redford@JEREMY.DEC (John Redford) (03/09/86)
J. Giles writes: > This last is a (loose) paraphrase of something from Jacob Bronowski's >"Ascent of Man." > "... If we do not take the next step in the ascent of man, it will >be taken elsewhere, in Africa, in China. Should I feel that to be >sad? No, not in itself. Humanity has a right to change its colour. >And yet, wedded as I am to the civilization that nurtured me, I should >feel it to be infinitely sad. I, whom England made, whom it taught >its language and its tolerance and excitement in intellectual >pursuits, I would feel it a grave sense of loss (as you would) if a >hundred years from now Shakespeare and Newton are historical fossils >in the ascent of man, in the way that Homer and Euclid are.... > - J. Bronowski >J. Giles >Los Alamos Homer and Euclid fossils? They are studied with respect to this day, millenia after they and their cultures died. If Western civilization is remembered the way that the Greeks are we'll have done very well indeed. Everything dies, be it countries, or civilizations, or whole species. I doubt if America will be around in any recognizable form in two thousand years, or if homo sapiens will be around in a hundred thousand. Our species didn't even exist a mere fifty thousand years ago, and there are notable anatomical differences between us and the people of even twenty thousand years ago. Why imagine that the process has stopped? If anything it has accelerated. Folks on this list have been blithely talking about our descendants of 200,000 years from now. The chances are that they won't be human. Human, that is, in the sense of being genetically and mentally similar to us. But who would even want evolution, both cultural and biological, to stop? Heaven knows there are enough problems with existing soceities and people. Trying to freeze a culture at its present state would like trying to freeze yourself at the age of ten. It's fine to be ten years old for a year, but to be that way forever would be a good approximation of hell. The most that any culture can hope for, just as the most that any person can hope for, is to be remembered with respect and affection after they are gone. That's one reason why I support the space program. It's one area where America can make a genuine contribution to the heritage of humanity. What do we want to be remembered for? Mickey Mouse? Developing the atomic bomb? Or opening the future to the wide expanses of the universe? This is our chance to make a mark, one comparable to Homer's and Euclid's. John Redford DEC-Hudson
jlg@lanl.ARPA (Jim Giles) (03/10/86)
In article <8603090839.AA00847@decwrl.DEC.COM> redford@JEREMY.DEC (John Redford) writes: > >J. Giles writes: > >> This last is a (loose) paraphrase of something from Jacob Bronowski's >>"Ascent of Man." >> "... If we do not take the next step in the ascent of man, it will >>be taken elsewhere, in Africa, in China. Should I feel that to be >>sad? No, not in itself. Humanity has a right to change its colour. >>And yet, wedded as I am to the civilization that nurtured me, I should >>feel it to be infinitely sad. I, whom England made, whom it taught >>its language and its tolerance and excitement in intellectual >>pursuits, I would feel it a grave sense of loss (as you would) if a >>hundred years from now Shakespeare and Newton are historical fossils >>in the ascent of man, in the way that Homer and Euclid are.... >> - J. Bronowski > >Homer and Euclid fossils? They are studied with respect to this day, >millenia after they and their cultures died. And yet, it is Newton's "Principia Mathematica" that modern students learn for it's information content - Euclid's works for historical interest. Yes, Homer and Euclid ARE fossils in comparison to Newton and Shakespeare. The former are interesting glimpses of a now dead civilization, the latter are important figures in the development of our own. >Everything dies, be it countries, or civilizations, or whole >species. I doubt if America will be around in any recognizable form >in two thousand years, or if homo sapiens will be around in a hundred thousand. >Our species didn't even exist a mere fifty thousand years ago, and >there are notable anatomical differences between us and the people of >even twenty thousand years ago. Why imagine that the process has stopped? I think you missed the point of Bronowski's remarks. His whole thesis is that the process of cultural and biological evolution will continue (that is what he meant by "if we don't take the next step ... , it will be taken elsewhere..."). The process hasn't stopped, it will (even must) continue. But, why imagine (as you seem to) that our culture must die in order for the process to continue? Isn't it more satisfying to think that we MAY just manage to evolve into our OWN future? Perhaps America won't be around in recognizable form in 2000 years (I assume you mean the US - America is a set of two continents and is likely to remain around for a few hundred million more years), but the England of 1066 isn't around in any recognizable form NOW. And yet, the culture formed after the Norman invasion didn't die, it evolved into our culture. J. Giles Los Alamos
