Slashdot Mirror
Giordano Bruno After 400 Years
We live in a publicity-craving era of frenetic fame-seekers. So it can be ironic to realize how some of the most celebrated people of the past somehow slipped into obscurity, even after a lifetime spent earning acclaim. Take Aldous Huxley, for example. The author of Brave new World and many other bold novels -- who also helped usher in the psychedelic era -- managed to time his death so the obituary vanished in a back corner of any newspaper that bothered to mention it at all. He did this by passing away on Nov. 22, 1963, the same day that President John F. Kennedy was shot.
Care to top that? Try this. Even as we slowly work off our hangovers and headaches from those Y2K non-events and anticlimactic "millennium celebrations" -- and while we watch the Internet undergo partial self-destruction at the hands of some of its brightest sons -- I notice on my calendar that we nearly let pass without notice the 400th anniversary of the death (on an execution pyre) of Giordano Bruno.
Giordano who?
Giordano Bruno... only one of the greatest geniuses of the later Renaissance and one spectacularly interesting fellow.
All right, few people know of him today. Tourists blink in puzzlement at his statue, now standing in the Roman square -- the Campo de Fiori -- where the Inquisition incinerated him. But his name wasn't always obscure. With a colorful personality and a flood of unconventional opinions, Bruno was a sensational figure as the 17th century drew to a close -- a prominent Renaissance thinker who, true to that complex era, mixed philosophy, religion, logic and mysticism while preaching a daring worldview that helped set the stage for what we now know as science.
Born near Naples in 1548, Bruno joined the Dominican order of monks at age 18. But soon his restless spirit and critical mind led him to question church teachings, including the notion that the heavens revolved around the Earth, forcing him to flee to Geneva, then France, England and Germany. Bruno's habit of questioning established doctrines brought him into conflict with powerful leaders of both the Catholic and Reformed churches, few of whom were known to tolerate free-thinkers.
Still, with luck and uncanny survival instincts -- and by appealing to the intellectual excitement of the time -- Bruno kept teaching unconventional views in Oxford, Marburg, Wittenberg, Prague, and Frankfurt. Eventually lured back to Italy on a pretext, Bruno was imprisoned in 1592 by the Inquisition, tried as a heretic and burned alive on Feb. 17, 1600.
It can be easy to get carried away over some of Bruno's most prescient views - for instance championing the heliocentric astronomy of Copernicus before Galileo did, then going much further to suggest that the twinkling stars in our night sky are actually suns shining on distant planets, possibly harboring other forms of life. He also held that humans might someday acquire almost godlike powers by understanding lightning and other heavenly mysteries. In that event, we might still need religion for moral guidance -- he opined -- but no longer to shape our models of the physical or biological world.
In an era transfixed by the primacy of the human image -- when great minds of the establishment insisted that the Creator must have a navel and a beard -- Bruno completely rejected the anthropocentric universe, believing instead that the Earth and individual humans are ultimately accidental products of a single living world-substance. In this, he presaged many notions of Darwinian biology.
To a modern mind, his call for tolerance and open enquiry seems especially poignant and prophetic.
Still, one does Bruno a disservice by emphasizing only the things he got right. Many of his other writings now seem silly, deliberately provocative, or just perplexingly obscure, such as his doctrine of panpsychism (belief that reality is constituted by the mind), which anticipated the teachings of Gottfried Leibniz and Baruch Spinoza... and may be echoed in today's extropian movement. He used to get into terrific rows with contemporaries over minutiae that would put most of today's philosophy professors into snoring catalepsy. (People cared deeply about such things, once upon a time.) His fascination with magic and the occult would hardly impress scientists in the year 2000, though it might lend him a New Age cult appeal.
So? The essential point -- and the reason I find this long-dead fellow's life worth noting -- is how Bruno looked around a superstitious age with eyes that were essentially modern. Even his flaming egotism and penchant for pushing other peoples' buttons would fit in well, today.
The clergy of his time weren't dummies; they had their own "grand unified theory" of how things worked and how people should behave. If we have made progress since that era, we owe it less to our improved orthodoxies than to the way we've learned to _tap_ the creative energies of those who defy the intellectual status quo, instead of killing them. Slowly, often grudgingly, society discovered that there is something to value in the rancorous, difficult, blasphemous few who gleefully challenge authority. Those who rip away the set pieces of any conservative worldview to reveal disturbing truths that lie beneath and beyond. Such people, though irksome, are also responsible for much progress in the world.
Imagine if Bruno somehow got teleported into our time -- perhaps with other standout intellects like Benjamin Franklin. One could picture him adjusting with relish to an era so enamored of flamboyant eccentrics. In a month, he would be on all the talk shows. In a year, he might have his own.
In fact, why not spin a story about that? Imagine that some future, time-traveling age will share our own fascination with exceptional men and women of the past. Suppose they reach back to grab Bruno out of his pyre at the last moment, if only to repair and then enjoy a colorfully vivid person who surged so far ahead of his time, caroming about the realm of ideas like a joyous crank, shouting at his stupefied contemporaries to _wake up!_
Not all geniuses are saintly or perfect. Some can be simultaneously offensive, delightful, in your face and profound in both their prescient visions and their spectacular errors. They are also terrifically alive.
So very alive that I feel they somehow testify for the rest of us. They help justify us, showing that humanity _must_ have a reason -- beyond mere creation or natural selection -- for being.
david brin,copyright 2/00 1000 words
==
David Brin is a scientist and bestselling novelist. His 1989 thriller Earth foresaw both global warming and the World Wide Web. A movie with Kevin Costner was loosely based on The Postman and Startide Rising is in pre-production at Paramount Pictures. Brin's non-fiction book -- The Transparent Society: Will Technology Make Us Choose Between Freedom and Privacy? -- deals with threats to openness and liberty in the new wired-age. His latest novel, Foundation's Triumph, brings to a grand finale Isaac Asimov's famed Foundation Universe.
...actually.
-- SIGFPE
Don't know of no Giordano Brunco.
- --
Bruno, on the other hand...
----------------------------------------
FYI the name on the title of the article is mispelled...please fix.
Thanks,
Giordy
=)
Just a little math problem, no big deal. =)
Anyway, he sounds like a good guy, but I'm not sure if he'd make it today or not. In this age of television and photographs and instant transmission of text, you have to be pretty charismatic to succeed (with few exceptions). It takes a particular personality. Maybe Bruno had it, maybe not, but clearly thought-out, potentially radical ideas are no guarantee of anything.
Ben Franklin was a good example too. He had a lot of cool ideas, but his character has been called into question in the past. You just now that in today's world, any indiscretions would be immediately pounced upon, and no one would pay attention to poor Ben's virtues.
Ah well, such is life.
Powers&8^]
So, maybe this guy is a figment of the collective imagination, or a time traveller from the present.
Forgotten famous individuals are very common. Sometimes they really aren't that famous or that important on a global sense. There aren't very many REALLY special or known people, but there are an incredible amount of people who are sort of famous. Is anyone going to remember scientists such as Murray Gell Mann (coined the term "quark"), Stan Pruisner (nobel for discovering the prion) or David Ho (Time's Man of the Year a few years ago -- Aids research)? Although sad, I really don't think so.
I think that like media, the digital age is going to enhance our understanding of present day figures in the future. Just like we will watch a TV show from today that has been digitalized 20 years from now identically, we will have better access to documents and academic insights on important people of our era.
-- Moondog
And they'd be right.
But they would also claim that this invalidates belief in Jesus. There, they would be wrong. The actions of misguided people abusing Jesus' name 400 years ago have nothing to do with my faith now -- although they do serve to point out some of the hazards awaiting those who forget the church's purpose.
Just thought I'd mention that. :) -1 here I come!
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
I wrote a long essay on Bruno in college. One thing that is fascinating about him and remarkable for his era was his openess to ideas from non-Christian traditions - he incorporated a lot of ideas from Sephardic Judaism (especially Qabalaism) and from Islamic philosophers. This fact was one of the reasons why he was targetted by the Vatican. He got right in the crosshairs of the counter-reformation.
"His 1989 thriller Earth foresaw both global warming and the World Wide Web."
Excuse me, but HUH? That global warming psuedo science propoganda was around long before 1989. Dr. Carl Segan made an entire career out of that tripe, along with other hysteric predictions based upon baseless models and wasted supercomputer cycles.
Now, the business about forseeing the WWW, that might be something.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
It's also nice to look back on some of the visionaries that we've forgotten. It seems that before a view becomes widely accepted (heliocentrisim, in this case) it has to be touted by others first, and sadly it doesn't stick the first time around. It'll be interesting to see if the Internet can change that with freer access to other's ideas.
I apologise for the hoorrible speeling.
"The romance of Silicon Valley was about money - excuse me, about changing the world, one million dollars at a time."
Visit
While I agree that those who fundamentally tear at rules or even whole mindsets do produce the biggest advances, I disagree that we have gotten any better at tolerating non-conformity. In philosophy of science studies, the role of non-conformists has been analysed by TS Kuhn. His major publication is "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Unfortunately, non-conformists are just as frequently burnt at the stake today as they ever were by the Inquisition. The role of the liberal arts professor nowdays, at least at the University of Chicago, is perceived as stamping out any original thought in their students, indoctrinating them with the correct viewpoints, quotables and pet phrases and even pre-arming them with dirt on the major players of opposition academic camps. It is mostly the toadies and parrots who survive and prosper amid such an education. Heretics are still burnt at the stake, but with modern methods.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
Imagine if Bruno somehow got teleported into our time -- perhaps with other standout intellects like Benjamin Franklin. One could picture him adjusting with relish to an era so enamored of flamboyant eccentrics. In a month, he would be on all the talk shows.
Of course he would, he somehow got teleported into our time. That man should be on *every* talk show.
He is RIGHT and he actually quoted from the post!
Dumbass moderators.
Bruno wouldn't be cherished today for the crazy, creative ideas he brings out - he would be reviled if he tried to spout new and creative ideas. Anyone who tries to alter the rules of discourse from the outside (as Kuhn warned) is laughed out of the house, and so would Bruno be today. Only the people who work from WITHIN the system, as Bruno stubbornly refused to do, can actually help us make any progress. Look at great visionaries in our own time whose work is scorned, or simply sidelined by mainstream academia. (Noam Chomsky leaps to mind.)
The clergy of his time weren't dummies; they had their own "grand unified theory" of how things worked and how people should behave. If we have made progress since that era, we owe it less to our improved orthodoxies than to the way we've learned to _tap_ the creative energies of those who defy the intellectual status quo, instead of killing them. Slowly, often grudgingly, society discovered that there is something to value in the rancorous, difficult, blasphemous few who gleefully challenge authority. Those who rip away the set pieces of any conservative worldview to reveal disturbing truths that lie beneath and beyond. Such people, though irksome, are also responsible for much progress in the world.
We really need to be careful about patting ourselves on the back here. We might not be killing dissidents today, but they can be marginalized enough to prevent their voices from being heard by more than a handful of people.
Power structures will do anything to maintain their power, they never simply close up shop becuase they realize they aren't working anymore. Many years ago religious structures set the rules including their "absolute truths" and taboos (still true in some countries today). The institutions running things today might not be specifically religious, but they aren't necessarily acting any different.
We need to be especially careful today because of what technology allows us to do, from manipulating public opinion with mass media to the ability to track what people do without them knowing it.
Even the scientific community is guilty. They have their own absolute truths, and anyone who tries to cross them gets cut down until the evidence is too overwhelming to ignore.
Don't get me wrong, the human race has made a lot of progress, I just don't think we've made as much as everyone else seems to think we have.
