Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
If you liked the "Raft..." you might also like "The judgment of Paris" by Ross King. King is a bit less academic but it's a fine insight into 19th c. French painting particularly Realism and Impressionism and the battles of the Salon. Good stuff.
|
|
cintune
climber
Bruce Berry's Econoline Van
|
|
Yes, easy to see you don't get it. I can only say with certainty that consolation is something experienced by the living.
Sometimes. Are we all to be calmed with fabrications like children, then? Did Fido really go to that farm in the country?
Unlike you, I really have no idea what happens after death. If you know, then you are in rarified company with the likes of Christ, Orpheus and Gilgamish and other religious figures who approached the subject with certainty.
Sure, in retrospect they did. Another epochal benefit of myth: it can be really convenient.
I suppose It's good to know what is literally true about death and as well, to be able to find the humor in depictions of dead children. I'm just not there yet.
Well just keep working on it, laddie.
|
|
cintune
climber
Bruce Berry's Econoline Van
|
|
Myth is convenient because it claims authority by virtue of revealed wisdom. That's more to the point of this thread topic.
Not exactly sure what the rant about popular culture was about. "Know the difference" between what? Venerated myth and cheesy hack work? But the intertextuality of Raft of the Medusa, really? It was the Star Wars of its time: despised by the Classicists.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
If you just look at the rocks, and try to take it all in, there were three really interesting events that have happened to life on Earth, and evidence for them is not rare at all. The three events are:
1) The beginning of life.
2) The appearance of complex, or metazoan, life.
3) The appearance of intelligent life.
Of the three, the first happened very quickly. Almost as soon as the Earth cooled down. In contrast, complex life took over 3 billion years (and far more generations of life) to evolve. After complex life evolved, it took a little over half a billion years for intelligence to evolve, or Humans, anyway. I still consider some other animals as intelligent. It is only a matter of degree. Modern humans are, say, 9000 generations old. Not enough time to evolve much, but there is variety among humans.
It is hard to draw conclusions from a sample size of one, but the fact that life began so readily seems to imply that it was easy. We might find out that simple life is very common throughout the universe. This is very much an open question, and an active area of research, but we are limited again to a sample size of one. It is hard to draw sweeping conclusions from a small sample, no matter what the evidence looks like. Many of the basic "organic" building blocks of life have been found in meteorites that pre-date the Earth, suggesting that these chemicals existed in the very early Earth, or arrived on meteorites. I suggest further reading, if you are interested. The fact remains that life did begin very early in the Earth's history, however it was all simple, unicellular life. It continued, without any great changes, for 3 billion years.
Life changed the Earth's atmosphere from an N2-CO2 rich earth to an N2-O2 rich one. The evidence of that event is also common. This event is also well dated to 2.5 billion years ago. Oddly, oxygen was likely poisonous to many types of life, and its appearance probably caused one of the first extinction events. We owe oxygen to cyanobacteria. See The Great Oxygenation.
Oxygen reacts readily with various minerals as well as organic matter, so if life ended today, the free oxygen would be chemically bound relatively quickly. Don't buy the Star Trek version that every other atmosphere would contain oxygen. If our telescopes improve to the point where we can determine atmospheric constituents of other planets, the presence of Oxygen will be a big red flag that life may exist on that planet.
What happened to all of the CO2? It was deposited in thick beds of carbonate rocks which circle the planet. An incredible amount of Carbon is locked up in limestones, and it was deposited either chemically or organically, depending on the rock. It is still being deposited to this day, mainly as calcium carbonate.
Prior to the Cambrian Explosion, which took place fairly recently (550 million years ago), complex life began after, say, 30 billion generations, if you say that a primitive bacteria divided every couple of hours.
Intelligent life began to shape up after the Cretaceous extinction. I'm not aware of a large brained dinosaur. It is more common in mammals, however. From this, we emerged. We weren't designed. A long line of hominid ancestors fill in the blanks, but fruitful research is still going on in this area.
