CHAPTER THREE: Louis XIV Knows Weeds
continued from 11/21/05
At the core of the Greek viewpoint rested a passionate conviction in the worth and importance of man as an individual. He was to be valued for his own sake, not merely as a tool for some all-powerful entity. While sculpture in China in fifth century B.C. commonly depicted animals, hardly ever was a human form created. In Greece in the fifth century B.C. what was most commonly represented was a supremely confident human.
Deductive reasoning developed in Greece near the end of the seventh century B.C. In the sixth century a number of schools were established that were neither religious institutions nor government controlled. Wealthy merchants likely started them. Both within and outside these schools debate, argument, persuasion, and competition were highly valued by the Greeks. This, it seems to me, encouraged, developed and laid a foundation for what we call today scientific inquiry. Was this occurring anywhere else in the known world at the time? Possibly, but I don't believe to the extent that it was transforming the Greek world.
The Greeks, from the very beginning, thought the universe was ultimately understandable, and science was about how things worked. It was less to do, for example, with what heaven (the stars) wished for and more to do with the mechanics of the stars--how it worked.
The West by the seventeenth century relied increasingly on inductive reasoning, that is obtaining data, making measurements, and then stating certain assumptions. In other words, reasoning from the particular to the general, the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning had been used by many non-western societies for centuries, but now in Europe the inductive reasoning process in science was becoming firmly established and would be a central part of the scientific method. The consequences of all this would become apparent to westerner and non-westerner alike within a hundred years.
Science remains both foreign and strange to most people in the world today, not only in the developing world but in countries like the United States as well. I think it's because science is first of all difficult and second because subjectivity is not part of its method, contrary to what a few people inside science might desire and what a lot of people outside science want and believe. While there have been periodic "moments" when science was encouraged and praised, throughout most of human history it has "hung" by a thread. It still does, in the United States as much as anywhere else.
If you consider some of the world's best-known spiritual leaders, for example Buddha, Muhammad, and Jesus, their teachings and beliefs are based on personal visions. The starting point of these beliefs is "supernatural." But it is not just the numerous prophets from antiquity. Carlos Castaneda, a New Age superstar in the 1970s, had revelations while sitting with his mentor Don Juan in the Mexican desert, consuming peyote cactus and other hallucinogenic drugs. Castaneda claimed he talked to the animals and sometimes became a crow--literally.
In 1972 UCLA awarded Castaneda a doctorate in anthropology. His books were immensely popular, several of which I read and enjoyed. He died in 1998. Kathryn Lindskoog in her book Fakes, Frauds, and Other Malarky said, "The next time you come close to a crow, try calling out 'Hello, Carlos!' If you are high enough on peyote, you might hear the bird answer." A harsh criticism perhaps, but it's hard to disagree with the proposition that the number and variety of religions and beliefs are only limited by human imagination.
Science believes that knowledge (according to most scientists) can only be determined from objective investigation and is--most importantly--accessible to all. The one thing that science can not do is promise personal salvation or eternal life, the concern that has preoccupied most of us for at least the last 20,000 years.
Those men in the eighteenth century, who wore stockings, wigs, and placed a pinch of snuff on the back of their hands, often seemed like vacuous dandies, without an substance whatsoever. Many were. The women with the elaborate coiffures, pale skin, and beauty mark on their cheek may have appeared as beautiful creatures with not a serious thought in their heads. This was certainly true of some.
But the eighteenth century was about much more than elaborate dance steps and endless balls. It was also a period of remarkable intellectual activity, curiosity, a time of optimism and hope, where so many of the best and the brightest believed that the world could be improved by human effort and good will.
The weed made a dramatic re-emergence in the eighteenth century, thanks to the "power" of nature. The pastoral movie sets so popular among Europeans, especially the English gentry, provided new opportunities for the weed. While still not especially welcomed near the house, the weed was frequently encouraged among the rustic landscape away from the house. For that matter it was positively desired if it enhanced the natural setting.
Travel was one of the numerous opportunities available to the weed in the eighteenth century. Other parts of the world were being discovered, and immigration to places like America and Australia increased significantly. Plants, no less than humans, are keenly interested in survival, propagation, and moving to new places. And like humans, the effects of travel are salutary for some and bring misery to others. Some prosper and some do not.
Advances in botany and horticulture created new opportunities, including the possibility that some plants, which were once classified as weeds, would now be welcomed into the community of plants. There were reasons for optimism in the eighteenth century
But, as we learn in the next chapter, progress is not always positive for the weed or humans for that matter. New technologies and new ideologies threaten the very existence of many plants. And finally, a new set of Truths arises.
to be continued....
