|
|
Post by joustos on Sept 4, 2021 16:38:10 GMT
What on earth is an anthropogony? Rather: What in anthropology is "anthropogony" or "androgony"? It is its main and most general part. I coined this word by imitating Hesiod's "Theogony" [Theo-goneia], which means "generation or genealogy of the gods". So, "Anthropogony" means "generation or genealogy of the men". The reason is that, in my estimate, the existing anthropogonies are inadequate, even though some of them are valid, within limits. Here is a very brief survey which could be expanded into a very interesting book.
(1) The Biblical anthropogony, which has really two starting points. In Genesis-1, the Elohim [the (supreme) Gods] generated Man in their own image: one male and the other female. In Genesis-2, God (Yahweh)constructed and made alive a man (Adam), from who He produced a female, so that he could say, You are blood of my blood and bone of my bone, rather than the reverse, as some people thought since males are begotten by females. Eventually God drowned mankind except for Noah and his sons, who became the patriarchs of the nations, each with its own language and -- as we say -- culture. So, here we have a basically biological perspective of humans, who went through two epochs, that is, from Adam and from Noah.
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Sept 4, 2021 17:53:54 GMT
To continue:
(2) The Joachim of Fiore or the Christian Anthropogony. Reflecting the Trinity, mankind has a threefold progression or has three ages: The Age of the Father, which started when the world was created; The Age of the Son, which started when Jesus was born; and the Age of the Holy Ghost, which will start when the world will end. (Notice that in the third Age,
humans are resurrected humans and no longer reproduce/generate humans -- just like imaginary humans.)
(3) The Artifact Anthopogony, which comprises the Ages of Stone, Copper, Bronze, and Iron, wherefore we speak of the Paleo-, Meso-, and Neo-lithic Ages. Forgotten: Agriculture; city building. Not added:the steampower/industrial Age, the current-electricity Age, the atomic/nuclear Age, and the microchip/computer Age, the latter three being now simultaneous. Hail archaeologists and paleontologists.
(4) Vico's Cyclic History, according to the protagonists/makers of history. A cycle comprises the Age of the Gods [of myth, language-making, etc.], the Age of Heroes [ warriors, epics, ...], and the Age of Men[of Reason, philosophy, etc.] -- which, I think, he desumed mainly from Greek history, since most nations do not undergo this historical progression. Though living in the 18th century, he did not see that a second cycle started in the A.D. Era (in Christendom).//
For a good anthropogony, we can correct and combine the above, but
we have to conceive a scheme that includes all the megalithic realities of the world. The ideators of "ancient aliens" simply propose a third Genesis, even though the Aliens have left no world of artifacts. Let's consider everything and develop a new anthropogony.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Sept 8, 2021 18:18:16 GMT
the problem with most cosmologies, both theist, and atheist
is that they originated at a time when only this world was known about,
since it is now clear there are worlds without end,
we have to reach the conclusion that life on earth
certainly could not have originated here
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Sept 9, 2021 14:20:25 GMT
the problem with most cosmologies, both theist, and atheist is that they originated at a time when only this world was known about, since it is now clear there are worlds without end, we have to reach the conclusion that life on earth certainly could not have originated here By 1600, when Bruno was burnt alive, there was the idea of an infinity of worlds, which contradicted the Biblical position. However, please fill the lines between your premise and your conclusion that life could not have originated here. How could it have originated elsewhre? |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Sept 9, 2021 17:04:56 GMT
What on earth is an anthropogony? Rather: What in anthropology is "anthropogony" or "androgony"? It is its main and most general part. I coined this word by imitating Hesiod's "Theogony" [Theo-goneia], which means "generation or genealogy of the gods". So, "Anthropogony" means "generation or genealogy of the men". The reason is that, in my estimate, the existing anthropogonies are inadequate, even though some of them are valid, within limits. Here is a very brief survey which could be expanded into a very interesting book.
