| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Civilization
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Civilization

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3254
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Nov 2015 at 22:36
Most of history looked at cooking as the taste of the cook, adding a pinch of this, a dash of that, and cooking it to taste.  They would be amused by the idea of following a recipe, and probably horrified by the idea of being tied down by something written out.  People these days, don't necessary have as much of a "feel" for what makes good food, but follow a recipe and, according to the recipe, manage well because of that.  These days, people would feel squeemish if they knew the cook at a restaurant was dipping a spoon every 5 minutes (the same spoon), as they probably did especially before germ theory.  Wolfie, if cooking could be this different between ancient and modern versions, then imagine how complicated politics or economics or science or art would be (pre, compared to post)
You're right Mikebis, for your goals it is best to put your recipe in plain language.  To me, it would be like searching for the holy grail, trying to express things in a manner that would account for the ancients own understanding of themselves, noble, but not at all practical.
Roger Zelazny had a science fiction book, Lord of Light, where the crew of a colony spaceship sets up a Hindu caste system (with the crew as gods over all the other colonists, suppressing technology, until one uses the traditional opposition to Hinduism (Buddhism), to overturn the reign of 'heaven.') 
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Nov 2015 at 05:46
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Most of history looked at cooking as the taste of the cook, adding a pinch of this, a dash of that, and cooking it to taste.  They would be amused by the idea of following a recipe, and probably horrified by the idea of being tied down by something written out.  People these days, don't necessary have as much of a "feel" for what makes good food, but follow a recipe and, according to the recipe, manage well because of that.  These days, people would feel squeemish if they knew the cook at a restaurant was dipping a spoon every 5 minutes (the same spoon), as they probably did especially before germ theory.  Wolfie, if cooking could be this different between ancient and modern versions, then imagine how complicated politics or economics or science or art would be (pre, compared to post)
You're right Mikebis, for your goals it is best to put your recipe in plain language.  To me, it would be like searching for the holy grail, trying to express things in a manner that would account for the ancients own understanding of themselves, noble, but not at all practical.
Roger Zelazny had a science fiction book, Lord of Light, where the crew of a colony spaceship sets up a Hindu caste system (with the crew as gods over all the other colonists, suppressing technology, until one uses the traditional opposition to Hinduism (Buddhism), to overturn the reign of 'heaven.') 

You got me, I have nothing at the moment to reply Clap 
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3254
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Nov 2015 at 04:43
I would not consider Macedonian generals to be civilized.

Macedonian generals probably never had any stress,
you see, if you define stess as the suppression of the instinct to choke the sh-t out of some idiot, 
well Macedonian generals probably never suppressed that instinct, and ergo, they did not have stress.

That is what civilization is, politics is war by other means, (with apologies to Clauswitz).
Back to Top
crazysharktank View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 25 Sep 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote crazysharktank Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Mar 2016 at 08:20
I love the discussion here. I wrote a indepth article about Ancient Mesopotamia. I am looking for a feedback. http://www.ancienthistorylists.com/ancient-civilization/ancient-mesopotamia/
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1078
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Mar 2016 at 10:14
Quote "There is also no such thing as "art for art's sake," art was part of religion, or rather it was not "imagined" separate from religion until early modernity."

That's not a supportable view. Cave paintings from prehistory may or may not have a spiritual theme (how can you tell?), but often they represent scenes from their lives. The image of a hand on the wall made by blowing paint on it does not represent anything spiritual however - that's someone saying 'I was here'. Art appears to have been most often used in a spiritual context but bear in mind that such things were likely to survive, being carved from stone, whereas everyday art was more likely to be made from perishable material. Since art is a form of communication, and that communication is one of humanity's oldest talents, it follows that art has a less religiously orientated past than you suggest. Things of beauty have always attracted our attention. Whether we see that as evidence of something spiritual or simply enjoy the beauty for its own sake has rather more to do with individual leanings than any cultural inheritance.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3254
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Mar 2016 at 05:39
I believe that the Greeks did not have a concept of art.  Not only was art not separate from religion, but there really wasn't a concept of art.  "Poeisis" from whence we get "poetry," (but "art 'objects'" as well) probably comes the closest.  "Techne" from whence we get technique and technology, was the form of knowledge used in crafting things.
When you are talking about early Greek culture, you are probably talking about indirect communication in 'the arts.'  Poetry whether it be epic, lyric or what not, is older than prose.  If it was worth saying, it was worth saying well, in metre.  And if you couldn't say it in metre, then it probably wasn't worth saying.  Remember, we are talking about an oral tradition, the tail end of which comes out in Homer, Hesiod and early Greek poets.  Before the 7th century BC (some scholars would say back to the 9th c.), there was in the Greek world no way to preserve prose for "communication" purposes.  Likewise, the Greek world of Thales (and Heraclitus) believed that there were spirits everywhere.  It is not that "art" was for religion's sake, it is more like art is like the water fish swim in, never realizing its presence.  Likewise, "art" was what culture swam in, that culture presupposed the gods, never (as a whole) thinking of anything different, until not just literacy was introduced, but a public literacy with the alphabet, coinage, rhetoric, philosophy started coming in, allowing people outside of the scribes, form their own opinions.

