James Burke : The Day The Universe Changed: “In The Light Of The Above”, 1 of 5 (CC)
Watch Entire Show: www.youtube.com More Shows: www.youtube.com Episode 2 of James Burke’s ground-breaking series “The Day The Universe Changed” which explores the evolution of Western Scientific thought starting from the fall of Rome. See channel page for purchase options.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, July 10th, 2010 at 1:35 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
17 Responses to “James Burke : The Day The Universe Changed: “In The Light Of The Above”, 1 of 5 (CC)”
What the hell happened here. When I saw this when it was new the stop light went red and a camel train passed across his path before it went green. In the interview James Burke talked about how the light and the cammels were syncronized. That was my favorite part. Whrer did it go.
Right. So, in the most friendly way possible, I would simply state that, since the term applies to all objects in the universe, it is essentially a meaningless term *in it’s own right*.
If it has a quantitative aspect (ie. more or less significant) then it can be used to measure one object against another “in that sense” (ie. relative to one or more points of reference).
In that case I suppose the term has meaning within some finite/fixed realm of concern/cognition.
True, to signify–that is, to make known–does imply a knowing mind. So when I see this tree it signifies just that—this tree. But it also signifies the essence of tree itself. But not in the Platonic sense of some immaterial ideal tree out there some where in the mysterious world of forms—rather, the idea of tree which exists in my mind and any mind with whom I communicate about trees.
In other words, you can I can talk about this tree, but we can also talk about trees in general.
I guess you’d have to explain what “significance” means… I believe it is a relative term. Objects in the universe (if we can call them that) only have significance with regards *to* “something / someone”.
My daily income say, is of significance *TO* me, but not necessarily to you.
In that sense objects in the universe, whatever they are (real or not) *do* have significance beyond themselves. In fact they can *only* have significance beyond themselves. Otherwise the term seems meaningless.
It’s a false dichotomy. Objects in the universe can still have significance beyond themselves. The problem comes from those who insist on a particular interpretation of this significance in spite of evolving evidence.
Due to 1) Recent advancements in the evidence, and 2) The Kantian Revolution, there is a tendency to believe that there must be no significant meaning. In fact, it could just mean we need to update our understanding of things.
Keep in mind that “we” (meaning the rationalist Greek-based societies) do it too though. We need symbols to represent the world or else we can’t synthesize a model of the world in our heads (or on paper) that we can decipher and comprehend.
But I think what you are referring to are those who engage in things like “numerology” where they seek understanding in the Platonic sense where the world must fit a magic pattern and disregard the universe as the ultimate arbiter. And that *is* sad.
get those f*** adverts off !!!! – what is it with therse tossers ?
Thanks!
I can hit the red CC button next to the volume control and they go away.
What the hell happened here. When I saw this when it was new the stop light went red and a camel train passed across his path before it went green. In the interview James Burke talked about how the light and the cammels were syncronized. That was my favorite part. Whrer did it go.
Wish I could turn off the subtitle/captions.
Is that some Brian Eno I hear?
Right. So, in the most friendly way possible, I would simply state that, since the term applies to all objects in the universe, it is essentially a meaningless term *in it’s own right*.
If it has a quantitative aspect (ie. more or less significant) then it can be used to measure one object against another “in that sense” (ie. relative to one or more points of reference).
In that case I suppose the term has meaning within some finite/fixed realm of concern/cognition.
- JBW
True, to signify–that is, to make known–does imply a knowing mind. So when I see this tree it signifies just that—this tree. But it also signifies the essence of tree itself. But not in the Platonic sense of some immaterial ideal tree out there some where in the mysterious world of forms—rather, the idea of tree which exists in my mind and any mind with whom I communicate about trees.
In other words, you can I can talk about this tree, but we can also talk about trees in general.
I guess you’d have to explain what “significance” means… I believe it is a relative term. Objects in the universe (if we can call them that) only have significance with regards *to* “something / someone”.
My daily income say, is of significance *TO* me, but not necessarily to you.
In that sense objects in the universe, whatever they are (real or not) *do* have significance beyond themselves. In fact they can *only* have significance beyond themselves. Otherwise the term seems meaningless.
It’s a false dichotomy. Objects in the universe can still have significance beyond themselves. The problem comes from those who insist on a particular interpretation of this significance in spite of evolving evidence.
Due to 1) Recent advancements in the evidence, and 2) The Kantian Revolution, there is a tendency to believe that there must be no significant meaning. In fact, it could just mean we need to update our understanding of things.
7:31 for what Thornfox is talking about.
The yellow light is the funniest part, if you think about it.
Keep in mind that “we” (meaning the rationalist Greek-based societies) do it too though. We need symbols to represent the world or else we can’t synthesize a model of the world in our heads (or on paper) that we can decipher and comprehend.
But I think what you are referring to are those who engage in things like “numerology” where they seek understanding in the Platonic sense where the world must fit a magic pattern and disregard the universe as the ultimate arbiter. And that *is* sad.
- JBW
What’s sad is that we still have people attempting to read the world as symbols.
Ya, they don’t make-em like this anymore!
- JBW
This was a series!
“An ex-nightclubber and Bishop named Augustine”…hilarious!