--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet" wrote:
>> On average they lived shorter lives than we do, even after
>> allowing for their much greater infant mortality, but the
>> maximum lifespan wasn't much different.
>>
>> But the details really don't matter, because 'short life' is
>> meaningless except by comparison with some longer span of
>> time; their average lifespan may look short to us, but it
>> was the only one that they knew. And if the comparison is
>> with those who do not die at all, then their actual lifespan
>> is irrelevant: the same argument would apply equally to
>> creatures whose average lifespan was a century or two.
>
> ======
>
> In other words, whatever reality is,
> it does not matter as regards your conclusions
> which are to be accepted as exact and right.
You got it all wrong. You stated: "They lived very short lifes".
This is valid statement _only_ from our point of view.
Their own point of view was different since they weren't aware that
(some thousands of years after) human life expectancy would have
reached much higher values. So, from their point of view, the average
lifespan was not "short" but just normal.
Your statement has no absolute value since its truth depends on the
reference system, and this is the first point: our ancestors had no
real reasons to feel frustrated about their "short" lifes because
they had no reason to consider them as short.
The second point is that any (finite) average lifespan is the same
mathematical nothing to the infinity of the time of the immortal gods
(or, if you prefer, to the eternity). No matter how many years you
do live: divided by infinity you will get the very same 0.0. According
to the second part of your statement, "for that reason [shortness of
the lifespan with respect to the eternity] the word "life" could not
become "eternity"", the same argument would prevent any people with
any finite average lifespan to extend the meaning of their own `life`
word to the `eternity`. But this is obviously in contradiction with
linguistic evidence: we know for certain that some people already
did that, even if their gods are thought immortal. Consequently, your
second part of the statement does not hold in a documented particular
case. Why should this second part necessarily apply in the other case?
That's why you should reconsider your argument.
The third point is that the extension of meaning is a very natural
phenomenon in all human cultures. People from everywhere have always
had some difficulties even in counting (one, two, many): if it's about
measuring times, one can easily represent in mind the concepts of day,
moon, season, year, but after that there is no natural reference and
several years represent simply a "very long" period for most people.
Considering that all the directly experienced events for a human
being occur during his lifetime, this period is still to be perceived
as the "longest" since it contains everything with meaning: everything
else is just words, the lifetime is the only "real thing".
The lifespan is thus the limit between "barely representable" and
something beyound usual mental abilities -- such as `eternity`. It's
just a step from equating the limit with what's next to it. This is
the explanation of a proces which took place in several cultures and
has no reason to be rejected in a particular one just because they
have immortal gods (so did the others, too) and their life expectancy
was short (but only from our point of view).
>> It was clear all along; the problem is that it's also
>> clearly at odds with the evidence, which plainly shows that
>> just such a development is not only possible but apparently
>> not even particularly unusual. You are letting a foregone
>> (or if you prefer, a priori) conclusion blind you to the
>> evidence.
>
> Quite incredibly,
> you are reversing the position of the one who has foregone
> conclusions.
Not at all. See point 2.
> I'm the one who is sceptical !
Well, the explanations running slightly OT are still here, it's up
to you to decide if you accept them or not.
A bon entendeur,
Marius Iacomi