To know that the elements that make up their body were delivered from the heavens, and that they once made up titans of space and traveled through the galaxy at enormous speed just to bring them to life?
You can keep your Bible, your Qaran, and other books of fairy tales, because the reality of who we are, and where we came from, is SO much more impressive than the limp colorless stories trapped within their pages.
Best is when one can synthesize it all.
ReplyDeleteThe Universe Rules!
ReplyDeleteCould there be a story more interesting, more fascinating, more overwhelming that this?
Oh, but those thoughts do not appeal to the arrogance, the hubris of those motes of stardust who think of themselves at the ultimate of creation.
Think about it...
A developed mythology shows that man has taken a deep and active interest both in the world and in himself, and has tried to link the two, and interpret the one by the other. Myth is therefore a natural prologue to philosophy, since the love of ideas is the root of both. Both are made up of things admirable to consider.
ReplyDeleteSantayana - The Life of Reason
...and now it's time to move on and deal with reality.
DeleteToday we know what the stars are - they are huge conglomerations of rocks and gases held in place by forces which we cannot see but can only observe the effects. We no longer need to rely on mythology or philosophy to romanticize their existence - they are pretty cool all on their own. Betty Jo-Observations From the Front Porch
Rocks? And what constitutes “huge"?
DeleteDon't listen to Betty Jo - she's just stupid. Of course stars are not rocks - they a little pinpoints of light that God placed in the sky on the first day (or was it the 2nd?). As far as answering your question "what constitutes 'huge'" - well, philosophers have been pondering the depth of that question for eons. No one has figured it out yet.
DeleteI guess my Astrophysics Professors had it wrong when they taught that stars were composed of plasma- alternatively a 4th state of matter or a mass/energy interface. Of course, there isn't much romantic about field equations and their ilk, which is why I found the opening graphic interesting. It aims to inspire a sense of wonder- a necessity, in my view, if you really want to learn about the external world.
DeleteConnotations keep trumping semantics....interesting.
Gosh, Dave -
DeleteI didn't mean to throw you by my use of simple words. "Stars" is just a simple, generic term we non-academics use to collectively refer to the points of light we see in the sky at night. Not all stars are suns, which I guess is what you are referring to by being "composed of plasma - alternatively a 4th state of matter or mass/energy interface."
Some "stars" are actually planets - yes, actually made of rock. Some "stars" are actually moons and can also be made of rock as well. Some "stars" can be comets, asteroids and other celestial bodies. I'm sorry I can't provide more specific details as to their astronomical names, celestial location and chemical composition, no doubt rendering my point completely invalid.
By nitpicking at words you miss meanings entirely, which, I guess, is why you find it so "interesting" that "connotations keep trumping semantics". No doubt it is a mystery to you.
Perhaps you could take my simple remark and give it to one of your Astrophysics Professors and they could translate it into some verbose, overly pedantic diatribe so you can understand it. Provide him with a list of vocabulary words acceptable to you to do this task and insist he provide footnotes. Then double-check everything and correct his grammar.
Sheesh!
Anonymous @10:18
There were a few people, centuries ago, who thought all "points we see in the sky at night" were stars and certainly didn't want people to waste time considering more accurate theories and nomenclature. They were followers of the Ptolemaic system, and they burned Giordano Bruno at the stake for daring to suggest otherwise.
DeleteThey too weren't fond of scientific pedantry, or being corrected. They were senior members of the Catholic Clergy.
I'm sure one of my old Astrophysics Professors, Carl Sagan, would get a laugh out of your rigorous defense of reality/science, were he still among the living.
By the way, I don't find this exchange mysterious at all, (which is why I didn't use the word, "mysterious") or have I missed your meaning as you, it would seem, have missed mine?
Oh, I understand you, Dave - there is no misunderstanding. I know *exactly* what you are doing.
DeleteThen my work here is done.
DeleteQ.E.D. one way or another.
That stardust story needs more smiting and stoning
ReplyDelete;-)
I find that most people are totally intimidated, their minds literally blown away by the concept of the Universe. It is far easier, and much more comfortable, to instead devise a story that they can relate to on a personal level, that doesn't have too much hard thinking mystery to it. It is much, much more challenging to accept that there are things we can't wrap our tiny brains around (yet) and that we are in reality a tiny microcosm in the immensity of the Universe.
ReplyDelete