We have somewhat of a record of the the early Greeks that can inform us how other oral cultures probably looked upon what we in our chronological snobbery call "art."
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Mar 2016 at 09:36
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I believe that the Greeks did not have a concept of art.  Not only was art not separate from religion, but there really wasn't a concept of art.  "Poeisis" from whence we get "poetry," (but "art 'objects'" as well) probably comes the closest.  "Techne" from whence we get technique and technology, was the form of knowledge used in crafting things.
When you are talking about early Greek culture, you are probably talking about indirect communication in 'the arts.'  Poetry whether it be epic, lyric or what not, is older than prose.  If it was worth saying, it was worth saying well, in metre.  And if you couldn't say it in metre, then it probably wasn't worth saying.  Remember, we are talking about an oral tradition, the tail end of which comes out in Homer, Hesiod and early Greek poets.  Before the 7th century BC (some scholars would say back to the 9th c.), there was in the Greek world no way to preserve prose for "communication" purposes.  Likewise, the Greek world of Thales (and Heraclitus) believed that there were spirits everywhere.  It is not that "art" was for religion's sake, it is more like art is like the water fish swim in, never realizing its presence.  Likewise, "art" was what culture swam in, that culture presupposed the gods, never (as a whole) thinking of anything different, until not just literacy was introduced, but a public literacy with the alphabet, coinage, rhetoric, philosophy started coming in, allowing people outside of the scribes, form their own opinions.

We have somewhat of a record of the the early Greeks that can inform us how other oral cultures probably looked upon what we in our chronological snobbery call "art."

It's just semantics :-)  

You could argue that people create art for themselves but I would argue that it is a third person self or internal communication externalized.  If art is then always a form of communication then it has semantical elements that can be discussed and there are in fact fields of study such as the semantics of Chinese Music for example.  The point I'm trying to make is that we can string words together in an infinite variety of ways and it is the context that defines the meaning.  Anything can be both and art and a science but we communicate in a kind of agreed on shorthand where words have carefully crafted definitions.  The same applies to visual art because within the culture the audience knows the definitions by the context they didn't need elaboration.

I don't think you can make the argument that something is not art because the culture that created it does not have a definition of art.  As Shakespeare says a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

I think it is easier to make the point with science than art.  There is a strange habit of the human mind to sees things as real and unreal as deceptions or truth.  For example people will say when watching a magician that it isn't real magic when in fact it is the only kind of magic that is real.  People will look back and say Aristotle wasn't doing real science but he was doing the only kind of science that was real at the time.  He just wasn't doing very good science by today's definition.

The words science and art can be applied to any subject of human endeavor it just depends on the context.  I would go so far as to say animals do science because they test the environment empirically and make decisions based on their observations and experimentation.  Some animals do art as well when decorating their environment.

 


In the case of this bird his "art" is designed to stir the emotions of potential mates.  The same bird may use his intelligence to apply a "science" to test various methods for extracting seeds to eat.

