Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Archetypes: Natural or Artificial?
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 23 (484778)
10-01-2008 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Fosdick
09-28-2008 4:42 PM


Re: Archetypes transcend modern science
When we speak of mechanics we speak of mass, length and time, which are the fundamental units of motion. You know that.
Yes, I am aware of this. Although it does not connect with the rest of the discussion.
When we speak of mechanics we speak of mass, length and time, which are the fundamental units of motion. You know that.
Force has nothing to do with emotion. I'm not going to start debating the truth of a fact which has been established since the Renaissance.
Are you saying that pyramid builders, spear makers, and chariot drivers had no concept of force? Are you saying that a cave man didn't know the difference between a small stone and large rock when either one was dropped on his toe? I'm saying he knew quite well that the rock would hurt more than the stone because he already knew instinctively about the direct relationship between mass and force.
Obviously the ancients were not stupid, but they did not have the scientific concept of Force. Force in the scientific sense is not like Force in the intuitive sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Fosdick, posted 09-28-2008 4:42 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Fosdick, posted 10-01-2008 5:56 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 17 of 23 (484782)
10-01-2008 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Fosdick
09-28-2008 8:22 PM


Re: Archetypes transcend modern science
Hoot Mon writes:
But I'm saying that ancients also had a worthy appreciation of force, work, inertia, momentum, power, control, etc., long before Newtonian physics came along.
I would say that the reason humans are able to come up with Newtonian physics, and/or understand it, is because the notions of force, work, momentum, etc, are inhernet in humans.
Humans are able to understand, and come up with such equations as, F =ma because we worked are way forward from the first notions of using our whole bodies to push on something rather than just our hands to gain more force behind an object. But to equate the actual understanding of why an object pushed from a cliff falls toward the ground takes a much more fundamental understanding of physics, something the ancients did not have a concept of, therefore I don't see how they could have named the Zodiac after the actual fundamental forces of physics.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Fosdick, posted 09-28-2008 8:22 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Fosdick, posted 10-01-2008 6:34 PM onifre has replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 18 of 23 (484786)
10-01-2008 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Son Goku
10-01-2008 5:03 PM


Re: Archetypes transcend modern science
SG writes:
HM writes:
When we speak of mechanics we speak of mass, length and time, which are the fundamental units of motion. You know that.
Force has nothing to do with emotion.
I don't recall ever saying that it did.
Obviously the ancients were not stupid, but they did not have the scientific concept of Force. Force in the scientific sense is not like Force in the intuitive sense.
Force in the scientific sense needed force in the intuitive sense as a predecessor. Nothing that science ever discovered came without an intuitive hypothesis regarding the matter at hand.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Son Goku, posted 10-01-2008 5:03 PM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Woodsy, posted 10-01-2008 7:33 PM Fosdick has replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 19 of 23 (484790)
10-01-2008 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by onifre
10-01-2008 5:42 PM


Re: Archetypes transcend modern science
onfire writes:
I would say that the reason humans are able to come up with Newtonian physics, and/or understand it, is because the notions of force, work, momentum, etc, are inherent in humans.
It's that inherent part that makes me wonder about archetypes. I think it was possible for ancient humans to appreciate force, for example, as something of an animal god at first”say, the lion”before they woke up to science. The zodiac is only a primitive devise to ascertain cause and effect. Yes, it's stupid today, but so is exorcism and blood letting. It's what we did until we learnt better.
As for the zodiac: it's bunk, of course, but it's also not really a bad start on cause-and-effect inquiries. Consider how the lives of humans, both ancient and modern, are affected by the mechanics of the earth, the moon, and the sun operating in a gravitational field. Their relative positions in space have huge implications on human life, and most other life as well. We get days and nights and seasons from them; they are part of us to our cores. The archetypes begin there and then eventually get resolved into more precise formulations.
So they made a few mistakes about the constellations. So what? Modern human still drink their savior's blood and pray for rain, or for WaMu to give them back their money.
But to equate the actual understanding of why an object pushed from a cliff falls toward the ground takes a much more fundamental understanding of physics, something the ancients did not have a concept of, therefore I don't see how they could have named the Zodiac after the actual fundamental forces of physics.
How do you suppose ancient people invented the water wheel without knowing something about force, even gravitational force. They didn't need Newton to tell them that F -ma in order to put the old mill stream into service.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by onifre, posted 10-01-2008 5:42 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by onifre, posted 10-01-2008 10:19 PM Fosdick has replied

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 20 of 23 (484810)
10-01-2008 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Fosdick
10-01-2008 5:56 PM


