which will place you on the same level as these places and people that you seem to hold in high regard. Either way, we've disagreed yet again and continue to derail the topic, so just consider this post my final words on this particular matter.