<HTML>Yes, I think Mark's assessment (esp. the second part) is exactly right. I take a somewhat dimmer view of it: it is a cheap rhetorical powerplay for the loyalty and sympathy of the reader (as Mark's presentation puts it). Once that loyalty has been secured, the power of suggestion can be used throughout the work to establish things that cannot be shown from evidence or argued from reason. All you have to do is see how often certain parties on certain other sites instantly play the "victim" card to see how much of their "work" depends on that loyalty, rather than on any cogency of argument or testimony of evidence. It is essential for the maintenance of their support base.
Although I do not agree with Litz's position, I see where he is coming from. My view, however, is that investigation of history is far better served by a fact-based, rational approach than one based on people's personal spiritual sensitivities. To my mind, the latter has led us in the past down very unpleasant paths, and still is in certain parts of the world. This is because a history based on one's spiritual sensitivity is nothing more than bald assertion or untestable innuendo.
So let's do a test, pitting the "fact-based" against the "spiritual sensitivity" approach. This has been done at Tiwanaku. On the one side, there is the hard evidence of excavation, artifactual finds, C-14 dates, field surveys, and so on. On the other are "feelings" of certain people that the site is older. The latter, surely, is a "spiritually sensitive" interpretation of the site. Litz would place both approaches on the same plane (I think, from what he writes). I do not. I think the "feelings" in the face of such hard evidence are worthless, untestable assertions and following them leads us to gurus revealing "the truth" from their spiritual intuition. Frankly and plainly, that looks like the Dark Ages to me.
What I find so attractive and democratic about fact-based science is its utter even-handedness in dealing with propositions: all are held up to the same standard, all are levelled in the face of the basic question: "show me the evidence." With Litz's spiritual approach, this is out of the question. You cannot test someone's spirituality for plausibility. History also tells us unequivocally that people are very unwilling to change their spiritual intuition. So you end up with camps, with schisms, and with creed wars. Welcome to the Middle Ages. In contrast, scientists change their opinions on the matters they investigate readily and immediately.
Another test. Please name the last time scientists marched en masse in Washington, DC demanding that outdated physics (or history) books be banned or science-fiction movies censored? It's never happened. This is because disagreement is harnessed in science as an essential element of the process of discovery, but it can be fatal among the spiritually attuned.
Just my view.
Best,
Garrett</HTML>