Bruno was actually written up in Scientific American several years ago now; that's where I first heard of him. (No, I don't know which month off-hand, but it was almost certainly pre-1986.) He was a trouble-maker in many ways as well.
When you get right down to it, Galileo was put under house arrest because Bruno had been using Galileo's discoveries as part of his arguments against the Church. Galileo himself wasn't all that active politically, and the political side of the Church probably would have ignored him completely if Bruno hadn't used Galileo's observations of the moons of Jupiter as proof that not everything revolved around the Earth, and then went on to challenge the other teachings of the Church. (The Church didn't really care if people believed in the Copernican model; hell, the Church financed Copernicus. But they really took exception when anyone challenged the idea of the Earth being the spiritual centre of the universe. Which Bruno did.) Bruno's agitation helped fuel the anti-science leanings of the Church at the time, and made life a whole lot harsher for many other scientists at the time.
Bruno himself was an interesting thinker; unfortunately, when he got the Church's attention, he ended up taking a number of others down with him.
-- Bryan Feir
C.S. Lewis also passed away on Nov. 22, 1963. I read a good book once, Between Heaven and Hell, that describes a possible conversation the three might have had on their way into the afterlife. Completely fictional of course, but interesting.
Constitutionally Correct
Don't forget that he's the one that invented grated parmesan cheese, which really angered italian cheese-makers... That's the real reason he was burned at the stake, just like all sorts of other intellectuals who would nowadays be heralded for their damn good ideas. :)
Vorro
---------------------------
A wise man speaks because he has something to say.
A foolish man speaks because he has to say something.
____________________________
What did the Buddhist say to the hot dog vendor?
"Make me one with everything."
He lived in the 16th and not in the 17th century, and his family name is Bruno, as many have already pointed out. Strange you could misspell Bruno, since it's such a common word. In italian, it means "brown heared". For example "ragazza bruna" would mean brunette.
Sigged!
Maybe it's just the memory of being beat up as a kid, many times, for being what one tormentor called a "walking dictionary"; or knowing people who have been subject to, or threatened with, violence (by the state or by private citizens) because of their personal lifestyle choices; or knowing that both Presidental front-runners describe themselves not just as Christians but as "born-again" Christians; but I just don't see a love of diversity and eccentricity in the mainstream of our culture. I think we covered that point here pretty well in the post-Columbine "Hellmouth" threads.
Yes, there's a certain amount of "geek chic", but there's a simple reason for that. The mainstream is somewhat enamored of Bill Gates or Steve Jobs because they're filthy rich, plain and simple.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
A small point, to be sure, but the part about the "pretext" isn't really true. In the 1580's Bruno had developed an elaborate theory of memory training (published in, most famously, his Clavis Magna or Great Key). In 1591 he was invited to Venice by a gentleman named Mocenigo, who was keenly interested in his methods of memory training. Angry after failing to obtain from Bruno the secret of his "natural magic", Mocenigo denounced him to the Inquisition. The Ventian authorites reluctantly extradited him.
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
> misguided people abusing Jesus' name 400 years ago have nothing to do with my faith now
"They" haven't said anything about your faith. In fact, one of the really annoying things about "Christians" is how often they seem to have to tell the world about it. Most of us are not regularly shopping for a new religion or advertising our own. If your faith is strong, who cares what people say?
As Mel Brooks wrote:
The Inquisition - here we go
The Inquisition - what a show
We know you're wishin' - that we go away!
The Inquisition's here - and it's here to stay!
The revolution will NOT be televised.
the heavens revolved around the Earth, forcing him to flee to Geneva, then France, England and Germany
we've learned to _tap_ the creative energies of those who defy the intellectual status quo, instead of killing them.
be simultaneously offensive, delightful, in your face and profound
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
In fact Giordano Bruno has since long been thought of as a precursor to modernism. Samuel Beckett, for example, wrote a well-known essay describing the connection between him and James Joyce (called Dante..Bruno..Vico..Joyce, I can't remember the exact number of dots, though). His ideas about "panpsychism (belief that reality is constituted by the mind)" were instrumental in defining Joyce's vision (Ulysses, if you'll remember, consists of a description of the reality of Dublin seen through the eyes -stream-of-consciousness- of a number of its inhabitants. The modernists, therefore, were already quite aware of him, so I think it's fair to say his ideas were an important predecessors to our modern mindset. After all, like it or not, Joyce's ideas, as well as Becket's, have slowly slipped into our collective unconscious during the past century.
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
"Awwww! That went away with the Dark Ages! Anyway, America has never had that. It was =FOUNDED= on freedom!"
Tell ex-President Carter. Castigated and shredded for the crime of being an honest politician and an acknowledged falliable human being. Truth didn't mean a whole lot to Americans, on voting day.
Then, there's the mysterious case of a well-known TV chat-show host, who dared to suggest the American meat industry might have a non-zero level of BSE. A $60 million dollar lawsuit followed, for "damaging" the reputation of the industry.
Technological heretics - anyone hear from Sir Clive Sinclair, lately? Or the guy who invented the clockwork radio? The Osborne was the first laptop - they don't seem to have an up-to-date product list, though. Seems to me that there's a fairly long list of latter-day heretics being burned at the financial stake.
Then, there are those who disagree with the "orthodox" religion of politics. Marx is not only hated by the US, but anyone associated with his views of power equality was, for many years, banned from the shores of the allegedly free US. Those Americans who had the least sympathy for the idea that the underclass are probably just as intelligent as the ruling class were mauled by Macarthy and his thugs, and held with deep suspicion even to this day.
Is America the only country with such *cough* liberal views? By no means! In England, members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament were "Potential Subversives" and monitored by British Intelligence. At least one executive of CND is believed to have been assassinated by the British Government, for their moral and political views.
Exceptional circumstances, surely! Nope. The Greenham Common protesters were threatened with summary execution by the American military. Several =were= killed, in hit-and-run "accidents" in which the American and British Governments decided that the soldiers had diplomatic immunity, thus avoiding any kind of trial.
Then, of course, there's always the RUC's "Shoot To Kill" policy, in Northern Ireland, in which innocents were fair game for machine-gun fire, without warning, if a policeman decided he wanted live target shooting. The person designated to investigate the massacres, John Stalker, was pulled off the case after asking the wrong questions.
France, of course, has no problem with tolerence. It'll blow up ships in other people's ports (eg: Greenpeace Warrior) and award the agents medals of honor, after terrorising the innocent nation involved (New Zealand) into submission by threats of a complete blockade.
I'm sure the Algerians in France are happy with the tolerence there, too. No persecution! Just some unfortunate, mysterious deaths, injuries, beatings and abuse by the police and other French natives.
Freedom of the Press, though, is universal! I mean, look at what happened when Salman Rushdie published his "Satanic Verses"! Iran was extremely moderate, in it's response, don't you think?
Pacifists are routinely (and illegally) imprisoned during wars, in almost every nation on Earth. Many nations practice Conscription, with heavy fines or other penalties for conciencious objectors, pacifists and those who are politically, religiously or morally bound to refuse to condone violence or organisations dedicated to violence.
Whilst outright, open murder is much rarer than it was, in the middle ages, the same intolerence and hatred of those who are different is still there, and still destroying others. Minds who would probably be of enormous benefit to the world at large are crushed, or their owners quietly disposed of. Personally, I don't know which is the worse - the open slaughter of the differently-thinking innocents, or their quiet, legalised murder.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Perhaps it should come with an "Add to Shopping Cart" button?
:D
-Vel
...Bruno was a sensational figure as the 17th century drew to a close...
...ried as a heretic and burned alive on Feb. 17, 1600.
Born near Naples in 1548...
How could he be a prominent figure towards the end of the 17th Century, when he died at the beginning of it?
I like Brin, I was just mentioning that Earth was probably my favorite future prediction novel, but... what is he saying here?
That if this guy got teleported into the present, he'd adjust with alacrity, go online, try to gain his noteriety through flamboyance and strange opinions, and become... the most famous Slashdot troll of all? Bruno, thy name is MEEPT!!!
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Sounds like a Gauntlet quote to me...
:)
"Someone shot the food!"
Also, he'd have to be special to be on a talk-show. Flamboyant intellectual of 4 centuries ago just doesn't cut it. He had to be abducted by aliens and forced into weight-loss programs to get on Town Talk!
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Maybe this already has/had/happened is will happeningly happen. (Damn English tenses and their unwillingness to bend to time travel...)
Maybe this is why he was able to accurately hint that lightning might be harnessed, that distant stars contained distant worlds, with life. Maybe this explains Bruno's arrogance, his egocentrics... maybe he's been here, watched MTV, and, given a taste of the future, took some of it back with him.
Only time will tell ...
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Just because we don't burn people at the stake after torturing them, it doesn't mean that he wouldn't be found guilty of hacking and locked up for 20 years in a federal penitentiary. Or, even worse, executed for some crime he didn't commit in Texas.
Will in Seattle
that the real heresy to the Church was not what particular people believed but who they told. Gallileo was not persecuted until he began writing in vernacular Italian and so made his views known to the great unwashed, unversed in Latin. Until he did that he was left alone and considered an obscure crank.
Ok so global warming is real
how about the ozone hole?
grab a dictionary, look up ozone
after that ask yourself
when would be the best time of year and location on earth to take pictures of an ozone hole?
after you answer, go back to sleep
Maybe because his ideas only caught on after he died? ;)
(Okay, so it was more likely just a typo on Brin's part......)
-- WhiskeyJack
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/brun-f16 _prn.shtml
... was the first and decisive step toward man's self-liberation. Man no longer lives in the world of a prisoner enclosed within the narrow walls of a finite physical universe. He can traverse the air and break through all the imaginary
... to be found in a transition from an intellectual sphere dominated by a vision of the world in essentially theological terms to an
... pronounce sentence and declare the aforesaid Brother Giordano Bruno to be an impenitent and pertinacious heretic, and therefore to have incurred all the ecclesiastical censures and pains of the Holy Canon.... We ordain and command that thou must be delivered to the Secular Court ... that thou mayest be punished with the punishment deserved, though we earnestly pray that he (the Roman Governor) will mitigate the rigour of the laws concerning the pains of thy person, that thou mayest not be in danger of death or of mutilation of thy members.
A man of insight and courage
Giordano Bruno, philosopher and scientist, burnt at the stake 400 years ago
By Frank Gaglioti
16 February 2000
Four centuries ago today, on February 16, 1600, the Roman Catholic Church executed Giordano Bruno, Italian philosopher and scientist, for the crime of heresy. He was taken from his cell in the early hours of the morning to the Piazza dei Fiori in Rome and burnt alive at the stake. To the last, the Church authorities were fearful of the ideas of a man who was known throughout Europe as a bold and brilliant thinker. In a peculiar twist to the gruesome affair, the executioners were ordered to tie his tongue so that he would be unable to address those gathered.
Throughout his life Bruno championed the Copernican system of astronomy which placed the sun, not the Earth, at the centre of the solar system. He opposed the stultifying authority of the Church and refused to recant his philosophical beliefs throughout his eight years of imprisonment by the Venetian and Roman Inquisitions. His life stands as a testimony to the drive for knowledge and truth that marked the astonishing period of history known as the Renaissance--from which so much in modern art, thought and science derives.
In 1992, after 12 years of deliberations, the Roman Catholic Church grudgingly admitted that Galileo Galilei had been right in supporting the theories of Copernicus. The Holy Inquisition had forced an aged Galileo to recant his ideas under threat of torture in 1633. But no such admission has been made in the case of Bruno. His writings are still on the Vatican's list of forbidden texts.