The difference then between art and science has to do with context.  Art has the context of emotional communication and science deals within the context of empirical data.  Both however are driven by instincts (feelings) which unifies them, are universal and timeless.  
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3254
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2016 at 04:53
From _our_ perspective, Lascaux or Cycladic figurines or something from Bali, is art.  From their perspective, they have no word for art, there is not that "context" which you seem to think is so important.  "It" does not function in their "society" (another word that the ancient Greeks didn't have a word for) as art does in ours.  But auction catalogues and museum pamphlets will call it all, "art," despite the fact that such labels are anachronistic.  I mean, isn't that the ultimate "context," something is art _because_we_say_so_.  Man is the measure of all things.

I am not sure that there is really any "definition" of communication, communication is infinite, on the other hand it is very limited.  Expression can be part of communication, but not all expression is, is communication.  Communication can be manipulation, but often the most effective forms of manipulation are subconscious, below the level of awareness.  Speech is not only saying something, it also can be _doing_ something.  When Descartes says "Cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am), he is not only informing his readers, he is also proclaiming something, declaring it, and in the process changing the world from the old medieval view, to modernity.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2016 at 14:21
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

From _our_ perspective, Lascaux or Cycladic figurines or something from Bali, is art.  From their perspective, they have no word for art, there is not that "context" which you seem to think is so important.  "It" does not function in their "society" (another word that the ancient Greeks didn't have a word for) as art does in ours.  But auction catalogues and museum pamphlets will call it all, "art," despite the fact that such labels are anachronistic.  I mean, isn't that the ultimate "context," something is art _because_we_say_so_.  Man is the measure of all things.

I'm suggesting that you incorporate evolutionary psycology into your philosophy.  I really like Daniel Dennett for example.  I'm also a fan of Steven Pinker although his books tend to have glaring errors that while they do not comprise significant arguments against his points are annoying.

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I am not sure that there is really any "definition" of communication, communication is infinite, on the other hand it is very limited.  Expression can be part of communication, but not all expression is, is communication.  Communication can be manipulation, but often the most effective forms of manipulation are subconscious, below the level of awareness.  Speech is not only saying something, it also can be _doing_ something.  When Descartes says "Cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am), he is not only informing his readers, he is also proclaiming something, declaring it, and in the process changing the world from the old medieval view, to modernity.

Well I agree that the interaction of atoms or even quantum particles could be thought of communication.  I think however we can confine ourselves to mammalian communication at the moment. 

People like to divide things up to keep them simple but this separation of science and philosophy is not healthy.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3254
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2016 at 04:44
I perused Dennett's Elbow Room almost 30 years ago.  I remember the Sphexish Wasp but little else.  Read it in a theories of mind class.  I am aware that he has done some TED talks, but I don't really find him that interesting.  Not my area of interest.  Vanuatu was interested in Steven Pinker and so I have heard some from her.
A test of knowing something is being able to explain it to others in ordinary language, you might try to explain evolutionary psychology if you want.  I found evolutionary epistemology interesting is there any relation?

communication is rather prosaic, "productive."  I find poetry and the glimmer and tease of seduction to be more delightful.  Theoretically speaking of course.<grin> 
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2016 at 13:37
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I perused Dennett's Elbow Room almost 30 years ago.  I remember the Sphexish Wasp but little else.  Read it in a theories of mind class.  I am aware that he has done some TED talks, but I don't really find him that interesting.  Not my area of interest.  Vanuatu was interested in Steven Pinker and so I have heard some from her.
A test of knowing something is being able to explain it to others in ordinary language, you might try to explain evolutionary psychology if you want.  I found evolutionary epistemology interesting is there any relation?

communication is rather prosaic, "productive."  I find poetry and the glimmer and tease of seduction to be more delightful.  Theoretically speaking of course.<grin> 

Pinker is a linguist with a biological twist so I think he may be interesting.

Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3254
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2016 at 22:15
I enjoy the video courses of John McWhorter (Linguistics), from the Great Courses series.

I have looked at wikipedia on Pinker, he is a linguist with a biological twist, but I don't find him interesting.  Sorry.  I do find concept of "Angels of our Better Nature" a little intriguing, but not enough to invest the time in reading 300 or so pages.


Edited by franciscosan - 20 Mar 2016 at 22:16
Back to Top
B.soshiant View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 09 Oct 2018
Location: Iran
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote B.soshiant Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Oct 2018 at 03:22
Thank you all of member. But you must say from IRAN civilization in ancient history.
You can read about it from history book portal. https://kaffeketab.ir
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.