|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Archetypes: Natural or Artificial? | |||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
SG writes:
I don't recall ever saying that it did.
HM writes:
Force has nothing to do with emotion. When we speak of mechanics we speak of mass, length and time, which are the fundamental units of motion. You know that. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
onfire writes:
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. 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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Woodsy Member (Idle past 3374 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Woodsy writes:
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 writes:
I do not agree with this. Nothing that science ever discovered came without an intuitive hypothesis regarding the matter at hand. Have you ever studied quantum mechanics? It is horrifyingly counter-intuitive. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024