The Church is currently considering a new batch of apologies. A theological commission headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the modern successor of the Inquisition, has completed an inquiry entitled "The Church and the Faults of the Past: Memory in the Service of Reconciliation", which proposes making an apology for "past errors". The results have been handed to Pope John Paul II, who is due to make a statement on March 12. The execution of Bruno is one of the church's crimes being considered but it is unlikely that major concessions will be made in his case. A number of hard-line Catholic figures have opposed the investigation from the outset, saying that excessive penitence and self-questioning could undermine faith in the Church and its institutions.
The current attitude of the Roman Catholic Church to Bruno is defined by a two-page entry in the latest edition of the Catholic Encyclopaedia. It describes Bruno's "intolerance" and berates him, declaring "his attitude of mind towards religious truth was that of a rationalist". [1] The article describes in detail Bruno's theological errors and his lengthy detention at the hands of the Inquisition, but fails to mention the best-known fact--that the church authorities burnt him alive at the stake.
Bruno has long been revered as a martyr to scientific truth. In 1889 a monument to him was erected at the location of his execution. Such was the feeling for Bruno that scientists and poets paid tribute to him and a book was written detailing his life's work. In a dedication for a meeting held at the Contemporary Club in Philadelphia in 1890, American poet Walt Whitman wrote: "As America's mental courage (the thought comes to me today) is so indebted, above all current lands and peoples, to the noble army of old-world martyrs past, how incumbent on us that we clear those martyrs' lives and names, and hold them up for reverent admiration as well as beacons. And typical of this, and standing for it and all perhaps, Giordano Bruno may well be put, today and to come, in our New World's thankfulest heart and memory."[2]
Karl Marx's co-thinker Fredrick Engels summed up the period that produced figures, such as Bruno, who challenged the church and laid the basis for modern science. In an introduction written in the 1870s to his unfinished work the Dialectics of Nature, Engels wrote: "It was the greatest progressive revolution that mankind had so far experienced, a time which called for giants and produced giants--giants in power of thought, passion and character, in universality and earning. The men who founded the modern rule of the bourgeoisie had anything but bourgeois limitations. On the contrary, the adventurous character of the time inspired them to a greater or lesser degree. There was hardly any man of importance then living who had not travelled extensively, who did not speak four or five languages, who did not shine in a number of fields....
"At that time natural science also developed in the midst of the general revolution and was itself thoroughly revolutionary; it had indeed to win in struggle its right of existence. Side by side with the great Italians from whom modern philosophy dates, it provided its martyrs for the stake and the dungeons of the Inquisition. And it is characteristic that Protestants outdid
Catholics in persecuting the free investigation of nature. Calvin had Servetus burnt at the stake when the latter was on the point of discovering the circulation of the blood, and indeed he kept him roasting alive during two hours; for the Inquisition at least it sufficed to have Giordano Bruno simply burnt alive."[3]
What is most characteristic of Bruno is his vigorous appeal to reason and logic, rather than religious dogma, as the basis for determining truth. In a manner that anticipates the Enlightenment thinkers of the eighteenth century, he wrote in one of his final works, De triplici minimo (1591): "He who desires to philosophise must first of all doubt all things. He must not assume a position in a debate before he has listened to the various opinions, and considered and compared the reasons for and against. He must never judge or take up a position on the evidence of what he has heard, on the opinion of the majority, the age, merits, or prestige of the speaker concerned, but he must proceed according to the persuasion of an organic doctrine
which adheres to real things, and to a truth that can be understood by the light of reason."[4]
A complex intellectual figure
An examination of Bruno's philosophical legacy reveals a complex figure who was influenced by the various intellectual trends of the time, in a period when modern science was just beginning to emerge. His enthusiastic polemics earned the
admiration of the most advanced thinkers of the period and the loathing of the Church, whose authority was being shaken to the core by learned assaults such as these.
Bruno was born in the town of Nola, near Naples, in 1548, at the dawn of the revolution in astronomy which was heralded by the publication of Copernicus's De revolutionibus orbium coelestium libri VI in 1543. Copernicus asserted that the sun, not the Earth, was the centre of a finite universe, with the planets on circular orbits around it and the stars on a fixed sphere a
considerable distance beyond.
The Copernican system not only challenged the Church's cosmological views, but also the rigid social hierarchy of feudalism. The previous neatly ordered view of the universe, with the Earth at the centre, reinforced the rigid feudal order
with serfs at the bottom and the Pope at the pinnacle. The dangerous implication of the Copernican theory was that if the Church's credo of infallibility could be challenged in the cosmological arena then its social position was also cast into doubt.
The Church was already under siege from all sides. In 1517 Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the church door in Germany, denouncing the practices of the Roman Catholic Church, the first blow in the Protestant Reformation that swept across Europe. The Vatican responded with a counterattack--the Counter Reformation--on anyone who appeared to challenge Catholic doctrine. In 1542 it established the Roman Inquisition to enforce its edicts with torture and execution.
Thus Bruno entered a world in ferment. In 1563 Bruno entered the monastery of St. Dominic, where he came to the notice of Church authorities for his unorthodox religious views. He used his time as a novitiate to acquaint himself not only with the philosophical works of the ancient Greeks, but also his more contemporary European thinkers. It was at this time that he first encountered the work of Copernicus, which was to have such a profound impact on his life.
Bruno took holy orders in 1572 but then left the order in 1576 after travelling to Rome. He had been caught reading philosophical texts annotated by the Dutch humanist philosopher Erasmus and escaped before being denounced to
ecclesiastical authorities. He spent the rest of his life until his capture wandering Europe discussing and promoting his philosophical ideas.
After three years in Italy he went to Geneva, which was then dominated by the Protestant sect led by Calvin. He soon came into conflict with academic authorities when he published a pamphlet stating that a local professor of philosophy had made 20 errors in one lecture. He was imprisoned by the Calvinist authorities and only released after withdrawing the offending publication. Twenty-six years earlier the Calvinists had burnt Servetus, a Spanish doctor, geographer and man of letters, at the stake for his scientific views.
Bruno then travelled to Toulouse in France, where he lectured on Aristotle's De anima and wrote a book on mnemonics--systems of memory training. He arrived in Paris by 1581, where he came to the attention of King Henry III who was attracted by his reputation of having a prodigious memory. The King found a position for him at the College de France after he had been forbidden entry to the Sorbonne by the ecclesiastical authority.
During his stay in Paris he wrote three books, two on mnemonics and a play entitled The Torch-Bearer by Bruno the Nolan, Graduate of No Academy, Called the Nuisance. In this play Bruno described his time in the Dominican convent in Naples and
presented a withering indictment of the Church. Giovanni Gentile's commentary on the play describes Bruno's characterisation of the Church as follows: "You will see, in mixed confusion, snatches of cutpurses, wiles of cheats,
enterprises of rogues; also delicious repulsiveness, bitter sweets, foolish decisions, mistaken faith and crippled hopes, niggard charities, judges noble and serious for other men's affairs with little truth in their own; virile women, effeminate men and voices of craft and not of mercy so that he who believes most is most fooled--and everywhere the love of gold."[5]
Bruno was forced to leave France in 1583 and travelled to England where his three-year stay proved to be one of the most fruitful periods of his life. He was introduced into a society that craved all forms of Italian learning and already had a considerable Italian and foreign exile community. Many had fled to avoid persecution for unorthodox philosophical and religious ideas. Bruno held discussions with Queen Elizabeth I, who was attracted by the prospect of discussing
philosophical matters directly in Italian. He quickly attracted a number of intellectuals who eagerly discussed the philosophical ideas of the time.
In England, Bruno published six books, all in Italian, fully elaborating his philosophical ideas for the first time. He was one of the first philosophers to discuss scientific issues in the vernacular. The very act of publishing in Italian was an open challenge to the Church, which sought to maintain Latin as the language of intellectual discourse and so limit the wider dissemination of ideas. Copernicus's groundbreaking work had been published only in Latin. So afraid were Bruno's printers that not one of them identified himself in the printed texts.
Bruno's view of the universe
Bruno's cosmology is outlined in The Ash Wednesday Supper, Cause, Principle and Unity and On the Infinite Universe and Worlds, which represent a brilliant anticipation of subsequent scientific and philosophical developments. In some respects
the conclusions Bruno arrived at by bold intuition surpassed the work of his successors such as Galileo and Kepler. The works are in the form of dialogues, where Bruno's characters argue various philosophical positions from different points of
view, one representing Bruno himself.
In The Ash Wednesday Supper Bruno was one of the first to argue for the existence of an infinite universe, which contained an infinite number of worlds similar to the Earth. In doing so, he rejected the limits of the Copernican system, which posited a finite universe limited by a fixed sphere of stars just beyond the solar system. He argued that the sun was not the centre of the
universe, saying that if the sun were observed from any of the other stars it would appear no different from them. Bruno even speculated that the other worlds would be inhabited.
German philosopher Ernst Cassirer explained the significance of Bruno's conception of an infinite universe as follows: "This doctrine
boundaries of the celestial spheres which have been erected by a false metaphysics and cosmology. The infinite universe sets no limits to human reason; on the contrary, it is the great incentive of human reason. The human intellect becomes aware
of its own infinity through measuring its powers by the infinite universe."[6]
Bruno's other three works published in England-- The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast, Cabal of the Cheval Pegasus and On Heroic Frenzies --contain a biting critique of the Counter Reformation. Italian historian Hilary Gatti in her book
Giordano Bruno and Renaissance Science observed: "The sense of these final Italian works, in my opinion, is
intellectual sphere dominated by a vision of the world in essentially philosophical terms. In this passage from theology to philosophy all forms of revealed religion receive harsh treatment, but above all the Christian religion that dominated the life and culture of the Europe of the sixteenth century, often through violence and oppression."[7]
It was in England that Bruno had his most profound impact. His views were discussed in intellectual circles and the arguments presented in his various books give a flavour of the contemporary discussion. Two leading scientists, William
Gilbert and Thomas Harriot, became leading proponents of Bruno's cosmological views. Gilbert, whose De Magnete (1600) stood as a basic text on magnetism until the nineteenth century, was prominent in a grouping that discussed scientific issues. He was particularly interested in developing his magnetic theories in relation to Bruno's cosmological views.
Harriot was a noted mathematician and astronomer, who was thought to have discovered sunspots before Galileo. Harriot exchanged letters with Kepler in 1608 discussing Bruno's conception of an infinite universe, which Kepler was to reject. Harriot was one of the scientists cultivated by the Ninth Earl of Northumberland--a devoted follower of Bruno.
Northumberland had an extensive library of Bruno's works, which he made available to the scientists in his circle.
Bruno was forced to return to France because of the decline in the fortunes of his patron, the Marquis de Mauvissiere, with whom he had travelled to England. He produced three works on his return to Paris but was forced to leave after his
challenge to debate all comers on the topic One Hundred and Twenty Articles on Nature and the World resulted in him being set upon by supporters of the Church. He then travelled to Germany, where he resided in Wittenberg and Marburg until 1588.
He was forced to leave Marburg after coming into conflict with the Lutheran authorities, then wandered Europe--Prague, Helmstedt, Frankfurt and Zurich.
In 1591 Bruno returned to Italy after being invited by the Venetian nobleman Zuane Mocenigo to educate the aristocrat in mnemonics. Mocenigo subsequently denounced him to the Inquisition. Bruno was arrested on May 23, 1592, cross-examined
on his philosophical works and on January 27, 1593 handed over to the Inquisition in Rome on the direct request of the Papal Nuncio, Taverna, acting on behalf of Pope Clement VIII.