(1) The Biblical anthropogony, which has really two starting points. In Genesis-1, the Elohim [the (supreme) Gods] generated Man in their own image: one male and the other female. In Genesis-2, God (Yahweh)constructed and made alive a man (Adam), from who He produced a female, so that he could say, You are blood of my blood and bone of my bone, rather than the reverse, as some people thought since males are begotten by females. Eventually God drowned mankind except for Noah and his sons, who became the patriarchs of the nations, each with its own language and -- as we say -- culture. So, here we have a basically biological perspective of humans, who went through two epochs, that is, from Adam and from Noah.In 70,000 BC, an immense volcanic explosion sent so much dust into the atmosphere that the sun was blocked, causing mass extinction. Only 20,000 humanoids survived. Since we have not developed physically to deal with that kind of catastrophe, the logical conclusion is that, for the first time, man used his mind to conquer his environment. Human intelligence derived from that source; before that we were mindless wild animals. |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Sept 9, 2021 17:13:49 GMT
the problem with most cosmologies, both theist, and atheist is that they originated at a time when only this world was known about, since it is now clear there are worlds without end, we have to reach the conclusion that life on earth certainly could not have originated here By 1600, when Bruno was burnt alive, there was the idea of an infinity of worlds, which contradicted the Biblical position. However, please fill the lines between your premise and your conclusion that life could not have originated here. How could it have originated elsewhere? Life originated in an outside universe, which merely provided a spark when it interfaced with Earth. It is not a necessary logical conclusion to think that what is outside us is superior to us. That is a fallacy made by Plotinus and all other mystics. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Sept 10, 2021 20:09:08 GMT
the problem with most cosmologies, both theist, and atheist is that they originated at a time when only this world was known about, since it is now clear there are worlds without end, we have to reach the conclusion that life on earth certainly could not have originated here By 1600, when Bruno was burnt alive, there was the idea of an infinity of worlds, which contradicted the Biblical position. However, please fill the lines between your premise and your conclusion that life could not have originated here. How could it have originated elsewhre?
Well its quite clear that we will migrate to the stars. So life on other worlds will likely do this too. Given the Zillions of worlds out there, the probability that life originated here is one in a zillion.
We will easily inhabit 200 worlds within a thousand years. Even on this small scale, if it became confusing which was the original one of the 200 worlds, we would have to conclude that there is a less than 1 percent chance it is the one upon which
the question is being asked.
Even if we ignore intelligent deliberate travel
between worlds, there are numerous experiments showing that seeds and such can survive naked in space.
The famous 'mars meteor' found in antarctica, and a little bit of simple physics can demonstrate how meteor impact can scatter debris into space naturally.
Seeds can also be protected by being
encased in clay, for instance.
There are even some theorists that suggest
they have proof that microbes rain down on earth every single day.
Its like taking the town in which you live and deciding that the first life on earth must have begun on that bit of turf.
Then we also have to look at multiple universes... Why should life have started in this universe? More likely it originated before this universe, which has certainly itself been designed.
And then there are parallel universes, that
is to say, that exist in the same time-line as us but have extra-dimensionality to them.
4D space, might be difficult to appreciate, but my calculations based on common observations show that there must be a 4th dimension of space.
Would you like to know more?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Sept 10, 2021 20:12:21 GMT
By 1600, when Bruno was burnt alive, there was the idea of an infinity of worlds, which contradicted the Biblical position. However, please fill the lines between your premise and your conclusion that life could not have originated here. How could it have originated elsewhere? Life originated in an outside universe, which merely provided a spark when it interfaced with Earth. It is not a necessary logical conclusion to think that what is outside us is superior to us. That is a fallacy made by Plotinus and all other mystics.
NASA is a very big place, bigger than some countries. There are going to be nasty and nice people in any place that big.
The universe is an even bigger place. Chances are half the inhabited worlds out there are superior to us.
But the inferior are less likely to arrive here before we arrive there. Its just a matter of time.
|
|