janw@inmet.UUCP (03/10/86)
[John Redford DEC-Hudson] >Everything dies, be it countries, or civilizations, or whole >species. I doubt if America will be around in any recognizable >form in two thousand years, or if homo sapiens will be around in >a hundred thousand. Our species didn't even exist a mere fifty ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >thousand years ago, and there are notable anatomical differences >between us and the people of even twenty thousand years ago. Why >imagine that the process has stopped? If anything it has ac- >celerated. Folks on this list have been blithely talking about >our descendants of 200,000 years from now. The chances are that >they won't be human. Human, that is, in the sense of being genet- >ically and mentally similar to us. A hundred thousand ? Make it *one* thousand, because of genetic research and possibilities of artificial evolution. One way or another, we are likely to be among the last generations of this species. This makes space expansion even more urgent: to make sure that among the many branches of this evolution, some turn out successful. Jan Wasilewsky
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/11/86)
In article <277@lanl.ARPA> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes: >>Homer and Euclid fossils? They are studied with respect to this day, >>millennia after they and their cultures died. > >And yet, it is Newton's "Principia Mathematica" that modern students >learn for it's information content - Euclid's works for historical >interest. Yes, Homer and Euclid ARE fossils in comparison to Newton >and Shakespeare. The former are interesting glimpses of a now dead >civilization, the latter are important figures in the development of >our own. What IS this nonsense? Homer, Euclid, Newton, and Shakespeare are both interesting glimpses of a now dead civilization AND are important figures in the development of our own. But fossils? I can only assume YOU don't read Euclid or Homer. Modern students read neither Newton nor Euclid. I've recently made a small hobby of reading them both, and in both cases I've been impressed. Newton, by the way, is much less understandable than Euclid. He does calculus and physics using Euclidean reasoning. As for Euclid, he's actually a rather good writer, even by today's standards. Historically, Euclid's _The Elements_ was the ONLY textbook for learning geometry until the 19th century. The first calculus/physics texts appeared within 50 years of _Principia_. The Euclidean method of doing geometry was unquestioned until around 1900. Textbooks used in this country followed the style of Euclid until around 1960--they left out the hard parts--and it was Sputnik that inspired the change! But Newton's style was dropped IMMEDIATELY from calculus and physics. 1960!!!! Hardly a fossil. Nor was it dropped from the curriculum because it became out of date, mind you. It was dropped because it was a difficult approach to geometry, and American high school students have weak minds. Abraham Lincoln put Euclid at the top of the books he self-educated himself with. It taught him how to think and reason clearly. And we can still feel the effects of the Euclidean training on Lincoln to this day. >I think you missed the point of Bronowski's remarks. I think you missed the point of the posting you're complaining about. >Perhaps America won't be around in recognizable form in 2000 years (I >assume you mean the US - America is a set of two continents and is likely >to remain around for a few hundred million more years), but the England of >1066 isn't around in any recognizable form NOW. The England of 1066 IS around in a very recognizable form: our language. Of course, it is not recognizable as 1066ish unless you make an EFFORT to learn about it, but etymology is a very fascinating and revealing subject. If you want to remain ignorant of your own culture, that's your problem. But don't call everything you're ignorant of "fossils", thereby excusing yourself of "charges" of "cultural ignorance". <Shudder> > And yet, the culture >formed after the Norman invasion didn't die, it evolved into our culture. You got it! And the same goes for Homer and Euclid! We're going to get into space some day, and when we do, Homer and Euclid and 1066 will be taken along, as relevant as ever. Otherwise, why bother? ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
jlg@lanl.ARPA (Jim Giles) (03/13/86)
