Re: Constantine's cross may have been mushroom cloud frommeteorimpact
Russell wrote: I think it's safe to say that Middle Ages were stagnant IN SOME WAYS, if we compare them to any other period of recorded history. It's not like the period 900-1000 compares to 1900-2000. Isn't that where the term Renaissance comes from? That's not exactly what I was taught. According to dictionary.com, near the bottom of the page on renaissance that comes up when you search there, in the section credited as being from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc., renaissance is: A new birth, or revival. Specifically: (a) The transitional movement in Europe, marked by the revival of classical learning and art in Italy in the 15th century, ... I was taught the Renaissance was a period of time in which the ideas of the ancient Greeks were revived in Italy and and throughout Europe. Now here's the part where I'm relying on hazy memory from a high school class more years ago than I care to mention... I don't know if this is in any way a mainstream idea, but I was taught that the renaissance was in part an outgrowth of Christian Aristoteleanism, which was developed by St. Thomas Aquinas. A quick web search brings up: http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/3n.htm For Aquinas, theology is a science in which careful application of reason will yield the demonstrative certainty of theoretical knowledge. Of course it is possible to accept religious teachings from revealed sources by faith alone, and Aquinas granted that this always remains the most widely accessible route to Christian orthodoxy. But for those whose capacity to reason is well-developed, it is always better to establish the most fundamental principles on the use of reason. Even though simple faith is enough to satisfy most people, for example, Aquinas believed it possible, appropriate, and desirable to demonstrate the existence of god by rational means. Bringing the concept of careful application of reason into the medieval church by way of basically translating the concepts of the ancient Greeks into Christian terms helped set the stage for the renaissance, and much of the rest of the renaissance followed the pattern of taking the lead of the ancient Greeks, at least according to that one particular high-school teacher of mine. Again I don't know whether this idea is mainstream or not. However, there is a very good example of this rennaisance borrowing from the ancient Greeks, and that is the birth of opera. There was a group of scholars in Florence in the middle to late 1500's (working from memory here...) called the Camerata, who met to discuss the writings of the ancient Greeks. (Side note -- one member of the Camerata was Vincenzo Galilei, a composer of music and father of Galileo Galilei.) This group made an attempt to recreate authentic ancient Greek drama, which as they understood it was a combination of theater, music, and poetry, and the result was the first few operas. For a somewhat more detailed version of how this came about, see: http://www.ptloma.edu/music/MUH/genres/opera/birthofopera.htm or http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q1B525E05 and http://www.pbs.org/wnet/threetenors/history.html or http://makeashorterlink.com/?V2E521E05 Excerpt from the latter link: [Opera] was born in the twilight of an age that set out to capture the cultural sensibilities of ancient Greece, one of the most glorious hours of humankind. With Greek ideals bursting forth in sculpture, painting, philosophy, and ethics, it was natural that music would be affected. Yet, ironically, those men who invented opera were not interested in recreating Greek music as such, but in recapturing the tragic drama of classical antiquity. This, they failed to do. Instead, unwittingly, they accomplished a great deal more: they created a musical form that has continued to fascinate the world for more than 400 years. Reggie Bautista _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Constantine's cross may have been mushroom cloud frommeteorimpact
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of The Fool ... And I think you know what I think of republicans who want to restrict thoughts, ideas, science, evolution, and return us to the authoritarian power of the religious leaders. Is it the same as what I think of politicians who want to restrict our thoughts, ideas, science and evolution, and return us to the authoritarian power of corporate leaders? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Constantine's cross may have been mushroom cloud frommeteorimpact
From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's the thing about empires. They squeeze out competitive forces and it's those competitive forces that keep innovation and progress alive. For example there was one point when china was all set to conquer Europe, they had a massive fleet the likes never seen up to that time, and their ships were decidedly better than the ones of European nations at the time. The fleet was on it's way, rounding the horn of Africa, ready to descend upon Europe like locusts. But then the emperor died. The new emperor thought that having a big fleet was not such a good idea. The fleet was eventually scuttled and china is a third world country today. Likewise once upon a time the Japanese made the best guns, but by the mid eighteen hundreds there were no guns in Japan. Japan lost it's guns because the rulers ever so slowly restricted the making of / repair of guns. First they restricted how many guns could be made per year. Slowly they reduced this number eventually to zero. Then they restricted the repair of guns per year. So by the mid 1800's Japan no longer had any guns. The Idea is very simple and very sound. When you have large empires, popes, etc. they are able to restrict 'taboo' ideas / technology, etc. The other part is that usually no two emperors or popes have the same definition of what is 'taboo', so you get a whittling effect, one whittling this away, another whittling that away. It's not a quick process. So, would you say that it is bad for the US to participate in the ABM treaty, nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and/or nuclear test ban? Will doing so lead to the decline of the US? I'm assuming you'll say no, so my follow up is Why not? How does this differ from the China/Japan cases you mention? What about these other controversial/restricted technologies, are restrictions on these acceptable? - cloning - neutron bombs - frankenfood research - human genetic experimentation/modification - biowarfare research - human fetal stem cell research _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Constantine's cross may have been mushroom cloud frommeteorimpact
