Re: Why borrow 'seven'? (was: IE right & 10)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "andrew_and_inge" <100761.200@...>
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
> > > The calendar and stories about which
> > > things
> > > > > are sacred, like the moon, were both ways of describing

what

> > > only
> > > > > later got to be called nature. In other words, this
> > > understanding
> > > > of
> > > > > weeks also spread because it was useful, not just because
> the
> > > moon
> > > > > was considered sacred.
> > > > >
> > > > > ...or so it seems given the evidence we now have.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I know. It was their version of quantum mechanics.
> > > > But all civilisations will have to deal with the problem of
> the
> > > > starting point of the chain of causation. There must
> necesarily
> > be
> > > > a 'primus movens' or 'prima causa', otherwise it's turtles

all

> > the
> > > > way down. Something that is directly connected to 'the other
> > side'.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Are you saying that it is confrontation with this question

that

> > > caused the splitting of knowledge about nature and knowledge
> that
> > > you just have to have faith in? You might be right, but I

think

> > that
> > > it might not have happened until much later. An ancient pagan
> > could
> > > be a cold scientist, patriotic politician and religious

savant,

> > > without using double think. After Hellenistic times, from
> whatever
> > > source, you get a tension between "Jerusalem" and "Athens"

which

> > had
> > > only been an undercurrent felt by the deepest thinkers, like
> > perhaps
> > > Plato, before then.
> >
> > I used to think so too. It's standard fare to divide the world
> into
> > objective IE and subjective Middle East, but I think it goes

much

> > further back. And the reason is a vague impression I get from

the

> > overlapping set of terms from Møller's and Manansala's list; the
> > whole 'this side' and 'the other side' terminology. A very old
> > metaphor that recurs in all the crossing-the-river terminology

of

> > passinng to the other world. As exactly as I can say it: the set
> > of 'semantic vectors' needed to span the semantic space

described

> by
> > the Møller-Manansala set includes one to describe that

dichotomy,

> > namely *(H-)bh/p-r/l- "across, life, grain, offspring" etc.
>
> My question comes from a philosopher who would put the "discovery

of

> nature" as the first step towards the discovery of philosophy. Of
> course Plato only comes after philosophy, traditionally started in
> Asia Minor by Thales. But that raises the question of whether

Thales

> was bringing a now lost near eastern tradition into the Greek
> speaking world. Thales was supposed to have travelled. I see no
> reason to say philosophy was IE. Jerusalem and Athens is just a
> short hand.
>
> Coming back to my philosopher, a German emigrant named Leo

Strauss,

> he seems to have thought that the first mention of nature as
> something more than just the "way" of something, was in the

Odyssey.

> I believe the nature under discussion was that of a particular
> magical root.
>
> This philosopher saw our concept nature as a replacement of
> something like the English word "way", as in the way of women. The
> nature of a woman, is rather something which can be correctly or
> wrongly followed, and therefore existing apart from each thing.
>
> Interested in your thoughts on this.

I'd love to answer that question, if only I understood it. If I may
reformulate: When did 'Nature' come into being to replace
the 'natures' of the various objects in the world? If that's the
question, I don't know the answer. As far I can tell, the
*m-(d-) 'measure, moderation, the way things should be' is old, as I
said Møller traces it in Semitic and Egyptian. The *(H-)r-g- '(set)
right, someone who sets right' is old too:

http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/Hrg.html

But if the world can be set right, it must be possible for someone
to set it wrong. For that you need a mind, which must be just as old
a concept:

http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/mn.html




In other words, I think the way of the world came before the order
of its separate parts. And certainly long before the Odyssey.


Torsten