3 ms·

There's multitudes of great individuals that are just unknown to history

by loa_in_ 2y ago

AlecSchueler 2y ago
So what are we supposed to take away from the initial comment?
- sambazi 2y ago
  That Leonardo was a great individual because he did what he did
  - AlecSchueler 2y ago
    Sure, but aren't there great individuals who didn't study nature in that way?
    - fuzzfactor 2y ago
      When it comes to scholars, if they came along after Da Vinci, there is some likelihood they studied at least a little something descended from Leonardo himself.
    - u32480932048 2y ago
      Given the sheer number of individuals and methods of studying nature: certainly. Anyone who's studied math or statistics for more than two minutes could answer that.
      - AlecSchueler 2y ago
        Exactly, so if there are multitudes of great individualss both have and haven't studied nature then why make a bald statement about the practice of a single individual? I'm asking what was being initially implied.
  - fuzzfactor 2y ago
    >Leonardo was a great individual because he did what he did Could also equally be that Leonardo did what he did because he was a great individual. >So what are we supposed to take away from the initial comment? Probably something that I can add to. That gives me an idea . . .
- u32480932048 2y ago
  That people known for their solutions often spend time considering the problems and prior art, or that playing in the woods as a child equates to a mastery of engineering, philosophy, and art later in life. I'm not sure which. It's very hard to say, especially since none of us are LeonardoDaVinciologists.
fuzzfactor 2y ago
The animal world was well established for eons before humans came along. I say some people have always been able to figure this out. At one time you also have to figure that learning from nature was the most predominant way for eons too. The animal world is where behavior of some other thriving species can be observed somewhat clearly, and there are so many behaviors that can be mimicked in some way. Even a cave man could do it. Don't see how they could avoid it. The most stark thing that many have handled as subtle, is the physical possibility to live no differently than animals, and following that example for eons build a culture that thrives as well as many of the species that have been in existence long before humans. Survival of the fittest in a dog-eat-dog world and all that. But the human mind is so much different in so many ways compared to all other species, while having incredible physical similarity to some other species. At the other end of the spectrum, observers having a different point of view may want to spend eons trying to avoid living like animals as much as possible. Resulting in a very stark difference in activities, conducted in completely different terms than animals do, or could even be capable of. That's the idea of humanity to begin with. Survival of the fittest in a non-dog-teach-non-dog world, something like that. There's lots of choices there. >There's multitudes of great individuals that are just unknown to history This is what so many people forget. When those multitudes get together or arise through population growth, not everything is lost to history, even if there is no documentation. Sometimes they create great societies, and depending on how fortunate they can be protecting their creation from those who are not so great, a few of those cultural centers still exist today. Not every one has been sacked, and not sacked completely at that. And then there's the diaspora effect where displaced greatness disperses stealthily (akin to spores) under threat, or when a diluting force adopts a measure of found greatness. As civilization goes, it looks like right now is just one of those times when those who can learn humanity from nature are vastly outnumbered by those who fail to do so.
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  > Survival of the fittest in a non-dog-teach-non-dog world on that note, while attempting to figure out the origin story of food dye at rural australian b&s parties yesterday, I ran across: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168159121000939 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01681... "Ewes prefer subordinate rather than dominant rams as sexual partners" (alas, not "who do ewe choose?") If the rams control mating*, obviously the physically dominant rams butt the subordinate ones out, and mate preferentially. According to this study, by tying the rams to opposite corners and hence letting the ewes choose between them, the physically subordinate males got not just relatively, but absolutely, more action. Is the ovine equivalent of a "soy boy" a "ma'am ram"? Do the ewes prefer them because they get serenaded with sweet nothings? Elect me, my sweet embraceable ewe Elect me, you irreplaceable ewe * Q. How does ${PEJORATIVE} foreplay work? A. "You awake?"

There's multitudes of great individuals that are just unknown to history

AlecSchueler 2y ago

So what are we supposed to take away from the initial comment?

sambazi 2y ago
That Leonardo was a great individual because he did what he did
- AlecSchueler 2y ago
  Sure, but aren't there great individuals who didn't study nature in that way?
  - fuzzfactor 2y ago
    When it comes to scholars, if they came along after Da Vinci, there is some likelihood they studied at least a little something descended from Leonardo himself.
  - u32480932048 2y ago
    Given the sheer number of individuals and methods of studying nature: certainly. Anyone who's studied math or statistics for more than two minutes could answer that.
    - AlecSchueler 2y ago
      Exactly, so if there are multitudes of great individualss both have and haven't studied nature then why make a bald statement about the practice of a single individual? I'm asking what was being initially implied.
- fuzzfactor 2y ago
  >Leonardo was a great individual because he did what he did Could also equally be that Leonardo did what he did because he was a great individual. >So what are we supposed to take away from the initial comment? Probably something that I can add to. That gives me an idea . . .
u32480932048 2y ago
That people known for their solutions often spend time considering the problems and prior art, or that playing in the woods as a child equates to a mastery of engineering, philosophy, and art later in life. I'm not sure which. It's very hard to say, especially since none of us are LeonardoDaVinciologists.

fuzzfactor 2y ago

The animal world was well established for eons before humans came along. I say some people have always been able to figure this out. At one time you also have to figure that learning from nature was the most predominant way for eons too. The animal world is where behavior of some other thriving species can be observed somewhat clearly, and there are so many behaviors that can be mimicked in some way. Even a cave man could do it. Don't see how they could avoid it. The most stark thing that many have handled as subtle, is the physical possibility to live no differently than animals, and following that example for eons build a culture that thrives as well as many of the species that have been in existence long before humans. Survival of the fittest in a dog-eat-dog world and all that. But the human mind is so much different in so many ways compared to all other species, while having incredible physical similarity to some other species. At the other end of the spectrum, observers having a different point of view may want to spend eons trying to avoid living like animals as much as possible. Resulting in a very stark difference in activities, conducted in completely different terms than animals do, or could even be capable of. That's the idea of humanity to begin with. Survival of the fittest in a non-dog-teach-non-dog world, something like that. There's lots of choices there. >There's multitudes of great individuals that are just unknown to history This is what so many people forget. When those multitudes get together or arise through population growth, not everything is lost to history, even if there is no documentation. Sometimes they create great societies, and depending on how fortunate they can be protecting their creation from those who are not so great, a few of those cultural centers still exist today. Not every one has been sacked, and not sacked completely at that. And then there's the diaspora effect where displaced greatness disperses stealthily (akin to spores) under threat, or when a diluting force adopts a measure of found greatness. As civilization goes, it looks like right now is just one of those times when those who can learn humanity from nature are vastly outnumbered by those who fail to do so.

082349872349872 2y ago
> Survival of the fittest in a non-dog-teach-non-dog world on that note, while attempting to figure out the origin story of food dye at rural australian b&s parties yesterday, I ran across: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168159121000939 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01681... "Ewes prefer subordinate rather than dominant rams as sexual partners" (alas, not "who do ewe choose?") If the rams control mating*, obviously the physically dominant rams butt the subordinate ones out, and mate preferentially. According to this study, by tying the rams to opposite corners and hence letting the ewes choose between them, the physically subordinate males got not just relatively, but absolutely, more action. Is the ovine equivalent of a "soy boy" a "ma'am ram"? Do the ewes prefer them because they get serenaded with sweet nothings? Elect me, my sweet embraceable ewe Elect me, you irreplaceable ewe * Q. How does ${PEJORATIVE} foreplay work? A. "You awake?"