During his detention in Rome he was interrogated on all aspects of his life and his philosophical and theological views over a period of seven years. On February 15, 1599 the Inquisition charged Bruno with eight specific acts of heresy, which the church has not revealed to this day. According to the limited documents available, Bruno was indicted for his "atheistic" views and for the publication of The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast. He refused to recant.
The Inquisition delivered its verdict on January 20, 1600, stating: "We hereby, in these documents
"Furthermore, we condemn, we reprobate and we prohibit all thine aforesaid and thy other books and writings as heretical and erroneous, containing many heresies and errors, and we ordain that all of them which have come or may come in future into the hands of the Holy Office shall be publicly destroyed and burned in the square of St. Peter before the steps and that they shall be placed upon the Index of Forbidden Books."[8]
Despite the false note of concern about Bruno's physical well-being, the Inquisition's verdict was a death sentence. Bruno was defiant to the end. Gaspar Schopp of Brelau, a recent convert to Catholicism and a witness to the sentencing, reported that Bruno exclaimed on hearing the sentence: "Perchance you who pronounce my sentence are in greater fear than I who receive it."[9]
The Holy Inquisition and its tormentors are remembered only as symbols of arch-reaction. But Bruno has stood the test of time. An examination of his life reveals a true Renaissance man with a passionate interest in all aspects of human learning, who participated with great energy and determination in the intellectual turbulence of his times. His insights made an important contribution to the ideas that laid the basis for modern science. His stubborn refusal to bow to the authority, power and repressive apparatus of the Roman Catholic Church, the most powerful institution of his day, will no doubt be an
inspiration for centuries to come.
The German philosopher Georg Hegel summed up the generation of thinkers to which Bruno belonged in his Lectures on the History of Philosophy: "These men felt themselves dominated, as they really were, by the impulse to create existence and to
derive truth from their very selves. They were men of vehement nature, of wild and restless character, of enthusiastic temperament, who could not attain to the calm of knowledge. Though it cannot be denied that there was in them a wonderful insight into what was true and great, there is no doubt on the other hand that they revelled in all manner of corruption in
thought and heart as well as in their outer life. There is thus to be found in them great originality and subjective energy of
spirit; at the same time the content is heterogeneous and unequal, and their confusion of mind is great. Their fate, their lives,
their writings--which often fill many volumes--manifest only this restlessness of their being, this tearing asunder, the revolt
of their inner being against present existence and the longing to get out of it and reach certainty. These remarkable individuals really resemble the upheavals, tremblings and eruptions of a volcano which has become worked up in its depths
and has brought forward new developments, which as yet are wild and uncontrolled."[10]
Notes.
1. The Catholic Encyclopaedia (http://www.knight.org/advent/cathen/03016a.htm)
2. Quoted in The Infinite Worlds of Giordano Bruno by Antoinette Mann Paterson, 1970, page ix
3. Dialectics of Nature by Frederick Engels, page 21-22
4. De triplici minimo by Giordano Bruno as quoted in Giordano Bruno and Renaissance Science by Hilary Gatti, 1998, page 4
5. Quoted in Giordano Bruno, His Life and Thought by Dorothea Waley Singer, 1950, page 22
6. Quoted in The Infinite Worlds of Giordano Bruno by Antoinette Mann Paterson, 1970, pages 33-34
7. Giordano Bruno and Renaissance Science by Hilary Gatti, 1998, page 229
8. Quoted in Giordano Bruno, His Life and Thought by Dorothea Waley Singer, 1950, page 176-177
9. Quoted in Giordano Bruno, His Life and Thought by Dorothea Waley Singer, 1950, page 179
10. Lectures on the History of Philosophy by G.W.F.Hegel, Volume 3, pages 115-116
Copyright 1998-2000
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
While you do have a valid point, everything is not about you or your faith. Your message might have seemed a little less egotistical if you had waited until someone actually did attack you or the things you believe.
Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation
Information is not Knowledge
On a side note, C.S. Lewis, another great thinker and writer, also died the same day as J.F. Kennedy, relegating his passing into obscurity as well.
It's worth noting that to many of his contemporaries, Bruno was seen as a chief proponent of the hermetic tradition (alchemical natural magic philosophy), not necessarily of Copernican scientific truth. Perhaps this was to his chagrin, but he played the part. While Bruno did indeed believe that Copernicus stumbled upon the truth, he also firmly held that it was his duty, as an Hermetic Messiah, to popularize and recontextualize the discoveries into hermetic symbolism. Unfortunately for Bruno, in his lectures he would do this in the precise words of one Marsilio Ficino, a contemporary natural philosopher, and his unacknowledged alchemical theories and terms were laughed at by the "grammatical pedants" at Oxford.
Bruno, who frequently referred to himself in the third-person as "The Nolan", took Copernican science and dragged it back into the murky prescientific, hermetic paradigm. A quote from Bruno's Cena de la ceneri:
Perhaps he did this to enlighten the masses, but his reward for this was obscurity and a nice statue.It is, perhaps, by happy accident that these notions were driven almost entirely by Bruno's Hermetic thought, and not by his acceptance of either the empirical or the mathematical veracity of the Copernican system.
Nonetheless, the man was a stud: regardless of his intentions, the result was laudable.
For further information, I would say the definitive work on Bruno is Francis A. Yates' Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964).
I liked this piece very much, all in all. It's good to see other kinds of content on Slashdot these days.
But...
... where exactly did Brin get the idea that Extropians are modern-day subjectivists? That's just weird. Especially considering that many of them are hard-core scientists.
- Rafael Kaufmann, heading for the Omega Point
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
Good one! You almost had me.
I'd love to help you out but I got so much exercise running around in January in the NorthEast in my freakin' T-shirt and shorts that I'm still tired.
Duh.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Bruno was a sensational figure as the 17th century drew to a close
and
Eventually lured back to Italy on a pretext, Bruno was imprisoned in 1592 by the Inquisition, tried as a heretic and burned alive on Feb. 17, 1600.
Huh? Looks to me that Bruno died at the end of the 16th century, or the beginning of the 17th for the calendar impaired.
the tragedy of bruno`s flaming death have caused maybe even more horrible one - posthumous tragedy of misunderstanding. today only a few know that the astronomical bemusings of bruno aro but most insignificant bits of his heritage. he was not a scientist, even not a naturphilosopher. he was philosopher, and of pure platonist breed.
he was burned not for his sparse utterances about the nature of physical world. historically speaking, he happened to lead the last, third act of the patheism drama of the mediaeval europe which was bound to end with the end of the middle ages themselves. the first drama was only intellectual, during the ottonic renaissance: fight between traditional theology and platonism. the latter (Berengarius of Tours, later - Anselm) won that fight because of the very good dialectic background, they made to think not only their immediate opponents, like Lafrabc or Adelman of Liege, bet even Gregorius VII (papa) - their way. but in words, of course, not. Later, Roscelinus emerged as the more serious opponent, but the field of fight morphed into the duel between nominalism and realism.
second act was a bit more dramatic. Some 100 years later, those Le Becian and Chartreusian traditions were inherited by Parisian dialecticians. Amauri de Benes and his pupil David of Dinant coined a slogan: creatorem et creaturam idem esse. and David said that the era of christ has ended altogether, and a new era of st. spirit is dawning - with all the horrible consequences for the clergymen and their political influence. i do not know about David, but Amauri did not lived up to oppositiion to their work. After the condemnation by Parisian synode, the corpse of Amauri has been excavated and excommunicated, ant their followers were persecuted and burned throughout all the imperium.
In the brunos case, it is the same old opposition between Platon and Aristotle, between realism and nominalism, between dialectics and metaphysics. simply pantheism is more compatible with the first series, and so the platonists. in the realm of natural sciences he had the opponent - Telesio, which has been empiricist. Bruno did not overly negat the matter, it has found its place in his system of dialectical categories of coomon and unique, whole and part, all and the one. matter has some potentiality too, like the mind (neoplatonic noys), and this potentiality resolves in the energy (action in greek). mind acts too, and differs from the matter only in its essence (eidos), but not in factuality of the real occurring world.
therefore world as the incorporation of its movement may be singled out this way, and this movement int the other turn may be unified with the anima mundi. In its turn, anima mundi is mivement only in its acting part, in its target-making, tleological aspect it is the part od the universal noys - intellect. but this hierarchy of categories (one=coincidentia oppositorum, noys of the world, anima of the worls, and factual occurrence of the world) are in relaity the one, the platonic triad and its factual incorporation. so the pantheism is only one possible dialectiacal inference of Platonism.
But his pantheistic neoplatonism is in relaity platonism with some twist, it denies any prosopon, any principle of individuality in the one. Theologicaly speaking, god has no individuality, therefore no one should worship it. and itis the nightmare for all the clergy. there are much more aspects, various, etc.
I think it's understandable that Christians on Slashdot be defensive, even in this "pre-emptive" manner: For example, I attended an extremely liberal college, and was (and is) extremely liberal myself, yet while there I was subject to vast blanket statements concerning Christians, that in most cases were only applicable to a small minority of ultra-fundementalists, if at all. Needless to say, I became very defensive while there, and probably jumped the gun more than once. While I think much of Slashdot is probablly neutral on these issues, we do feel like we have a lot of s**t attributed to us here, and unfairly at that.
Caution must be taken to distinguish critically between genius and the celebrity of iconoclasm. While the later often accompanies the former, the converse is less often true. Our own time, which some have the hubris to regard as little short of a second Age of Reason, overflows with celebrity in vacuo, celebrity for its own sake, much less any genius.
So I disagree, in part, with Brin in one essential respect: I rather think that, rather than striving as a creative heretic against monolithic dogma, a modern-day Bruno would react to the cacophony of the 21st-centuty daytime television commonwealth by seeking to illuminate inconsistent assumptions with reason. This is hardly a formula for celebrity, but it is certainly heresy to the comfortably numb.
Genius produces heresy, which may take forms of order or chaos as required and so finds fame without seeking fame. Bruno would react accordingly today, and probably die of old age.
I think this is exactly the attitude that everyone's talking about.
Huxley may have timed his well, but I find L Ron Hubbard's death more poignant. If I recall correctly, Hubbard died on the same day the Challenger blew up, thereby pushing his name back into a little-read section of the newspaper. Whereas Huxley may have wanted the obscurity of his death, we can rest assured that Hubbard did not. There is a certain delightful poignancy in seeing someone with an ego as large as that get a deserved dose of obscurity.
I can only hope that, in the year 2386, there won't be a similar article about Hubbard.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Besides, global warming is proven by multiple independent measurements. The most recent heat-flow measurements show a global temperature increase of 1 degree C in the last 500 years, 50% of that in the 20th century and another 30% in the 19th. (See a BBC article.) Anyone who uses the words "psuedo science propaganda" to describe the majority position of climate specialists who've backed up their opinions with literally mountains of data is a troll. (And anyone who can't spell "pseudo" correctly is marginally literate.)
--
"There's a word for people who live close to nature -
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Repression never stops. The Spanish Inquisition comes back every few years. Right now it's the atheists and OSS zealots. In a few years it'll be the Blacks again.
Actually, right now it's drug users. As of a few days ago, the U.S. passed the two-million prisoner mark. According to the Department of Justice's own figures, one quarter of those, or one half million U.S. citizens are imprisoned for non-violent drug offences alone.
