Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Tulip
The reason why there should be parallels is that the earth has had a consistent precessional cycle since life began, and it is a reasonable hypothesis that this regular cosmic terrestrial pattern should be exhibited in things which have evolved within it. Dutch uses Platonic solids rather than natural cycles. I can’t see what the scientific basis of his ideas might be.
|
Yes, well, I still can't see what the scientific basis of yours is, and I assure you, I'm not alone. Further, I
don't think it's reasonable that human history should in any way be influenced by things that happen off the Earth, leaving aside the obvious influence of, well, the Sun and the Moon. Further, that cycle has, I assume, been consistent since
before life began as well, since the planet formed. I could be wrong on that, of course; I'm really only pointing out errors in your history, not your science. However, if I'm right, why should its influence only be seen in life? Shouldn't its influence be in everything?
Quote:
|
This material is consistent with tropical western astrology but does not rely on it. For example, there are exactly sixty Saturn-Neptune conjunctions every 2147 years. This is just one cosmic rhythm which is imbedded in the structure of the solar system, and hence of course the evolution of the earth. I find astrological speculation about the meaning of this and other outer planetary cycles interesting, more so in that they come together precisely twelve times every age.
|
Interesting is one thing. Actually having evidence about it is quite another.
Good so far . . . .
Quote:
|
No. If you can present records of equivalent detail to Ancient Rome and the modern West then I would be interested to look at them. China or India may be candidates.
|
No. No, that doesn't work. It is
your job to find that evidence. There are plenty of records from quite a few civilizations stretching back well over 2000 years. China and India are indeed candidates. But it's not my job to find the evidence for you. It's your job to find it for yourself and present it to us, and it
astonishes me that you wouldn't bother doing so before declaring yourself correct.
Quote:
|
This is a complex question. I am arguing that long term causal cycles of the solar system are exhibited in human history, in the only parts of that history where the records are sufficiently detailed to test the claim and where there is an arguable causal dependency between one and the other civilization over a >2147 year period. For example, if we are now at the point of history equivalent to 140BC, then we can look at what happened then to explore possible parallels and lessons. There is an accidental and voluntaristic dimension to history which can distort the sort of deterministic fatalist path implied by the method I am exploring. If a strong personality or ‘great man’ pushes against the tide, as it were, I would think this could significantly shift the outcome. Overall, my view is that the broad parallels between the development of Rome and USA are strong, and that these parallels are exhibited precisely in some cases and with some latitude in others.
|
Yeah, I'm looking for a number. Further, if you admit that human forces can alter your cycle, why assume there's a cycle in the first place? The fault, dear Robert, is not in our stars but in ourselves.
Quote:
|
That the institutions of one in large part evolved from the institutions of the other.
|
So the Aztec, Mayan, Toltec, and Olmec civilizations should be roughly parallel. You'll find, however, that they aren't.
Okay so far . . . .
Quote:
|
Yes. For example, if records were available, it would be interesting to compare Rome and Egypt.
|
And here's where you have problems. Yes. You should do that; you'll find records
are available. That is,
if you had bothered researching more than a cursory glance at US and Roman history. It is quite obvious that you didn't. You aren't even aware of how many records exist. You are forming a pattern based on what you see between two conciously-chosen civilizations. You don't, I hope, deny that fact. However, so far as I can tell, so far as you've demonstrated at all, you haven't looked into any other civilizations to show whether your pattern exists in them. You haven't even looked to see if you
can. And that is why no one here believes you. You are drawing on too small a data set. There have been, by some estimates, a couple of dozen or more civilizations in world history, and that's just the ones since the development of writing. Out of those, again, you have chosen
two. You haven't looked into the others, and you don't know if you can. Come back when you've finished your research.