Talk:The Cosmic Serpent/Archives/2022

Synopsis
The book argued that modern scientific understandings of DNA have been known to indigenous people for thousands of years and learned by shamans through ritual.[5] Narby documents his years of research, including his own ingestion of ayahuasca

So, someone had drug-induced hallucinations and wrote them down, calling that activity "research". OK, whatever. But if it is worded like this - "documents his years of research" - readers will ask themselves "and what did the editors smoke?" We need to adhere to WP:NPOV and not call it "research" in Wikipedia voice. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You’re not wrong, but it is a particular genre of its own, with lots of notable authors (Terence McKenna, Benny Shanon, Graham Hancock, etc.). I think the actual research he is talking about has more to do with the indigenous cultural practices of the region where he studied, not his drug experiences and strange reportage. Viriditas (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * He was in the Amazon doing research, and gßot a PhD at the end of it, and that is well documented by the sources, so I think it's fair to call it research. CT55555 (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Defining his drugs trips as part of his reasearch is fair? When he ate, slept, and shat there, was that also research? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hob, if the distinction isn’t already made, be WP:BOLD. Viriditas (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, in the page about the aauthor. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Prior use of "The Cosmic Serpent" as a book title
This page should be a disambiguation menu rather than a redirect. See: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/206946.The_Cosmic_Serpent

https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/seri/IrAJ./0016//0000178.000.html

Bkobres (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Redirecting this page was not a good choice. There is another searchable heading on Wikipedia titled "Cosmic serpents" on the page Serpent symbolism plus there is the 1982 publication by British astrophysicists Victor Clube and William Napier with the same title as this page. Bkobres (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah Hobbit or whatever name you chose to hide your actual identity with, you remind me of why I so seldom contribute to Wikipedia anymore: Arrogant, snide remarks from anonymous editors. Anyway, if you're actually interested in diminishing the influence of various Abrahamic sky-god cults as your user page suggests you should familiarize yourself with the work of Clube and Napier and others who have studied the Taurid debris streams over the last several decades. The origin of the notion of a wrathful god that dwelt in the sky and periodically caused havoc is best explained as the result of the long term interactions of very large comet in a short period orbit that occasionally pelted earth with debris as it progressively broke up over several thousand years. There is increasing physical evidence for this scenario both from ongoing astronomical observation as well as detection of impact proxies in ice and sediment cores.

http://web.archive.org/web/20001019044105/http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/religr.html

Where I placed the topic heading is not significant. You did not comment on the issue I was trying to address. Such discourteous responses from anonymous editors has eroded participation from people, such as myself, who were initially very enthusiastic about an open encyclopedia. Bkobres (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * A good interim solution is to add to the heading of Jeremy Narby, and create the proposed dab from that link. After you’ve done that, you can fix the links. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I just moved your contribution to the bottom where it belongs. If you have a problem with rules or with people correcting your mistakes, you are in the wrong place.
 * is best explained as the result of No it isn't. People do not need such a reason to invent gods; they have invented thousands of them. Amateurish fantasies like Narby's or yours are no better than the idea that the gods are real.
 * But this is not the place for propagating your weird ideas anyway, this is the place for improving the article. Since the article is a redirect, there is nothing to improve, so please stop. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)