Mandatory minimum prison sentences were applied in 64 percent of drug cases in 1998. The average length of imprisonment for drug offenses was 76 months; for firearms violations it was 63 months; and for manslaughter, it was 45 months. -- The Washington Post
Even if you find yourself with incurable cancer, like Steve Kubby, and all that is keeping you alive is regular use of medical marijuana, you are subject to imprisonment and likely death in prison from deprivation of your medicine if you are caught using an illegal medicine, i.e. one that is not patented by a campaign-contributing pharmaceutical company. Many medical marijuana patients, once discovered, find themselves under a court order not to use the only medicine that will keep them alive, and are subject to drug tests, and risk imprisonment and death in prison if they dare to continue using their medicine.
Drug users in general are subject to abuse and murder by the police. Their property is subject to seizure without trial, thus bankrupting them and preventing them from defending themselves. They are sent to special "drug courts" where they find that their constitutional rights don't apply. They are subject to "mandatory minimum" sentencing rules that forbid the judge from using any discretion in sentencing, hence the 76 month average drug sentence.
Back to the original point, if you go back far enough, the origins of most religions are based on the teachings of individuals who have had mystical -- i.e. hallucinatory, drug-like experiences. During the inquisition, someone who accidently ate the wrong mushroom, had a "mystical" experience, and claimed to have seen God would be put to death. In the year 2000, someone attempting to replicate the experience would face years in prison if caught.
Atheists and blacks, by contrast, are protected by a host of federal and state laws.
... is one of the more unusual spellings of it, but it's also worth noting that *all* the early scientists of this period studied the Kaballah (as it was more often written). This mystical tradition got heavy play with the Alchemists, who may have been wrong in many ways, but who performed the early inquiries that led the way towards true science, much as Freudians opened up the field of psychology.
Bruno truly is one of the great figures of history. Robert G. Ingersoll put it very eloquently in his The Great Infidels:
you call a brit government owned and operated "news" outlet as a source?
how about posting some real science? like the satellite data that is INCONCLUSIVE leaning towards COOLING
He is in the online dictionary:
/.-ers would catch on. Still might be figment of our collective imagination or a time traveller, but he's probably from the future in the latter case.
Bruno, Giordano. 1548?-1600.
Italian philosopher who used Copernican principles in formulating his cosmic theory of an infinite universe. Condemned by the Inquisition for heresy, immoral conduct, and blasphemy, he was burned at the stake.
and encyclopedia:
Bruno, Giordano
1548-1600, Italian philosopher. A Dominican, Bruno was accused of heresy, left the order (c.1576), and became a wandering scholar. His works were regarded as heretical, and he was arrested (1591), tried before the INQUISITION, and burned at the stake. His major metaphysical works, On the Infinite Universe and Worlds and The Infinite (both 1584), drew heavily from Hermetic gnosticism and other works on magic and the occult. His defense of Copernicus was based not on mathematics but on animist and religious grounds. Bruno held that there are many possible modes of viewing the world, because we cannot postulate absolute truth. He was the first to state what is now called the cosmic theory: that the physical world is composed of irreducible elements (monads) in constant motion, and that the universe is infinite in scope. This view, reflected in the works of LEIBNIZ and SPINOZA, accounts for Bruno's position as a forerunner of modern science.
I actually looked it up 'cause I thought it'd be an easy prank to pull, making someone up out of thin air and seeing if
Tesla also deserves a lot more credit than he's received. (Probably came in from another dimension.)
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
I'm sorry to be clueless but what is WWJD?
We Want Jesus Dead?
" " Demonized?
Hehehe...kinda funny, actually.
I'm guessing the 'J' stands for Jesus, considering the thread...
-Vel
Atheists and blacks, by contrast, are protected by a host of federal and state laws.
You idiot, I said that atheists and Blacks are conducting modern inquisitions, not suffering from them. Of course they're protected by federal and state laws! They're the Stalinists in power! They're the ones who are murdering my people, good decent honest Christians and Windows users!
The drug users get what they deserve. It's been proven (by public statements from extremely trustworthy people) that illegal drugs have absolutely no beneficial effects whatsoever. Illegal drugs are properly known as "narcotics", and they have no chemical or biological similarity with the beneficial medications produced by pharmaceutical companies. Marijuana is not medicine, it is a drug. That is why it is illegal. If you think I'm going to pay my taxes just to fund your dope parties, you're out of your mind. 76 months is a shockingly lenient sentence for posession of marijuana by people who try to lie their way out of it by claiming to have cancer or something. The only way to cure the drug plague is immediate summary death sentences for all offenders. Maybe then they'll think twice before bringing this poison into our communities. Until that time, it's all to the good if these criminals die in prison. A criminal is a criminal is a criminal, and I have sympathy for none of them.
this comment was posted on monday last.
i really must be psychic or something!
Him and John Dee are sorta-central character's in John Crowley's (_Little, Big_) extraordinary AEgypt series (_AEgypt_, _Love & Sleep_).
Crowley definitely his on Bruno's ideas about the Sun, Mind & Reality.
Really cool stuff.
Thing is, Crowley's kinda dropped off the face of the earth. Ever since Love & Sleep (mid-nineties) no one has heard much from him.
Anyone?
This book sounds interesting, to say the least! Any idea if there is an English translation? Is it an out-of-print book?
At any rate, this essay on Bruno by Mr. Brin was a wonderful piece! I had never heard of Bruno before, or of his teachings. My curiosity is now piqued, and I have to learn more...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Of course, the satellite data doesn't prove anything about global warming. The satellite sensors are measuring air temperature, not ground temperature. You'd expect the "visible" part of the air to remain about the same temperature, because the amount of heat it's receiving doesn't change much. The air is trapping heat on the ground, and that is where the ground-based weather stations (which have been confirming the global-warming models) happen to be. The borehole temperature data confirms that the weather stations are not reading funny due to systematic errors.
--
"There's a word for people who live close to nature -
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Scientologists challenge mainstream views and opinions as a regular part of their doctrine, and they challenge the 'scientific' realm of psychiatry on a frequent basis, for which they are perpetually burned at the stake.
Say what you will about 'em right now, but I'm fairly convinced that in 100 years time, things will be radically different for them... just as it is now for Christians, Protestants, and Atheists, compared to Bruno's era...
This is the way of things.
Excellent troll. Almost believable!
Let us not forget Francesco Petrarch, the man who coined the term "renaissaince". He was the first to look back at Roman antiquety and point to the then very intellectually dim world that the Romans had some ideas that were worth keeping, thus making room for people like Bruno ;-)
he'd be clawing desperately at the lid of his coffin!
Bruno's teachings combined the new science of his time with traditional Cabalistic mysticism. He believed in a universe of infinite space with infinite inhabited planets, and in a kind of dualistic pantheism, in which the divine is incarnate in every part always in conflicting forms that both oppose and support each other. Whatever his link with occult secret societies, he influenced Hegel, Marx, theosophy, James Joyce, Timothy Leary, Discordianism, and Dr. Wilhelm Reich. Me: Discordianism, eh? He couldn't have been all bad...
The above comment is CopyWrong (K) Erisian Entertainment. All Rights Reversed. Ewige Blumenkraft!
The article which is partially in the form of an interview then delves in the various historical descriptions on the burning on the stake and the horrendous tortures at the hands of the inquisition and closes inviting people to the conference.
A list of Giordano Bruno's publications can be found at this italian web site. Also, the italian ministry of research through one of its many sub-committees is working on a complete CD-ROM of Giordano Bruno's work in XML.
>>Technological heretics - anyone hear from Sir Clive Sinclair, lately? looks like he's had a good reason not to be playing with technology lately.... http://www.megastar.co.uk/megababes/19990707b_angi e.html Lovely Angie, 22, became romantically involved with the egg-head C5 and pocket calculator inventor back in 1998. The unlikely couple - she was a former £52,000-a-year lap dancer, he was one of Britain's most eminent brains - hit the headlines when they declared their love for each other, despite a 36-year age gap.
But they would also claim that this invalidates belief in Jesus.
Only trolls or morons make this claim. Intelgenbt people claim that it invalidates the claim that organised religion has any morals. There are plenty of reasons to doubt the Jesus story without needing to resort to funky reasoning. Specifically, the fact that much of Jesus's life is identical to the story of Zarathustra which predates it by 500-1000 years (or more), i.e. Jesus was creaded by plagarism.
although they do serve to point out some of the hazards awaiting those who forget the church's purpose.
Persicution is not the purpose of some monk wandering arround on a hilside contemplating life, but it is very much the purpose of every major religion (catholics would rather see people in South Africa get AIDS then use condoms; the christian right wants to persicute gays and women). Do you know why we have the bible belt today? Lots of sothern slave owners descided christianity would allow them to justify savery to the slaves and to themselves.
The actions of misguided people abusing Jesus' name 400 years ago have nothing to do with my faith now
Actually, it has more to do with the christian faith now then what Jesus said 2000 years ago. You think they reconstructed more of "his message" in the last 400 years. I do admit it probable has nothing to do with *your* faith now, but that is because you sound like a rational human being and not like the vocal christian right book burning fools.
Personally, I think the intelegent christians need a new word for themselves today. The christian right is really making a mess of your religion in this country. You could call yourselves the christian left. This would be a rejection of the christian right and not necissarily an acceptance of the liberal leftwing.
All that having been said, the Catholic church is not as bad as many of the non-cathlic religions today. They have a tradition of intelectualism which makes them MUCH better then our American christian sects (they accept evolution). You should always point this out whenever you are discussing the past atrocities of the Catholic church. It keeps people like me from going off on religion based on what we see today's vocal christian right doing.
-1 here I come!
This is probable the best way to prevent yourself from getting a -1.
(I'm posting this without my +1 because it is getting a little off-topic; I am telling people I am posting without my +1 in the hopes that other people with a +1 will say "what a good idea" and use it more responcibly in the future, i.e. I'm sick of seeing 100 worthless posts at 2)
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Uh, can somebody please explain to me how this guy FORSAW the www in 1989?!?! More quality journalism brought to you by Rob & Hemos I guess.
And they'd be right.
There's just one problem with this:
It's not so.
You cannot understand the teachings of Jesus apart from the Old Testament. Jesus did not come to abolish the death penalty as civil punishment for idolatry. He came to save people from the eternal consequences of their sins. The simple fact is that neither the New Testament nor Jesus himself endorses the notion of an unbeliever "honestly seeking truth." Such a creature does not exist. Unbelievers are doing everything in their power to get away from God. Read Romans 1.
If Bruno hadn't bought it at the hands of the Roman Catholics, odds are good that the Reformers would have cooked him themselves. It's unpalatable to a democratic and arrogantly individualistic society such as we find in North America and Europe, but the simple fact is that before God no one has the right to believe just anything they want, and God instituted civil government at least in part for the purpose of restraining folks like Bruno from corrupting civil society through the public proclamation of their lies. Had Bruno kept his mouth shut, no one would have cared about him, but he insisted on disrupting civil society.
He got what he deserved.
There is the possibility they could be wrong, but compare them to the bomb squad; if the bomb squad was running away, would you be sufficiently confident in your safety to stand there or would you at least duck and hide until you were sure? You could always bet the bomb was a dud, but you'd be betting your life. I prefer not to bet the world.