I suspect MikeL will accuse me of falling for a paradigm. Perhaps. Some of this information has such universal support in the rock record that the answer seems obvious, but seemingly obvious theories get re-worked or punted fairly regularly in science.
That is one of the strengths of science.
Ed brought up the Cold Fusion topic. It is interesting reading. The original scientists were cautious about releasing their methods, and nobody has been able to recreate them, despite many millions of dollars worth of tries. Their reluctance to share their apparatus and findings led to a reproduction of efforts that went far beyond redundancy.
Wiki has a great page on Cold Fusion and its history and controversy. Mike would enjoy it, and the intrigue behind it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Sometimes. Are we all to be calmed with fabrications like children, then? Did Fido really go to that farm in the country?
The idea that a myth or a religion is similar to a fabrication for children exposes a real lack of understanding. Religion/myth links us to the psyche, what it is to be human, the responsibility associated with being human. It's tied to the philosophical understanding of our meaning, that is, the meaning we have created for our selves in this strange situation we inhabit. Myth isn't a move away from reality, it's a means of integrating ourselves to what is real in life and what would otherwise be intolerable. The point is not to be calmed it is to make sense and live.
It was the Star Wars of its time: despised by the Classicists.
You're kidding, right?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Act I. Sc. iv
Fool. Mark it nuncle;
Have more than thou showest,
Speak less than thou knowest,
Lend less than thou owest,
Ride more than thou goest,
Learn more than thou throwest,
Set less than thou throwest,
Leave thy drink and thy whore,
And keep in-a-door,
And thou shalt have more
Than two tens to a score.
maybe if we taught Shakespeare and 1+1=3 to middle schoolers we'd have less teenage pregnancy ;)
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Ed,
I hope you didn't think I was accusing you - or any other scientist - of scientism. I was actually venturing a bit afield of the stated topic - science vs. religion - and more toward some of the epistemological issues Paul, in particular, has been discussing. Having just come from the movies, I just saw the picture as funny and, as I blatantly stated, possible trolling material.
John
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
Base, Thanks for that last post. It was wonderful!
The scientific mind is indubitably a place of discovery and wonder. It is full with beginner's' mind* - that we explore the edges of what is known, that we have to observe closely to discern as accurately as we possibly can what is going on, that we have to be willing to drop something that we held as true if the evidence makes it apparent that which we had held is true is false, to continually be willing to be wrong and learn.
Think of the wave of light that reaches our retina from a possibly now dead star to trigger recognition within us. Think of each breath carrying oxygen to be carried by our red blood cells to enventually reaching the mitochondria within each living cell of our body to trigger production of energy through aerobic glycolysis. To pursue it is to see the magic of reality all around us and to constantly delight in the experience!
* Shoshin (初心) is a concept in Zen Buddhism meaning "beginner's mind". It refers to having an attitude of openness, eagerness, and lack of preconceptions when studying a subject, even when studying at an advanced level, just as a beginner in that subject would. The term is especially used in the study of Zen Buddhism and Japanese martial arts. ~ from Wikipedia.
|
|
cintune
climber
Bruce Berry's Econoline Van
|
|
Sometimes. Are we all to be calmed with fabrications like children, then? Did Fido really go to that farm in the country?
The idea that a myth or a religion is similar to a fabrication for children exposes a real lack of understanding. Religion/myth links us to the psyche, what it is to be human, the responsibility associated with being human. It's tied to the philosophical understanding of our meaning, that is, the meaning we have created for our selves in this strange situation we inhabit. Myth isn't a move away from reality, it's a means of integrating ourselves to what is real in life and what would otherwise be intolerable. The point is not to be calmed it is to make sense and live.
That's a whole lotta apologia. Asserting that that personal tragedy would be "intolerable" without recourse to some integrative language of symbols, well... great if it works for you (and other untold millions). I've never advocated scrapping magical thinking altogether, just not basing public policy on it. Which again, was the original point of this thread's existence.
It was the Star Wars of its time: despised by the Classicists.
Your kidding, right?