In article <12332@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener) writes: >What IS this nonsense? Homer, Euclid, Newton, and Shakespeare are >both interesting glimpses of a now dead civilization AND are important >figures in the development of our own. But fossils? I can only assume >YOU don't read Euclid or Homer. I am one of the VERY FEW people I know who has read much of either. The difference between the Greek world of Homer and Euclid on the one hand and the English world of Newton and Shakespeare on the other is similar to the difference between Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon. One lead to us, and the other (with the exception of a few RARE cross-breeds) didn't. >Historically, Euclid's _The Elements_ was the ONLY textbook for learning >geometry until the 19th century. Not true. Euclid was 'rediscovered' during the Renaissance when western culture was again growing. Fortunately, the Arabs managed to keep some of the old learning (or, at least, refrained from destroying it). Unlike Ptolemy, Euclid was not an official church priority, so we lost track of it for a while. That's why they're fossils: they're not part of the mainstream. We only know about them because 'Classical' culture became fashionable and some enthusiastic scholars translated a bunch of the stuff just in time for printing to get invented. This brings me to the point I keep trying to make: when a civilization DIES, things are LOST - sometimes it's not forever, but they are lost. The Greek civilization DIED - there is a lack of continuity between the ancient Greek civilization and our own. There is NO such lack between Newton and us - we didn't have to rediscover it after it was unknown or obscure for centuries. (There was an ancient Greek called Democratus (I think) who discovered that the Sun was the center of the solar system, and the planets - including Earth went around it. He even had the distances about right. Why don't we know this theory as the 'Democratian System'? Because his civilization DIED and Copernicus had to do the work all over again.) The point of Bronowski's remarks is that if our civilization DIES, those that follow will have to go through a painful period of time before they rediscover things we already know. If they rediscover it through some of our works that survive or if they independently discover it is not relevant, it would be a sad thing to put our descendents through. >... The Euclidean method of doing geometry >was unquestioned until around 1900. Textbooks used in this country followed >the style of Euclid until around 1960--they left out the hard parts--and >it was Sputnik that inspired the change! I learned geometry from such a book. But look closer! The only thing Euclidean are the first four postulates! And they introduce Cartesian coordinates in the first chapter! (It must have been that ancient Greek called Descartes instead of the one I'm familiar with. :-) > But Newton's style was dropped >IMMEDIATELY from calculus and physics. My first calculus text used dots above the variables and called them 'fluxions'. That every bit as similar to Newton as my geometry text is similar to Euclid. >The England of 1066 IS around in a very recognizable form: our language. Which language? Old english (which I can read, but not speak - the original Beowulf was really poetry, unlike the translations)? Old French (of which I admit total ignorance)? Modern English didn't settle to its present form (even approximately) until about the time of Chaucer - about the time printing was invented. But, of course, my remark was directed at culture, not language. And an Englishman from 1066 would not find much that is familiar about our culture. (I can't remember the last time I thought of a stirrup as the 'latest thing' in modern warfare. I'm not the least bit afraid of traveling through Wales for fear that Druids may capture me for sacrifice. etc. :-) >> And yet, the culture >>formed after the Norman invasion didn't die, it evolved into our culture. > >You got it! I GOT IT??!? When did I lose it? That is very much the same as what Bronowski said to begin with: that is, it would be sad for our culture to DIE rather than evolve into its own future. Sorry for all this flaming. It just irks me when someone seems to be misunderstanding something deliberately. J. Giles Los Alamos
jlg@lanl.ARPA (Jim Giles) (03/13/86)
In article <389@lanl.ARPA> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes: > ... (There was an ancient Greek called Democratus (I think) who >discovered that the Sun was the center of the solar system, and the planets - >including Earth went around it. He even had the distances about right. >Why don't we know this theory as the 'Democratian System'? Because his >civilization DIED and Copernicus had to do the work all over again.) I was afraid I'd get this wrong. The man's mane was Aristarchus of Samos. Unfortunately, most of his books were destroyed with the library of Alexandria. His ideas are known only because some of the surviving books made references to his. This is also the type of thing that happens when a culture dies, the 'invading hordes' destroy what's left out of spite or fear or ignorance. (I can see it now: the chinese invaders get hold of a treatice on cosmology - "It's one of those American things, all about fast food restaurants and other worthless junk. We don't need to bother with it - just throw it in the fire!") J. Giles Los Alamos
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/14/86)