--
"There's a word for people who live close to nature -
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
In general attempts to decide scientific questions by appeal to religious orthodoxy have a very sorry history. That the stars are other suns, that the earth is not the center of the universe, that diseases are caused by microorganisms; all of these crucial insights were strongly and sometimes violently resisited, mainly because the dominant religion of the period happened to believe otherwise. Giordano Bruno was burned alive at the stake for urging the first view, Galileo was forced by threat of torture in the Vatican's basement to recant the second view. In principle, there is nothing wrong with appealing to a more general theory that bears on the case at hand, which is what an appeal to religion roughly amounts to. But that appeal can only be as good as the scientific credentials of the religion being applied to, and here the appeals tend to fall down rather badly. Bruno's main 'philosophical' insight was that he combined his speculative philosophy of nature with the new recommendations of a naturalistic ethics. Bruno's support for Copernicus in The Ash Wednesday Supper stemmed from his belief that a living earth must move, and he specifically rejected any appeal to mere mathematics to prove cosmological hypotheses. In fact, he ought to be interpreted in the context of Renaissance hermetism, instead of being seen as an active proponent of the heliocentric hypothesis or of a scientific wouldview against medieval obscurantism. Despite superficial similarities to certain beliefs of both Leibniz and Spinoza, Bruno had little or no impact on seventeenth-century philosophy as a whole. His contribution to seventeenth century thought stemmed from the fact that he was the only individual ever condemned by both Catholic and Protestant churches for heresy, and then burnt at the stake for good measure.
From what I've seen and heard, which has been a mix of mainstream media, environmental press, and (gasP) studies, there has not been "Proof." Mountains of data do not constitute proof - they constitute, at the most, documentation of what may or may not be reality. There are some interesting arguments out there, not so much against the concept of 'global warming', but against the models used, the viability of the studies, and the conjecture needed to form a nice-looking trend. We don't have hundreds of years of correllated, controlled data. Beyond that, the trends we're trying to examine are very long. Long enough to show up (as blips, I guess) on a geological time scale, in my limited understanding.
And just to bring this back into the scope of the thread, it's "proof" that got mister Bruno killed. 'Cause he was wrong.
[|]
One might wonder if it's because of it's teachings or the implication of wrongful death penalty by the "infallible" Pope. Well, murdering him was wrong no matter what, but you get my drift.
They limit enjoyment of the troll to those who agree with my POV. I'm certainly a nut on the sidewalk, but I'm more of a busker than a petition-waver. (While the spammers are like loud, aggressive drunks).
I do happen to agree about the idiocy of the "War" on "Drugs", though, especially stuff like the "Surgeon" "General" spouting off about how weed has no medical uses -- all the while blithely unaware that, like, *his own agency* has done studies offering compelling evidence to the contrary . . .
What confuses me about the responses to this article is how the Christians are endlessly perplexed at the loathing shown to them by athiests and agnostics. They read this, say "we're better now, we don't do that sort of thing" then go off and launch another petition, another lobby, another attempt to silence their fellow man. Let me explain something: The chief problem the rest us have with Christianity is its constant attempts to run our lives. My Grandfather passed away two days ago. I haven't seen him since I was six years old, so I hardly know what I lost. In Argentina, he died slowly and gradually, because the Catholic-controlled Argentine government does not believe in pulling the plug under any circumstances. His heart and lungs were being artificially driven, and he was kept sedated for fear of what his conscious mind would do to himself. The Christians believed they had the right to dictate the course of this man's death. He gets the last laugh though. As per his will, his body is to be cremated, and his ashes spread about a local park in Buenos Aires, acts which are not permissable by the Church. This is the sort of behaviour that spawns the seething annoyance of the rest of the world at Christians. No matter how nice you claim to be, your own beliefs state that we are all damned if we do not follow you. Such a religion, cobbled together by the corrupt and greedy, bogging down the words of the few wise men who had hands in its origins, is so obviously damaging. Sometimes I think that Darwinean logic is so unpopular among the Christians for the specific reason that said system is responsible for the formation of successful religions. A nice, friendly religion, that says that everyone can love one another regardless of faith, people should say what they believe, and freedom is encouraged, would be wiped out quickly or swallowed up. Meanwhile, a harsh one in which enemies are smoten, the unfaithful go to Hell, the Church wields the power of the diety, and other such factors will spread like wildfire. Still, there is one main question of logic that evades most evangelical religions, that bothers me all the time: Why should I believe you instead of him? Christians say they are right, but so do Muslims, Scientologists, Hindu, and any other faith. There are reasons why Christianity may be more pleasant to follow then others, but no reasons why it is more believable. The simple fact is that, from a non-Christian perspective, Christianity has no more spiritual reason to be followed then any other. I am not preaching my atheism. I'm just trying to get the religious folk to shut up and leave us the hell alone.
idiot
I recall reading a science fiction book (forget the title) where they fed all possible data in about historic figures and then created a computer simulation of the person. Why bother with time travel?
While I agree with you that some atheists can be denigrating in their dismissals of religion, I think there is a point that needs to be raised on the issue.
It is something of a duty, perhaps in the tradition of Carl Sagan, of people who understand science to explain (and promote) it to those who don't. When you're dealing with individuals who have very closed world views, often due to a fundamentalist religious or New Age upbringing and an absence quality scientific education, there can be a fair amount of intellectual trauma involved.
What those of us arguing for science need to remember is to remain polite, endeavour to understand what is going through the minds of those we're talking to, and, perhaps, to know when our time is being wasted.
Fixing copyright
I don't aggree at all, well this belongs more to the next answer :-)
:-) simply DO things and if you count all you know together you will find your self more comfortable.
You are both right and wrong.
In a standard german high school you learn during your 13 years of education everything each of "Newton, Leonardo, Napier, Pascal, Wern, Tycho Brahe, Kelper(Kepler)" knows.
However, regarding Newton, he went deeper in math.
Regarding Leaonardo: he practiced more arts.
The key in beeing goog in something is practicing it, knowledge alone, of cource is far toe less.
However you should not underestimate your self
Regards,
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
What irritates me most about Brin is that he has a rather simplisitic grasp on the historical context, and a rather irritating political axe to grind.
The "great minds" of the period did not insist that the Creator must have "a navel and a beard"!
That's rather like the notion that the "great minds" of the time dismissed Colombus because they thought the earth was flat!
In other words, it is a historial anachronism.
Theology had always understood that the deity, however defined, was infinite and beyond comprehension (this is one reason for the emergence of anti-idolotry). The "great minds" had never been limited to a purely anthropomorphic view of God.
Brin is simply repeating canards created by 18th and 19th century atheists to put down religion.
And no, I'm not religous myself. But I do think Brin's writings are rather shallow, uninformed ideological rants.
I do find it rather odd how many people have never heard of Bruno, though.
Because once you read a dictionary definition, you know enough as professional scientists.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Most (if not all) two-letter domains are ISO 3166 country codes, and "CX" is the code for Christmas Island, which is "an Australian Territory" near Java (the Indonesian island, not The Programming Language Formerly Known As Oak :-)).
However, this does not necessarily mean that the Anonymous Coed in question is necessarily on Christmas Island; it is, I suspect, possible to buy Christmas Island domains if you're a non-resident (various other countries, such as Tonga (".to"), do the same).
> but the simple fact is that before God no one has the right to believe just anything they want
Well you do, don't you? You seem to think you own or can speak for the creator of the universe. That's ridiculous, on the face of it. Arrogant and probably heretical in many places.
> God instituted civil government
Oh, so we should blame God for high taxes. And God, creator of the universe, needs a civil government to keep people in line. Why not a little heart pain with a big booming voice in his ear? Wouldn't that be more effective and straightforward?
> He got what he deserved.
Right, he deserved to be burned at the stake for thinking for himself and talking to people. Gee, sounds a lot like what that Jesus guy did. Did he deserve that crucifix? I guess that's why it's OK for Christians to shoot gynecologists who perform abortions.
Judge: "Sheriff, why'd you kill Jeb?"
Sheriff: "Yer Honor, that man just needed killin'!"
The revolution will NOT be televised.
is why I surf @ -1 :)
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
There still a part of the british empire. And they are located on earth.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Certainly he was "well-versed in the Gnostic teachings" but I think his philosophy was more Hermetic. He felt that the universe itself was divine, and that only by learning how the world works we hope to communicate with God. Bruno's world was alive with divine energy, and an individual could, through learning and study, work with these energies for the benefit of all. I think he leaned more towards Neo-Platonism and theurgy than the Gnostics.
122 15.23' W, 37 50.97' N
I knew that one day the true story of my namesake would be brought to light and celebrated! God bless this day!
In short, the people that your attempting to reason with are lame idiots who believe whatever crap they see on TV.
In the rest of the world, these vested interests don't have the same kind of stanglehold. The debate is much more open and the conclusion that has been reached by climatoligists outside of the USA is that global warming is a reality and that it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
In the case of the USA, I tend to suspect that they will continue to ignore/rationalise the matter until the rest of the world ( especially Western Europe ) starts to retaliate via diplomatic methods such as trade sanctions.
Until then, my advice is - don't bother trying to argue with the idiots. They don't give a damn as long as they can get cheap gasoline.
This posting voluntarily rated -1 to spare the moderators the need to think.
Duh.
:)
No scientologists have EVER been burned at the stake. "Burning at the stake" is when you tie somebody to a stake and then set him or her on fire, such that he or she is burned to death. This process of "burning to death" generally results in mortality. It involves fire and is very painful. Death is when you're not alive any more.
Nothing even remotely resembling the above has ever been done to any Scientologists, unless they've started doing that to each other. God knows they've killed off enough of their own believers for various reasons.
It's funny how extremists (especially privileged ones like Scientologists and right-wing Christians) very carelessly throw metaphors around, and then demand that they be taken literally: You no doubt believe that being called an idiot on Slashdot is precisely equivalent to being set on fire and killed. Well, it's nice to see such a stunning demonstration of your ability to delude yourself, and I'm always a great fan of psychotic persecution complexes, but enough is enough.
Scientologists occasionally kill their own people. If you try to lie your way out of that, I'll be happy to dig up some autopsy reports and indictments and whatnot. Scientologists also savagely persecute anybody outside their cult who gets in their way. There's abundant documentation of that as well, so don't bother. If Scientology were able to grab the kind of wealth and power that the Catholic Church had in Bruno's day (and the Scienos are doing their damndest, aren't they?), they'd be burning people at the stake every day of the week. You make me sick.
Oh, and by the way, I've seen some of their anti-psychiatry literature. Pure bullshit. Scanty facts (many if not all of which appear to be fabricated), bad logic, rampant emotionalism, strawmen galore. It's a joke. No well-informed person could possibly fall for it. They think Ritalin is a sedative! Morons.
Having the ideas of the French people in the French government would make the government closer to the people. A system with representatives from all the provinces of France would accomplish that deed. Louis XVI achieved this by calling the Estates-General into the government in May 1789. This was a group of peers and deputies from towns and provinces across France. They had not been used in the government since 1614. They were originally put on an equal level with the King. The King had to approve all the laws that were to be passed. The commoners had one of the three votes in the Estates-General, so they had their say. Laws were passed by the Estates-General and National Assembly, including removing the nobles rights over the serfs and peasants. Another law reduced the power of the church by not allowing the church to own farming land. The National Assembly was the name they used when the third estate broke away and gave themselves power, but that is a different story. By giving the Estates-General power, Louis XVI got the peopleÕs ideas into the French government.
One of the wants of the insurgents in France was the removal of the monarchy altogether. To satisfy the wants of the revolutionaries, Louis XVI stepped down from the throne. He actually did this because of a measure taken by the National Assembly on August 10, 1792, which abolished the monarchy. Louis declared, "let us (him, his family, and cabinet) go and make this last sacrifice to the Nation." Yet Louis still had to make one last sacrifice to his country. The National Assembly voted by a one vote margin to put Louis XVI to death. Immediately before his death, he spoke to the people saying, "I hope that the shedding of my blood will contribute to the happiness of France and you . . ." Then his head was cut off in a guillotine. What Louis XVI said at the time of the end of the monarchy and his death shows he was in favor of improving France and satisfying the people.