Re: Archetypes transcend modern science
Nothing that science ever discovered came without an intuitive hypothesis regarding the matter at hand.
I do not agree with this.
Have you ever studied quantum mechanics? It is horrifyingly counter-intuitive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Fosdick, posted 10-01-2008 5:56 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Fosdick, posted 10-01-2008 8:10 PM Woodsy has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 21 of 23 (484813)
10-01-2008 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Woodsy
10-01-2008 7:33 PM


Re: Archetypes transcend modern science
Woodsy writes:
HM writes:
Nothing that science ever discovered came without an intuitive hypothesis regarding the matter at hand.
I do not agree with this.
Have you ever studied quantum mechanics? It is horrifyingly counter-intuitive.
You probably know more than I do about QM, Woodsy. So, I'll ask you: What is so counter-intuitive about entanglement? I could easily argue that action-at-a-distance is an ancient intuition.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Woodsy, posted 10-01-2008 7:33 PM Woodsy has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 22 of 23 (484823)
10-01-2008 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Fosdick
10-01-2008 6:34 PM


Re: Archetypes transcend modern science
Hoot Mon writes:
I think it was possible for ancient humans to appreciate force, for example, as something of an animal god at first”say, the lion”before they woke up to science. The zodiac is only a primitive devise to ascertain cause and effect.
I don't think the Zodiac was that deep. I think you are basing that hypothesis using todays understanding of physics.
As for the zodiac: it's bunk, of course, but it's also not really a bad start on cause-and-effect inquiries. Consider how the lives of humans, both ancient and modern, are affected by the mechanics of the earth, the moon, and the sun operating in a gravitational field. Their relative positions in space have huge implications on human life, and most other life as well. We get days and nights and seasons from them; they are part of us to our cores. The archetypes begin there and then eventually get resolved into more precise formulations.
I see how you would draw this hypothesis but again, I feel it is because we understand the forces better and can make those connections, but I don't think they did. At least I don't see any other evidence for it from other sources.
How do you suppose ancient people invented the water wheel without knowing something about force, even gravitational force. They didn't need Newton to tell them that F -ma in order to put the old mill stream into service
This brings us back to it being an inherently human trait to understand the basics of physics in nature. I would say they knew that it did it, but not why it did it.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Fosdick, posted 10-01-2008 6:34 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Fosdick, posted 10-02-2008 12:15 PM onifre has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 23 of 23 (484868)
10-02-2008 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by onifre
10-01-2008 10:19 PM


Archetypes in Human History
onfire writes:
This brings us back to it being an inherently human trait to understand the basics of physics in nature. I would say they knew that it did it, but not why it did it.
onfire, what you say is probably true, but I doubt if any scientist today could say that he or she knows why gravity works the way it does, or even why it exists. I certainly don’t know why. But it’s still there, and we have to deal with how it occurs in nature. But we don't need to dicker over the whys and hows.
The zodiac is a dubious example of archetypes, I know, but I like its gravitational implications. It has seasons, which I see all over the place as archetypal in human affairs. So, let’s forget the zodiac and focus on a different venue of archetypal inquiry: human history and generations
There is an interesting theory about human generations that employs seasonal archetypes to explain political, economic, and lifestyle trends affecting any durable civilization, such as America (for the time being, at least). William Strauss & Neil Howe’s The Fourth Turning (1997) provides a seasonal explanation for the occurrence of four generational types in a “saeculum,” or a complete generational cycle ("year"), comprising four seasonal cohort groupings:
the “Prophet” or “Idealist” (springtime),
the “Nomad” or “Reactive” (summer),
the “Hero” or “Civic” (autumn), and
the “Artist” or “Adaptive” (winter).
When a saeculum comes to its end there is a great crisis as the winter storms set rage on and set the stage for the next saeculum. Thus springtime sprouts anew with the next round of Prophets.
A seaculum last roughly 80 years; and its four generations are roughly 20 years long (please allow for considerable variance). As such, America's current saeculum is heading into winter, which is about what I see outside my window. And I take notice that 1929 occurred 79 years ago. If Strauss & Howe's theory has predictive value then I'd say we are on the brink of the next Great Depression. (BTW: this matter is discussed quite intelligently on the The Fourth Turning forum.)
So, I take notice of seasonal archetypes that come from gravitational circumstances. And I am left with a conviction that physical circumstances impose archetypal morphologies on human affairs that can be well enough understood to serve as predictive models.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by onifre, posted 10-01-2008 10:19 PM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024