In article <391@lanl.ARPA> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes: >In article <389@lanl.ARPA> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes: >> ... (There was an ancient Greek called Democratus (I think) who >>discovered that the Sun was the center of the solar system, and the planets - >>including Earth went around it. He even had the distances about right. >>Why don't we know this theory as the 'Democratian System'? Because his >>civilization DIED and Copernicus had to do the work all over again.) > >I was afraid I'd get this wrong. The man's mane was Aristarchus of Samos. Things get named historically for all sorts of reasons. Being the logically correct name is only sometimes the reason. Aristarchus's suggestion was mere conjecture then. Ptolemy rejected it on the experimental grounds that parallax was not seen. If your explanation were correct then nothing would have ever be named after Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, etc. Besides, Coper- nicus did NOT do the work all over again. A discussion of non-geocentric systems is included in Ptolemy, so that he can then reject them. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/14/86)
I'm redirecting followups to net.sci to give this discussion a better home. In article <389@lanl.ARPA> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes: >In article <12332@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener) writes: >>What IS this nonsense? Homer, Euclid, Newton, and Shakespeare are >>both interesting glimpses of a now dead civilization AND are important >>figures in the development of our own. But fossils? I can only assume >>YOU don't read Euclid or Homer. > >I am one of the VERY FEW people I know who has read much of either. The >difference between the Greek world of Homer and Euclid on the one hand and >the English world of Newton and Shakespeare on the other is similar to the >difference between Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon. One lead to us, and the >other (with the exception of a few RARE cross-breeds) didn't. It is similar? Care to explain? Both lead to us. What does the phrase 'Western culture' mean? >>Historically, Euclid's _The Elements_ was the ONLY textbook for learning >>geometry until the 19th century. > >Not true. Euclid was 'rediscovered' during the Renaissance when western >culture was again growing. What other geometry textbook did you have in mind? The first translation of _The Elements_ into Latin was in 1142 by Adelard of Bath. Rediscovery of Greek learning occurred BEFORE, not during, the Renaissance. > Fortunately, the Arabs managed to keep some of >the old learning (or, at least, refrained from destroying it). Unlike >Ptolemy, Euclid was not an official church priority, so we lost track of it >for a while. Ptolemy was as lost as Euclid in the West, and was preserved through Arabic translation. Ptolemy became an "official church priority" ONLY because he was challenged. The development of non-Euclidean geometry in Galileo's time would have met just as strong official resistance. > That's why they're fossils: they're not part of the >mainstream. We only know about them because 'Classical' culture became >fashionable and some enthusiastic scholars translated a bunch of the stuff >just in time for printing to get invented. They ARE part of the mainstream of our culture because they are GOOD, not because some 'enthusiastic scholars translated a bunch of the stuff just in time for printing to get invented'. >This brings me to the point I keep trying to make: when a civilization >DIES, things are LOST - sometimes it's not forever, but they are lost. The >Greek civilization DIED - there is a lack of continuity between the ancient >Greek civilization and our own. There is NO such lack between Newton and >us - we didn't have to rediscover it after it was unknown or obscure for >centuries. [Incorrect summary of Aristarchus refuted elsewhere] Greek civilization was lost ONLY from the European point of view. From the point of view of continuity, their tradition kept going strong in the Arab world and only then re-entered Europe. >[Bronowski's point not under dispute.] Your point would be better taken if you get the history correct. >>... The Euclidean method of doing geometry >>was unquestioned until around 1900. Textbooks used in this country followed >>the style of Euclid until around 1960--they left out the hard parts--and >>it was Sputnik that inspired the change! > >I learned geometry from such a book. But look closer! The only thing >Euclidean are the first four postulates! And they introduce Cartesian >coordinates in the first chapter! (It must have been that ancient Greek >called Descartes instead of the one I'm familiar with. :-) I make a hobby of collecting old high school and college texts. I have a dozen different high school geometries from 1920-1960, and they are all watered-down Euclidean style geometry. >> But Newton's style was dropped >>IMMEDIATELY from calculus and physics. > >My first calculus text used dots above the variables and called them >'fluxions'. That every bit as similar to Newton as my geometry text is >similar to Euclid. Newton's *style*, not his notation. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720