It's offtopic, but I got a laugh out of the fact that a post about someone being burned at the stake was marked "Flamebait." --Sam L-L
Yes, I too think that Yates books (I would also include the Art of Memory) are a must read. Also, I recommend the English translation of Lo Spaccio by Arthur D. Imerti "Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast" (Rutgers University Press, 1964).
I recently read "The Acentric Universe" by Ramon G Mendoza and was very disappointed with it. He paints a completely different picture of Yates than one gets from actually reading her books. He distorts what she says and then seems to revel in putting her down. He seem to think that Yates was belittling Bruno, and then berates her for that. As an example, Mendoza writes:
"In conclusion, it is possible to acknowledge that Bruno was a magus, provided we understand this word in the sense that Bruno himself understood it. However, Bruno was much more than 'just' a Renaissance magus. This is precisely what Frances Yates never could or would understand".
In my view, this quote from Mendoza speaks more about his apparent desire to be "better" than Yates, than about his scholarship. In other places, Mendoza dismisses Bruno's memory techniques as merely Lullian, without even hinting at the wondrous ideas that Bruno's art of memory encompasses. Mendoza also simplifies drastically the role of mathematics in the Renaissance.
But one quote of Mendoza's rings true to me:
"Thus to communicate with the Divinity implies not only to understand the language it speaks through nature, but also to follow the infinite unfolding of its relentless transformations. Thus watching the waves roll on a sandy beach and deliver their inexhaustible bounty of exquisitely patterned shells - all of them showing the unmistakable imprint of the cosmic mind - can become a profoundly religious experience..."
122 15.23' W, 37 50.97' N
Have no fear brothers and sisters, they will pay!THUMP
Yes indead friends, they will pay for their ignorance and their inability to see the higher planes. Yea verily, they day of our aweful lords arising draws nigh, and soon all of these pompous humans will learn the error of their ways!THUMP
As it is written in the Pnaktic manuscript, "and a great turbulence whall errupt in ocean as lord Cthulhu and his minions awake, and they shall strive forth onto the lands, there to anhilate the un-believers who do not aknowledge his supremacy!"THUMP.
So if these lame mammals tease you and make insulting remarks bretheren, pay no heed. Just remember, they will get what they deserve.
You have been popping up on this thread, bullying people with your unsubstantiated assertions, sarcasm, and bogus arguements, but facts are facts, and they're definitely not on your side.
Funny, I could say the same thing about you.
Contrary to what the oil company backed media campaign might lead you to believe, the argument has been pretty much settled amongst climatoligists in the rest of the world.
The fact is, historical evidence does not at all suggest that we are warming the planet with our activity.
Really? Try spending some time going over the Maritime logs of the old whaling ships and comparing their observations of the ice fields to current observations. It makes for some interesting reading material.
I will cite a scientific paper ...
*Yawn*. And I can cite plenty of other reputable publications ( "Nature", "New Scientist", etc ) that have come to very different conclusion. Being able to provide a link to a web page proves nothing ( unless that is, your going to allow all of the lunatic fringe pages in as well ;).
While the evidence that has been collected so far is not overwhelmingly conclusive, most of the International scientific community have agreed that there is more than sufficient evidence for global warming to be taken seriously.
In the USA there are far too many vested interests with way too much money.
In the case of the oil companies, they keep telling everyone that green house gas emissions are no big deal and that the whole thing has been blown out of all proportion.
Meanwhile, the nuclear fission industry keeps telling everyone that green house gas emissions are a major problem and that nuclear fission is the solution to global warming.
You don't need a PhD in logic to be able to work out that one of them is lieing and that this type of deliberate deceit, mis-information and obfusification is "industry standard" when big bucks are at stake.
Yeah, like Karen Silkwood. Instead of being publicly executed, they have "an unfortunate accident" or something similiar.
A popular saying ammongst conspiracy buffs is any idiot can commit murder, a half trained operative can produce a convincing suicide, but only an expert can produce a genuine death from natural causes.
While most 'heretics' are generally coerced into silence, the powers that be still seem to be keeping their hands in on the body count trade.
This is really more of a reply to your original post, but I'll put it here instead.
Funny, as a matter-of-fact both myself and my cube-mate ARE Buddhists. I don't ask people about their religion, but I'm guessing a good deal of the Asians and Indians working here ARE NOT Christians either, so I guess I'm already there.
I am a sothern white atheist and I'd just like to say that I REALLY LIKE the idea of the U.S. continuing to "import" (sorry, I can't think of a better word) well off, educated, non-christians from Asia and India. It has so much potential for breaking this stupid christian world view. I mean what kind of fool can make the argument "you should believe in god because it might be true" when there are lots of other beleifs arround. Questions:
1) Are our new non-christian friends picking up the American idea's of political orginisation, i.e. do they feal like they can stand up to the christian right? (Unfortuantly, we atheists tend to ignore thgem so they have turnned atheist into a dirty word in polotics)
2) Do these groups realise that they probable need to work together, i.e. do you see Buddists and Hindus working together to prevent things like prayer in schools?
I see, I'm not welcome in *your* America, eh?
This is exactly the kind of statments we need to make because it shows the main stream that these people really are bigots. George Bush said "I don't consider Atheists to be real Americans" so some tiems the main stream is quite happy with it's bigots.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
You can also have major differences of opinion between different scientific disciples that can prevent the uptake of the theory in the mainstream.
The classic example of this was the 19th century dispute between physicists and paleontoligists.
The paleontoligists were in favour of Darwinian evolution because it provided a consistent framework for the fossil record.
The physicists disagreed with Darwinism, since at that time the only energy source that they knew of that could account for the suns energy output was gravitational collapse of a gas cloud ( they didn't know about fusion ). Because of that, they were of the opinion that the Earth couldn't be more than a few million years old and that the time scale that Darwin was suggesting was simply ridiculous.
The same kind of debates still go on today. The paleontoligists have abundant evidence that the periodic shifts in the Earths magnetic field are the cause of short term but signifigant episodes of species extinction.
The physicists insist that the Earths atmosphere is more than adequate to shield out radiation even when the Earths magnetic field shuts down temporarily.
So it goes, the more things change, the more thay stay the same.
>> gets cut down until the evidence is too overwhelming to ignore.
> It may look that way to an outsider, but if you ever as a scientist you
> will see that that simply isn't true. To be sure, there are some
> scientists that are dogmatic about their beliefs, but on the
> whole the scientific community as a whole is fairly tolerant of
> unorthodox views, provided that there is at least a smidgeon of
> evidence to back them up.
In fact, I must totally disagree. As a whole, the scientific community is fairly tolerant of unorthodox views, within the context of their own conceptual framework.
This is especially evident in epistemology. The scientific community of the twentieth century, confronted with the questions, "what is knowledge?" and "how are things knowable?" had two basic strategies. First, the great majority ignored them. Second, those few who took it upon themselves to become "philosophers of science" made great efforts to ramrod the truth into the mold of science. Perversely inverting the scientific method, they first they decided what was true, (that science was productive of knowledge), and then came up with reasons to justify it.
Take Logical Positivism, for instance, the darling of 20th century science. They chose to define knowledge to make science (and only science) fit it: "to be knowable is to be open, at least in theory, to empirical verification". This despite the obvious fact that this statement itself is not empirically, or even logically, verifiable!
Scientists are indeed open to a great deal, so long as you presume a materialist universe which is empirically knowable, and don't trod on any of their other pet assumptions. I have seldom heard any group, however, so willing to state their presumptions as fact: "the universe is without purpose", "evolution is the result of random mutation", even "B consistently follows A, so A causes B". Their faith is very strong, and many just as testy about it as the most dogmatic Christians.
I can think of something better: the Socratic method. Question everything. The unreflected life is not worth living.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
What perfect timing!
I am currently 170 pages into "Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition" by Frances Yates(Univ. of Chicago press). Damn interesting book, if Renaissance magickal-religous-philosophical history is your thing...
Just what is a gnostic anyways?
Gnosticism doesnt fit into nice neat little categories. It seems all other religions could be subcatagories of Gnosticism-again the idea of the "unified field theory of religion". Each religion attempts to say the same basic thing(differing cultures cause the collapse of the reality tunnel-one can only observe another culture and comment on it relative to your own culture. And when religions exist in proximity to one another, they tend to feed off each other and end up appearing more similar than disimilar.
That said, yes he was a gnostic(hell, who isnt?)or a least the ideas he promoted sounded exactly the same as the teachings and writings of other "heretic" NeoPlatonists/Cabalists/Magicians of his own time to 10 centuries before him. As the end period of the Roman empire was quite the mixing pot of religion, philosophy and (pseudo?)science, so too was Renaissance Europe a mixture of ideas. People just keep inventing the same things.
And today we witness the unprecedented mixture of ideas on the internet. The gravitational lord of memes, sucking in all human thought, filtering, compressing, and disseminating throughout the collective...
It is unfortunate the curse of genius is obscurity. Like Nietzsche wrote "the higher we soar, the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly".
"Men of rare spirit who have in them something of the heroic and the divine, will climb the hill of difficulty and wring from harsh circumstances the palm of immortality. And though you may never reach the winning post nor gain the prize, cease not to run the race."
-Giordano Bruno
PS. What do you think could drive a man to such dedication? To what end?
Pure Land Buddhist is (suppossedly) theistic and
elaborate and in both theory and practice rather
too close to chiliastic Christianity (it's the
only religion other than Christianity and Islam
to have practiced conversion by the sword).
Anyone got more (historical) data?
-- Ender, Duke_of_URL
It's true we don't have good data.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be trying to get data, and attempt to draw conclusions from it.
I wouldn't want to draw any conclusions from the sparse data we have, but I think we should be pursuing better, more accurate, and far-ranging data. So we *can* determine if we're warming (or cooling - isn't it time for another ice-age, and is there a valid reason for stopping it with heat pollution/chemical destruction of the environment (ozone)?)
-- Ender, Duke_of_URL
somebody get Al Gore, this guys trying to take credit for the www and global warming, shit everyone know the G-man from Tennessee did all that!
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
George Zwieg, who didn't recieve the nobel prize, but usually gets a fair bit of credit from the scientific community for the "discovery" of the quark... perhaps if Gell Mann tried harder he could become notorious among fellow scientists, but as it is I think you are right that he is doomed to obscurity.
No recording from any of the process recordings that remaind till nowadays mentions Copernicus or heliocentrism: Bruno was prosecuted mainly for paganism, heresy and blasphemy.
Nowadays he would have been considered to be a harmless maniac, they would put him in one of those quiet rooms and give lots of paper and a soft crayon. It **** me off whenever he is called "a missionary", a "martyr of the Truth". And when someone mentions Bruno in one sentence with the science I go berserk (like now, because now I did it).
Regards,
January
> Not all geniuses are saintly or perfect. Some > can be simultaneously offensive, delightful, in > your face and profound in both their prescient > visions and their spectacular errors. They are > also terrifically alive. Hmmmm...you sure that Jon Katz is not descended from the Bruno line?
Chaeron Corporation
Just how is having your own talk-show the ultimate
;) ;)
pinnacle of intellectualism?
Enquiring minds want to know
Many if not most of the famous soviet dissidents were atheists. (I might be wrong on this one, but I tend to remember that Andrej Sakkharov was an atheist).
Many of his other writings now seem silly, deliberately provocative, or just perplexingly obscure, such as his doctrine of panpsychism (belief that reality is constituted by the mind), which anticipated the teachings of Gottfried Leibniz and Baruch Spinoza...
[snip]
I wouldn't call this silly.
Since after the renaissance, we have been going the 'empirical-is-so-cool' way without much of a pause to really reexamine it. Science led the way for a few centuries, and converted our minds, and the spirit of our times.