Only a little bit. It's been a while since I did a bunch of research on the Raft for an article that focused on Savigny, but found a good summary of the painting's pop cultural odyssey here:
http://vicusyd.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/stagingraftofmedusa.pdf
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
The scientific mind is indubitably a place of discovery and wonder.
It is full with beginner's' mind*
What a joke.
Their motto is: "There is no need for truth or God."
Modern science has no beginners mind at all.
It's steeped heavily in scientism.
The western greats like Nicole Tesla, Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Capra, etc. are some of the few who are free from that scientism.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
I hope you didn't think I was accusing you - or any other scientist - of scientism.
What does scientism mean to you? Is there anyone you would accuse of scientism? Do you see it as one of the epistemological issues in the religion versus science debate?
As a fan of science (but not an enemy of religion) I naturally have a tremendous capacity for abstract thinking, but appreciate the occasional concrete example, too, when trying to understand someone else's point of view.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
I've never advocated scrapping magical thinking altogether, just not basing public policy on it. Which again, was the original point of this thread's existence.
Symbols don't need to be read as magical. What is the symbolic meaning of God? The Buddha in the earth touching posture? Christ on the cross? The Virgin birth? You just see these as falsities when they can be read as insights into what it is to be human and as ideas they are revelations of the psyche that reconcile or console us. And, yes, to dismiss these religious ideas as simply "magical thinking" is scientism.
The Raft helps usher in the Romantic period, a new way of thinking in all the arts: think Chopin, Keats, Delacroix. The painting relies heavily on classical notions as well, it was selected into the Salon and won a gold medal by the rather conservative jury. It was not without controversy and was derided by some neo-classicists but there is quality and then there is quality. Comparing it to Star Wars is as close to magical thinking as anything on this thread.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Sycorax:
if it’s the same article that I read years ago, Bloom’s analysis of Lear is perhaps the best discussion of the issues of succession I have come across. I’ve tried to suggest it to clients a few times who were considering turning over their businesses, but was never taken up on it. “What the heck would Shakespeare know about business?”
Ah, Paul, I sometimes think you’re on a fool’s errand trying to enrich narrow minds of life’s rich profundities. What’s nice about beating your head against the wall is when you stop.
Base:
I don’t accuse you for “falling for a paradigm.” I suggest that you simply can’t admit that you have one.
There are strengths in everything, . . . as well as weaknesses.
MF: Mu.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I sometimes think you’re on a fool’s errand trying to enrich narrow minds of life’s rich profundities.
it is fun to actually think what MikeL is saying to Paul here... and the presumption of who has a "narrow mind" in the context of this thread.
if ignorance of important cultural works is a measure, we who post here probably have more familiarity with the literary and artistic works than with the science and mathematical works...
Paul cannot even fathom that an idea from the science and mathematical realm could be regarded on the same scale as a work by Picasso or Shakespeare.
But if we are looking at the depth of creativity and the beauty of what is produced, exalting as Paul often does in the marvel of human intelligence, beauty and artistry, there are ideas that lead to sublime work.
In the documentary film Particle Fever, showing the run up to and the discovery of the Higgs Boson (which has been of central interest to the physics community since the 1970's), the day of the CERN seminar at which the results were presented had Peter Higgs in the audience to hear the results. Higgs was one of the theorists that worked the details through, there were four or five (only two were awarded the Nobel Prize). Higgs, by all accounts, is a quiet British don who has retired to his cottage for quite a few years.
The film makers caught the post-seminar congratulations between Higgs and the Director General of CERN. Higgs' words were something to the effect "quite a lot for lifetime" to which the DG replied, "more than a lifetime." It was a very brief but moving scene for me, having lived my professional lifetime during the period from which the ideas were proposed to that discovery.
And, with all the hoopla, I suspect that few really know the profound nature of the work. It will not directly affect our lives for some times. It does enrich our understanding. It provides an interesting, contemporary story of the toil of humans to come to grips with the world around us.
In so many ways that modest documentary was a more appealing story than so much of modern story telling, at least in the medium of "film." For one, it had not a bit of violence in it, nor of overblown dramatic devices, not even very loud music...