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Foolish mortal That's the thing about empires. They squeeze out competitive forces and it's those competitive forces that keep innovation and progress alive. For example there was one point when china was all set to conquer Europe, they had a massive fleet the likes never seen up to that time, and their ships were decidedly better than the ones of European nations at the time. The fleet was on it's way, rounding the horn of Africa, ready to descend upon Europe like locusts. But then the emperor died. The new emperor thought that having a big fleet was not such a good idea. The fleet was eventually scuttled and china is a third world country today. Likewise once upon a time the Japanese made the best guns, but by the mid eighteen hundreds there were no guns in Japan. Japan lost it's guns because the rulers ever so slowly restricted the making of / repair of guns. First they restricted how many guns could be made per year. Slowly they reduced this number eventually to zero. Then they restricted the repair of guns per year. So by the mid 1800's Japan no longer had any guns. The Idea is very simple and very sound. When you have large empires, popes, etc. they are able to restrict 'taboo' ideas / technology, etc. The other part is that usually no two emperors or popes have the same definition of what is 'taboo', so you get a whittling effect, one whittling this away, another whittling that away. It's not a quick process. But this effect ends when you add in the right amount of competitive forces. Jared Diamond in Guns Germs and Steel goes into this arguement in some depth. --- Which is exactly where I am getting this argument from. --- He points out that the geography of china and europe were important in the differences between the two cultures. China was and is essentially a single plain betweeen two great rivers with free movement across most of the land. This promoted the developement of a large complex civilization. Technology flourished in this environment but the same features that promoted early civilization and technology also made it prone to stagnation and loss of technology that occurred when the Ming Dynasty turned inward. They controlled the entire country and had no rivals. There was no initial negative effects of this decision but other civilizations were not turning away from technology. In Europe the geography was not conducive to this sort of consolidation. Mountain ranges broke the continent up into small pockets of civilization which competed with each other. A society that gave up technology would be defeated by a society that used and advanced technology. We are of course in danger of making the Ming mistake, the soviet union mistake. When we impede research in things like stem cell research this research is done elsewhere and the the elsewheres reap the benefit. -- I agree. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Constantine's cross may have been mushroom cloud frommeteorimpact
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 10:34 PM 6/23/03 -0500, The Fool wrote: From: David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Fool wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3013146.stm First comment. Note the subject line, Fool. They have the spam-filters turned up pretty high where I work, but ALL of these posts of yours trigger them. : ) It's apparently my ISP Mailserver. Nothing I can do. Space impact 'saved Christianity' By Dr David Whitehouse BBC News Online science editor Did a meteor over central Italy in AD 312 change the course of Roman and Christian history? ... The history of Christianity and the establishment of the popes in Rome might have been very different. Second comment. Aren't you usually ANTI-religion? If one does take at face value that Constantine got a meteor at just the right time, it does make it very probable that there are at least more things under Heaven and in Earth than are dreamt of, right? Shouldn't you be saying things like: Some historian probably wove the meteor report into the story, even though it happened three years BEFORE the battle. No. I am after fact. Most religious rubish isn't based on facts. If they are right then if it were not for this chance occurance, europe might be mithraist or mulsim and not christian. The rise of the dark ages along with the rise the popes and 'universal' (catholic) belief, are hardly coincident. It was only when the absolute authority of the popes began to disintegrate into hundreds of competeing factions that europe began it's upward path again. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Constantine's cross may have been mushroom cloud frommeteorimpact
- Original Message - From: Damon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 11:33 PM Subject: Re: Constantine's cross may have been mushroom cloud frommeteor impact The rise of the dark ages along with the rise the popes and 'universal' (catholic) belief, are hardly coincident. It was only when the absolute authority of the popes began to disintegrate into hundreds of competeing factions that europe began it's upward path again. If you are after facts then why don't you go and study both the origin and the idea of the Dark Ages as well as Early Medieval ecclesiastical history. Your above statement shows just how incorrect and biased you really are. Damon. Or he could generalize and point out the numerous historical examples where factional infighting was the key to the successful defense of a land against outside invaders. ;-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