It was until the late 19th century when suddenly large holes were blown into the hiterto smooth course of science: quantum theory, incompleteness, etc.
Anyway: suddenly we are confronted with the issue again. Perhaps it is not all real? How can a photon be a particle and wave at the same time? How can observing something alters it irrevocably?
What I am saying is: we cannot discount such possibilities no matter what are sensibilities are at that time. And since Bruno epitomises the spirit of free-thought, unsheckled by the prevailing optimism, I think I have to disagree with the writer's opinion that Bruno's panpsychism is stupid.
Just my 3.14 cents worth.
"In a standard German high school you learn during your 13 years of education everything each of "Newton, Leonardo, Napier, Pascal, Wern, Tycho Brahe, Kelper(Kepler)" knows."
Bruno's habit of questioning established doctrines brought him into conflict with powerful leaders of both the Catholic and Reformed churches, few of whom were known to tolerate free-thinkers.
It is terribly unfair to compare those that originate with those that emulate. Once you know that it can be done, then you have impetus to continue to try and recreate someone else's accomplishments. Temin and Pruisner (RNA directed DNA synthesis, prions) would be examples of how difficult it is to establish the hindsight of facts contrary to common dogma. In addition, they had the good fortune that their convictions were, in fact, correct. Not to downplay the value of an excellent education, and the kids that receive it, denovo creation is much rarer and more difficult!
PS: Could you have the parser recognize <br/> as well as <br>?
Hey, looks like we have another signal 11. Doing research into the most effective way to be a karma ho! Lets get him!
I am not saying that such a fascination is a bad thing in itself. It certainly does us good to know history and be able to understand how it came about. But an over-fascination of WHO instead of WHY is not a good thing.
I would rather that we focus on what was discovered instead of who discovered it, and going in depth into their lives, worrying about the moral status, ect. It is good to know a certain amount of this information, so as to shed light on the discovery itself, but too much of that dilutes the important matter, What Was Discovered.
I think a public shift in this view would create a much less shark-filled society where people are anxious to be recognized. *Shrug* I guess I am just more of a sociologist than a humanist.
V
With hindsight we laugh at Bruno's wrong ideas seen in the light of his right ones. Of course most people now (as then) have mostly wrong ideas. Dostoyevsky says in 'Crime and Punishment' that nothing original comes out when all you do is to try to be right. What makes us human is our ability to be strongly and gloriously wrong. We progress towards new truths mostly by accident.
"I can think of something better: the Socratic method. Question everything." So, aren't scientists correct when they question others' assumption of a *non*-material universe? Earlier, from link's post: "This is as it should be; our confidence in the orthodox theories is the result of many years of experimental trial, and we should expect similar successes from new theories before we give them the same credence." You might call this "dogmatic faith", but it seems eminently sensible.
Drugs should most certainly be decriminalized, even those that you have suggested. Drug use is inherent to human nature, it is a fact. You can observe the taking of psychotropic drugs since the beginning of human history and no culture, country or state since the beginning of human nature has been devoid of the use of them. No amount of laws will ever change this, and no amount of laws will ever make people stop taking drugs.
Take a look at decriminalization tactics used in the Dutch Model. The Dutch maintain that it is not a matter of ethos but "basically and principally a matter of health and of social well-being." They tend to deal with the drug "situation" non-violently, not indiscriminantly as you suggest we do.
You are going to sit there and whine about them being persecuted? Damn straight. I don't think they are persecuted enough.
Severe and disproportionate sentences had not succeeded in frightening off the growing number of users, and the efforts undertaken by the authorities ran counter to the insight of modern criminology. An all-out fight against drug abuse and drug abusers threatened to drive the latter over the edges of society into an underground and invisible realm, and thus, beyond the reach of any "helping" institution - other than the law. The methodology you propose is dangerous and radical, and no offense, but somewhat illogical. I suggest that you take a look at some examples of countries that have decriminalized the use of drugs and then make assumptions. I'm not going to get into the specifics here, because I'm way offtopic. I'll just go to say, that the current system *creates* organized crime, it almost *promotes* it. Decriminalizing drugs, in every instance where it has been thoughtfully, and carefully implemented has been highly effective and should be taken into consideration.
Mother Theresa of Calcutta died on the same day as Princess Diana. It was the only upside to the day afterwards. After a day's worth of hideous persistent news coverage we gave up, got a shitload of booze, and stayed drunk until normal service was resumed, about another two days later, I seem to recall.
Whilst I hate the fscking monarchy with a passion, at least Diana nee Spencer only ever used her position to push one agenda, a worthwhile one at that, against the abandonment of landmines after wars have reached settlement. Mother Theresa, on the other hand, used her position to push the agenda of the Catholic Church, no contraception, no abortion... well, I guess you know the rest...
-- "This is the Space Age, and we are Here To Go" - W.S.Burroughs
what Christians do. Read up on it.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
I think it was the politics that got him in trouble. His book "The Mass Psychology of Fascism" accused pretty much all modern government and religion of imposing artificial moral codes on their subjects, suppressing the natural flow of life-energy, which resulted in its diversion into psychopathology and other problems.
Reich fled various tyrannies in Europe and eventually settled in the United States, where he continued his research into what he called orgone - a kind of energy (Reich believed to be) fundamental to both matter and biological life.
In the 1950's, the Food and Drug Administration took Reich to court to curtail his activities (treating people with orgone energy and selling orgone energy devices for therapeutic purposes).
For some reason, they found it necessary to destroy much of Reich's equipment with axes and burn some of his books and research material(!) (This must be their preferred approach to scientific refutation...)
Wilhelm Reich vs USA Legal Records and News 1954 - 1957
Jesus Christ said something to the effect of: Judge not lest ye be judged. In other words, it's those people's choice to be homosexuals or baby killers; it's not up to christians to fight them with violence or judge them. Christians should inform them and let them make their own decision.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
> long as you presume a materialist
> universe which is empirically knowable,
Well, yes. Science is a way to study a universe which is empirically knowable. It does not address ideas which are empirically unknowable
Science cannot address questions which do not, even in theory, imply observable results.
Michael Richmond "This is the heart that broke my finger."
mwrsps@rit.edu http://stupendous.rit.edu
I surf at +2, cause otherwise I'd never get anything done.
However, I spotted delmoi's comment and went to -1 to check it out. I'm surprised the original's garnered only two ``Troll'' moderations---if I'd read it, I would have given it a ``Funny''.
I refuse to believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. -- desert rain on http://www.dailykos.com/user/
How many thousands (millions?) of Christians have been sent to labour camps by militantly athiest marxist governments for thier beliefs? Judging from the history of the twentieth century the Athiests have nothing to teach anyone about tolerance.
--
Utter bunk. Most wars are fought for the secular reasons of politics. WW1 and WW2 killed more people than all the rest of the wars in History..and they had nothing to do with religion.
OK, I'm a working scientist have known about Bruno since I was a kid scouring the local libraries for science classics. It's nice of Brin to remind people of this great hero of science but Brin mixes up his history with his prejudice when he writes:
"Many of his other writings now seem silly, deliberately provocative, or just perplexingly obscure, such as his doctrine of panpsychism (belief that reality is constituted by the mind), which anticipated the teachings of Gottfried Leibniz and Baruch Spinoza."
Bruno was indeed one of the great Pantheist philosophers (and this was no small part of what got him in trouble with the church) but Dr. Brin surely must know that there are plenty of us thoroughly modern science-types quite sympathetic to pantheist views of the Universe and who see nothing silly or obscure about them. Brin lets his own anti-religious biases delude him into assuming that any self-respecting modern would share his blithe dismissal of Bruno's metaphysics. Here, he makes a classic error, confusing science and philosophy and his personal tastes with universal standards of reason. No one reads Bruno or Gallileo anymore to learn the science; science has progressed beyond them. In contrast, many wise people still find much of value in the philosophical writings of the great philosophers of antiquity. If I were Brin, I'd be a little more humble, for example, about casually blowing off the beliefs of Liebniz and Spinoza, two of the sharpest minds of all time. Maybe they were just silly but I would argue that the burden of proof for this assertion would weigh heavily on Brin. Brin should just stick to the history and leave his metaphysical tastes somewhere else. Also, while we are on the subject of Martyrs to Reason, and speaking as a good church going, choir singing, sunday school teaching Unitarian pantheist, maybe Brin should have Bruno meet up with Michael Servetus, theologian, philosopher, and physician, discoverer of the circulation of the blood, and burned at the stake by Calvin himself for championing the Unitarian heresy of the oneness of God. (I'd give the links but I don't want to get slashdotted).
I walked in on him sucking his own dick.
He didn't even bother to stop.
Actually no, it doesn't but here's my thoughts on time travel:
I predict: time travel as envisioned by most sci fi movies/tv shows/books will not happen.
Why? If time machines like that did get invented (presumably in the future), there would be time machines all over the place.
Not only that, but they would have been "invented" at the dawn of time, since they can be easily reconstructed and mass produced anytime, and sent whenever needed. Talk about JIT production!
Since a time machine has not landed in my backyard (or anytime throughout history for that matter) I conclude that time machines will never exist.
Heck, the BEGINNING of time (when it was really small) would be packed, since presumably, the earliest time machines would have no control over WHERE they ended up, so why not send it to a time when the universe is really small. Now imagine if every intelligent being in the universe did that as soon as they invented time machines.
Wait a minute! No wonder the early universe had such insanely high density!
At least I lack the certainty to be an atheist.
where did you find that link?
Thank you so much for your pointer to Emperor Norton. I've been reading about him for six hours and am glad to know the true source for Twain's King in Huckleberry Finn. This is the real reason I like to read Slashdot - the serendipitous info from fellow interesting people.
What the hell is flamebait about this post? damn moderator scum
Absolutely, they are justified when they question others' assumptions. Such questioning is a fine thing. Running roughshod over cogent arguments simply because they make trouble for science's (or rather, scientists') claims to absolute knowledge - this I protest. I think that science is a sensible undertaking. I would like to see those scientists that take it upon themselves to act as spokesmen for the science itself show the same intellectual integrity that most scientists show in the lab.
At any rate, as I said in another post, I like both science and, by and large, scientists.
But like them or not, I must agree with MillMan; in general, it may be said:
They have their own absolute truths, and anyone who tries to cross them gets cut down until the evidence is too overwhelming to ignore.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
To say that WWII was purely political would be a shame when the fact that over 6 million jews died for no other reason than the fact that they were jews. Try to tell them that thier deaths were the result of politics. Was it an accident that they were all jews? The recent fighing in Boznia is more or less because of 'ethnic' cleansing practices by Milosevik and his supporters. Simply stated this is a civil war where the underlying cause is once again : RELIGION.
The 'jihad' proclaimed against the USA by Jousef Ben Louden is what? Jihad by definition means Holy War. Acts of terrorism in the name of god where people kill themselves and others in the belife that they are martyrs and will be heroes in heaven doesn't make them religious in nature?
Were the crusades fought over politics? Did the Egyptians and Romans belive thier emporers and pharoh's were gods?
Open a history book. Have a look around and see for yourself.
Prospecting Stinks. Stop Wasting Time on Cold Calling.
The link was a different bookmark in the link labelled "graph" in response #293 (the parent of my response, the great-grandparent of this one). This would make Matt the Don Knotts guy, not me.
--
"There's a word for people who live close to nature -
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
P.S : I don't need latin
that should be spelled: you're a lame dumbass.
maybe I'm being analy-retentive (sic)?
DK and a fag like you could never even deck him.
Thank you.