a reply to: username74
a reply to: username74
so we have some expedient quantity surveying tools, strings and gyroscopes (and dont expect to find their remains, all organic), all physical
analogues, of our tech. so you see we learnt nothing. we mimic well, but we dont reason so well.
we identify patterns, but we apply them without sufficient analysis.
so all our civilisation has done is reinvented the wheel, multiple times.
original precepts, we had a few but our tech is neccesarily just a continuation of several branches of the same thing.
manifestation of physical properties, developed with offshoots as a result of our direct challenges with the local enviroment.
so to drive this point home, simplified,......
i have an example, the end of the last great war. wwII . allies built radar. germans infrared.
both theoretical at the time, both coming from correct or incorrect ideologies.
so to further this within the world of computer games/simulations/models, you would refer to this as a technology tree.
if you start down one branch of this tree there is a finite 'phasespace' you can fill (read as realm of potential development within available
toolkit) and other routes where the primary supposition allows development
of a different branch of tech, with different applications to the same end.
a little like geneaology, but as we now know, it would be better to regard the system as a braided stream, were routes can dead end or recombine,
rather than being mutually exclusive as is the tree branch.
a more flexible model, if you will.
like systems science as a roadmap.
like the dry ashlar wall systems and i have since learnt a crude distinction within the classification as
convex polygonal, or block.
well indeed, two distinct markers in antiquity, squarish and random polygonal.
so back to the tool shed.
the bit i have been shying away from.
i cant give you the physical tools they had.
we can measure and mark.
how do we cut , its easier that i first list what you cant have, as in accord with orthodox theory, and obviously geography has some sway.
no wheels, no pulleys
no hard metal/metallurgy beyond predefined tech/temperature level (very bad form in my humble opinion)
no precise tools
no measuring devices (though we have postulated such)
no beasts of burden
no central organisation, though i must contend our standard version of such is very linear, hierarchical, centralised thus neccesarily blinkered to
alternatives, so semantics comes into play again, as with culture/civilisation definition.
probably they dont even get a spade for the foundations.
.so in fact we define them as savages. academically, catagorically and socially.
when it comes to size, we decree brute force.
when it comes to quality we decree lots of time and exceptional talent.
is it a reflection of our existence, that we must denigrate those who came before
that we must deny the apparence of the evidence before us
do we subconciously recognise our inferiority in the face of these awesome constructions and equate it to barbarous qualities, vis a vis our post
colonial civilisational tendancies.
you will notice it gets quiet on these construction related threads, when such things are postulated, perhaps
to deride such notions would be to aquiesce to their pertinence.
as though to admit that unconciously advocated centralised control may not be the origin of true efficient human relationship and endeavor, that
another method of organisation, was moving the big rocks.
because they sure as hell arent giving them tools to do it with!
bear in mind this hierarchical structure is endemic to our relationship with everything we percieve, even academia!
this is not to degrade the value of empirical studies, but boundaries between disciplines are oft illusory!