...my point is that perhaps we have a very strange, argument going on here on the dominion of various ideas. It is focussed on a set of examples which are largely removed from mainstream culture, which, when abstracted down to the essence, has little in common with what we are discussing.
How odd that we could have such a passionate debate with one side accusing the other of lacking "breadth" (the accusation is true for both sides of the debate) and an absolute determination not to bend in the slightest on our opinions that the others are cretins on topics that are arcane to many, if not most of, our fellow humans.
But still there is a beauty that comes from the amalgam of all of it, often surprising, obscured by the distance but offering fleeting glimpses, if only you are there, and watching, and ready to catch them.
|
|
cintune
climber
Bruce Berry's Econoline Van
|
|
And, yes, to dismiss these religious ideas as simply "magical thinking" is scientism.
Comparing it to Star Wars is as close to magical thinking as anything on this thread.
I'd wager you're quite good at table tennis.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Paul cannot even fathom that an idea from the science and mathematical realm could be regarded on the same scale as a work by Picasso or Shakespeare.
Seriously? I'm actually a pretty good fathomer and how anyone could draw such a conclusion based on what I've said here amazes. I've always maintained that science is a remarkable human achievement. I just like to add that so is religion and so are the arts. Communication on these threads is always problematic and perhaps in the haste of response we tend to read too carelessly what others have written.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
What does scientism mean to you? Is there anyone you would accuse of scientism?
The meaning of something to me is surely an important element of any debate, so I'll give it a go. To me, "scientism" includes a belief that only the scientific method can uncover truth. Note that by that definition, anyone who actually believes scientism disbelieves in the ability to discover eternal truth, because the scientific method is always tentative in its conclusions, pending further discoveries.
"Scientism" goes beyond that, though. It would also include a belief that anything unverifiable is ipso facto false. Thus, using that thinking, if I say I enjoyed reading the paper this morning, that statement is false because you cannot verify it.
Finally, it would include the epistemological belief that the scientific method is the exclusive one by which we gain knowledge. Such a belief excludes obtaining knowledge by revelation, among other means.
As to who fits my accusations, I don't know, because I didn't intend to accuse anyone of holding that belief. I would venture a guess, though, that those who squawk the loudest are probably those who feel most threatened by the exposure of scientism as a mere belief.
John
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
MikeL,
You and I both have too much attachment to experience mu.
Once I believed the pursuit was worth it. Then I read -
"Before enlightenment, chop wood carry water.
After enlightenment, chop wood carry water."
After that I figured I'd just focus on chopping wood and carrying water. That seemed more useful.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
"Such a belief excludes obtaining knowledge by revelation" -JE,
Would that be divine revelation by an angel?
or divine revelation by God Jesus or God Jehovah Himself?
If yes, then how are you NOT a scriptural literalist drawing off
the same theology as your ancestors of the middle age?
C'mon, it's the 21st century.
Even if you havent had rigorous coursework in physics, chemistry and biology it's hard to believe you don't have some sense of the evolutionary epic... as revealed (revelation!) by the sciences. I thought you watched Cosmos series by Carl Sagan once upon a time. Just where do angels and demons, a literal heaven and hell, otherwise medieval theology (the basis of Islamic and Christian religion) fit into that picture? My lord.
"those who squawk the loudest are probably those who feel most threatened" -JE
or else it's those who are the most passionate? or else it's those who are most strongly compelled by their science education (e.g., in the face of medieval silly stuff)?
Seriously, we have to get past the thinking of our early and medieval ancestors when it comes to how the world works. Just look at what's going down in the ME even today. Sheesh.
Where is the responsibility to challenge the old ways of pretending to knowledge you don't have or trusting in something (faith) in the absence of evidence or reason?
There's a lot of room here for taking a few steps forward. If people would only do it.
Do you not desire (1) an understanding of how the world works and (2) an understanding of how life works that's a little more advanced and modern than the ones either (a) of your ancestors or (b) the fundamentalist muslims in Iran or Saudi Arabia (that are all over tv even today)?
If today's social media, the extraordinary powers thereof, can't get through to minds I don't think anything can.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!