This is a partial translation from Latin of a poem written as a part of Carmina Burana ~1220-1250 Austria (Translation by Alzbeth) I left out some stanzas refering to the church from the middle of the poem. edit: This is my post 6,666 // The devil probably is proud of me. screenshot
Of course nothing has changed, our society only changes on the surface, more technology and perhaps size and design, but the humans stayed the same. Nice poem by the way.
Yeah, when you look at the big picture, we're pretty much in the same boat we've been in for a long time. It's forgetting the past that makes it all feel so terrible now. I was telling a co-worker about the book "The Gangs of New York". She had seen the movie, but when I told her what I was reading was a history book, she looked so aghast and said "They had gangs way back then, too?" Like crime is an invention of the 20th century! She was genuinely shocked. So was I, but not at the same thing...
Still, superficial improvements is better than nothing. human nature have not changed much, if one will scratch the paint. Why should it? Nobody cancelled the nature laws "eat or be eaten", "survive at all cost", "transmit your genes at all cost"..... However, social institutions changed a lot. As a result, life is much more pleasant today, than it was in Austria in 13th century (I believe there was no Austria back then). Niceties of the modern life are only partially due to the technology. Sure, "advanced" modern social institutions are very fragile and will, most likely, degenerate into nothing when real Shit will hit the fan. But, at least, we have them during relatively good times.
"advanced" social institutions are of little remedy when there is seen that still -> The free is serving, The servant gets honoured The parasite speaks The looney rules The impudent reigns
Could be quite so. However, for the time being, I would settle for the free/servants/parasite/looney/impudent... doing their eternal stuff as long as they are not directly, annoyingly, with "full force" in the way of my "aspirations". Those living 800 years ago had little hope for that. Who knows, maybe in 2804 things will change more to the better.
Hey Guys, I take it back to the very beginning of civilization itself. Fear and Greed built the 1st cities, I hope the leadership of the humans will evolve not let fear and greed destroy the last of them.
Was it fear and greed that built the first cities, or a desire for stability? If you're referring to a city in the way we think of a city today, i.e., metropolitan and trade-based, then I'd have to agree with you. But the first settlements, I think, were based from the idea of farming for sustenance instead of following the whims of the herd and gathering what fruits and nuts you could find. (I guess you could call that fear of starving to death, but I think that's reaching.)
Hey Oxygen, I'm saying when the very first human groups planted themselves with permanant structures, it was greed that led them to own the land, grazing and fishing and later fields and fear of the foreigner/ infidel who would take the land from them, or the wild animals that a man could not match, grizzlies come to mind. This is the classic dance of civilization. The nomadic culture usurps the agrarian culture and becomes the agrarian, which in turn is usurped by the next group of nomads. I'm pleased you acknowledge the potential for a somantic argument. I have no desire for one either. I ask you what is 'a desire for stability' mean. Is it but fear of the chaos that they knew, or the greed of gain that diplaced a naturally evolving ecosystem into a 'stable' agrarian one. 'Religious freedom' is another, but what is that accept an exodus from a religiously intolerant society.
By "desire for stability", I see it as part of the survival instinct, but one led by convenience more than fear of chaos. There are tens of thousands of years of proof that we can survive a strictly nomadic lifestyle. However, there are also tens of thousands of years of proof that such a lifestyle is usually accompanied by a higher mortality rate. Granted, this leads to the survival of the fittest, but unfortunately it tends to favor physical superiority almost at the expense of mental prowess except in the basest, most immediate sense. The control of the environment that comes along with farming, such as regulating how much food is going to grow where, allowed us to move into a more predictable pattern than following the herd. Life with a minimal worry about where your next meal is coming from is so much more comfortable and convenient. I think it was Desmond Morris who wrote "The Naked Ape", which, aside from being a good study on human behavior (it opens up with my favorite Mark Twain quote: "Man is the only animal that blushes...or that needs to."), also looks at human organization from the smallest groups (couples) to major metropolises and nations, what he calls "supertribes". Its been years since I've read it, but it really lays things open. Politics, gang behavior, law enforcement, religion, even public education is woven into a complex tapestry. I highly recommend it. As far as religious freedom goes, it's a noble idea but too often it breaks down into groups of "we" and "they". Whether or not there are open hostilities, there is often an underpinning of distrust of the outsiders. I don't see it as religious freedom so much as religious isolation.
I have been recomended that book "The Naked Ape" before, now that you mention it. If I ever read it, I'm sure I'll thank you for the advice. Regarding 'we' and 'they'- How many conflicts throughout mankinds history have been the line in the sand between us and them. Divide and conquer applies to all conflict; religious, tactical, idological, etc. It is a great maxim of war. On the nomads, well, they weren't/aren't the ignorant barbarians poor high school history teachers would lead you to believe. Historically, nomads were self reliant, as opposed to the striated/specialized agrarian civilization. They excelled in warfare and trade. They kept herds, not just followed them. I view the nomads as applied technologists, as they would take an invention and use it to devestating effect in war(think hittites with new iron weapons taking egypt) And they would export the technology through conquest, eventually absorbing into conquered nation. Both Atilla and Ghengis were military geniuses, centuries apart. They each had spies surveying intended targets, they both new the political implications of war with various countries(while europe thought only 'those ignorant barbarians'),maintained supply to vast armies, and defeated every counter 'civilization' put to them. (If someone has to bring up attilla and gaul I will concede this point for simplicity). Long story short, nomads were/are people with no inherent inhuman or superhuman qualities. note: I didn't even mention other nomadic groups- Semites(Jews and Arabs) and Vikings.
true true. 100 years from now people ill be looking back at us and thinking how stupid we are and cruel, ignorant etc. we are just as we look at the past now even though theyare just the same and a hunder years later will be looked back at the same. history never changes. another good poin t is that people think colonism has ended and human rights and international law actually mean anything to the powerful (america eg). wots worse is were all ignorant abouit it
Fear and greed were certainly motivating factors in the creation of civilization, because after all, fear and greed are powerful motivators and goad people to action. However, they were not the motivating factors that kept civilization alive. By collecting in one place, practicing division of labor and economies of scale, city people were able to create a substantial surplus for the first time in history. Furthermore, because this surplus more than met the basic survival needs of the population, division of labor was able to expand into activities that hitherto had not been able to attract enough energy to flourish. The arts, science, education, exploration, the joy of sharing life with a domestic non-human companion who needs to eat some of that surplus. These things enriched life in ways that only tangentially spoke to greed and fear. To this day people migrate to cities in the hope of attaining a full belly, a home with a roof, and safety. But to this day people also migrate to cities who already have those things in their villages or farms. They come for all the other stuff. I remember escaping from Tucson and getting off the train in Los Angeles to start college in 1960. It was like the scene in "The Wizard of Oz" where the world suddenly turned from black and white to Technicolor. My family in Arizona were prosperous enough and I had plenty to eat and a nice safe house. But I had no idea that the world had so much to offer that I had been missing. Ironically, now that my wife and I are close to retirement, we've moved out into the country, five acres on the edge of the redwood forest. But we would never have considered it if the internet didn't exist. Civilization is virtual now. We don't have to crowd into cities in order to have it.
A lot has changed since 1220. You wouldn't be able to understand a painting, book from that era without training and then you would still miss out on symbolism that was understood by everyone back then.
I don't know, I never said that it should, but the large majority believes that it does (at least from my experience with people). You know -> how back then people were cruel and primitive and how civilized we are now. Bollox like that.
