Quote:
Originally Posted by Gillianren
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? Interesting is one thing. Actually having evidence about it is quite another. Good so far . . . . 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. 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. So the Aztec, Mayan, Toltec, and Olmec civilizations should be roughly parallel. You'll find, however, that they aren't. Okay so far . . . . 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.
|
Thanks Gillian, but I suspect my lack of Olmec scholarship is hardly the reason my claims are not believed. Your allusion to Shakespeare’s line from Julius Caesar contains a better pointer, namely the implicit modern enlightenment assumption that human life can be understood as entirely separate from the cosmos, a view which has given us the wonders of modern technology as well as the risk of planetary destruction. The cosmic ontology underpinning my work assumes, quite validly, that we cannot understand human life separately from a broader cosmic context, and that integration of life and culture into a cosmic framework is essential and possible. I take this cosmic context to be the solar system rather than the stars. I know this is a disreputable and repugnant idea for those wedded to older paradigms of objectivity, but that does not make it wrong or less objective.
I confess I had not heard of the Olmec civilization, and would be thrilled to hear of actual dates of events as exist for Rome, and of successor civilizations with a continuity over separate ages as exists between the modern west and ancient Rome. As I have said, this data does not exist to my knowledge for pre-Columbian American cultures, so they will be very difficult to use as examples. Your call for me to delve into historical byways misses the point regarding the existence and nature of the precessional cycle. I need to repeat in simpler terms things I have already said. Precession is a real cycle. There is no doubt it is real. This is why I assume there is a cycle. We are part of this cycle because we are part of the solar system. The issues are how it is manifest in human history, and how the ~25800 year cycle can be shown to have sub-cycles.
There are more Roman examples which could be explored for modern parallels, for example Fabius Maximus is similar to Franklin Delano Roosevelt in refusing to fight for many years against a formidable foe (Hannibal & Hitler). The starting point, as a matter of historical interpretation, is to get a sense of what events are most important, and of the broad sequence of civilisational evolution, as I have presented here already. We can readily see that the event which propelled Rome into domination of the Mediterranean, the defeat of Hannibal, is precisely one age before the events which propelled the USA into domination of the world – the defeat of Germany and Japan. Just on this basis, and the cosmic indicator given by the physical nature of precession, it is reasonable to explore how ancient Mediterranean history was like an incubator for the modern world, using the separation by one age as an analytical reference point.
A further point on the barycentric 178.9 year cycle caused by patterns of the outer planets. With the longer precessional cycle, we can look at the biggest events and see how they reverberate in world history after one phase. We can do the same for the barycentre. The biggest event in modern history is the French Revolution, marked by the storming of the Bastille on 14 July 1789. This event was precisely one barycentric cycle before May 1968, when the Sorbonne was closed by student protest. These biggest events have this apparent prima facie reverberation against cosmic cycles, suggesting a productive analytical research program to investigate the structure of time. Of course, the 1960s differ massively from the 1780s, but it is a reasonable hypothesis that within these differences a cosmic causal factor pushed through and made itself manifest in the biggest events.
In a previous thread on
Precessional Cosmology I provided the following picture and related discussion which indicated why the twelfth division of the great year is likely to be significant.
Together with the 1/144th division producing the barycentre, this evidence looks to me to be strong for the physical existence of the age. Together with the observation that the single main events for the dominant powers of the ages of Aries (Rome) and Pisces (USA) occurred at precisely the same time in the cycle, I think the case is persuasive. I accept that it will not be compelling until a fair bit more yakka is done to establish a causal mechanism explaining the correlations. (But is there not some question remaining regarding the causal mechanism for gravity?)
I think your questions introduce extraneous material which distracts from the central case, but this is still very helpful to force greater clarity and to show how previous explanation has not been sufficiently precise, complete and logical.