At the core of the Greek viewpoint rested a passionate conviction in the worth and importance of man as an individual. He was to be valued for his own sake, not merely as a tool for some all-powerful entity. While sculpture in China in fifth century B.C. commonly depicted animals, hardly ever was a human form created. In Greece in the fifth century B.C. what was most commonly represented was a supremely confident human.
Deductive reasoning developed in Greece near the end of the seventh century B.C. In the sixth century a number of schools were established that were neither religious institutions nor government controlled. Wealthy merchants likely started them. Both within and outside these schools debate, argument, persuasion, and competition were highly valued by the Greeks. This, it seems to me, encouraged, developed and laid a foundation for what we call today scientific inquiry. Was this occurring anywhere else in the known world at the time? Possibly, but I don't believe to the extent that it was transforming the Greek world.
The Greeks, from the very beginning, thought the universe was ultimately understandable, and science was about how things worked. It was less to do, for example, with what heaven (the stars) wished for and more to do with the mechanics of the stars--how it worked.
The West by the seventeenth century relied increasingly on inductive reasoning, that is obtaining data, making measurements, and then stating certain assumptions. In other words, reasoning from the particular to the general, the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning had been used by many non-western societies for centuries, but now in Europe the inductive reasoning process in science was becoming firmly established and would be a central part of the scientific method. The consequences of all this would become apparent to westerner and non-westerner alike within a hundred years.
Science remains both foreign and strange to most people in the world today, not only in the developing world but in countries like the United States as well. I think it's because science is first of all difficult and second because subjectivity is not part of its method, contrary to what a few people inside science might desire and what a lot of people outside science want and believe. While there have been periodic "moments" when science was encouraged and praised, throughout most of human history it has "hung" by a thread. It still does, in the United States as much as anywhere else.
If you consider some of the world's best-known spiritual leaders, for example Buddha, Muhammad, and Jesus, their teachings and beliefs are based on personal visions. The starting point of these beliefs is "supernatural." But it is not just the numerous prophets from antiquity. Carlos Castaneda, a New Age superstar in the 1970s, had revelations while sitting with his mentor Don Juan in the Mexican desert, consuming peyote cactus and other hallucinogenic drugs. Castaneda claimed he talked to the animals and sometimes became a crow--literally.
In 1972 UCLA awarded Castaneda a doctorate in anthropology. His books were immensely popular, several of which I read and enjoyed. He died in 1998. Kathryn Lindskoog in her book Fakes, Frauds, and Other Malarky said, "The next time you come close to a crow, try calling out 'Hello, Carlos!' If you are high enough on peyote, you might hear the bird answer." A harsh criticism perhaps, but it's hard to disagree with the proposition that the number and variety of religions and beliefs are only limited by human imagination.
Science believes that knowledge (according to most scientists) can only be determined from objective investigation and is--most importantly--accessible to all. The one thing that science can not do is promise personal salvation or eternal life, the concern that has preoccupied most of us for at least the last 20,000 years.
Those men in the eighteenth century, who wore stockings, wigs, and placed a pinch of snuff on the back of their hands, often seemed like vacuous dandies, without an substance whatsoever. Many were. The women with the elaborate coiffures, pale skin, and beauty mark on their cheek may have appeared as beautiful creatures with not a serious thought in their heads. This was certainly true of some.
But the eighteenth century was about much more than elaborate dance steps and endless balls. It was also a period of remarkable intellectual activity, curiosity, a time of optimism and hope, where so many of the best and the brightest believed that the world could be improved by human effort and good will.
The weed made a dramatic re-emergence in the eighteenth century, thanks to the "power" of nature. The pastoral movie sets so popular among Europeans, especially the English gentry, provided new opportunities for the weed. While still not especially welcomed near the house, the weed was frequently encouraged among the rustic landscape away from the house. For that matter it was positively desired if it enhanced the natural setting.
Travel was one of the numerous opportunities available to the weed in the eighteenth century. Other parts of the world were being discovered, and immigration to places like America and Australia increased significantly. Plants, no less than humans, are keenly interested in survival, propagation, and moving to new places. And like humans, the effects of travel are salutary for some and bring misery to others. Some prosper and some do not.
Advances in botany and horticulture created new opportunities, including the possibility that some plants, which were once classified as weeds, would now be welcomed into the community of plants. There were reasons for optimism in the eighteenth century
But, as we learn in the next chapter, progress is not always positive for the weed or humans for that matter. New technologies and new ideologies threaten the very existence of many plants. And finally, a new set of Truths arises.
to be continued....
posted by mumpsimus | 11:13 AM
|
0 comments
