What is Phenomenon?

[RascalPuff]

Are we coming to the times of believing, again, in what we don´t see? In the beginning there was magic and alchemy; then reason and inquisition and then we invented guillotine -or was it the french?

Phenomenon is proved to exist even if we don`t see it. In a summer of research i worked with a tutor that works in the particle accelerators in Germany. They discovered the charmed pentaquark, a kind of particle they suspected that existed but never observed before. They ran the experiment and found evidence of this particle by the energy that was remaining after the foton collition. They never saw it but are sure it exists.

Now, science takes place of magic? What is reality?

_________________________
Dear hanzoganz:
The same sightless (unsubstantiated) line of reasoning applies to black holes, super-strings and an extensive ensemble of subatomic particles (with an inventory of names that need be seen to be 'believed').

I agree with your questioning of the methods that sometimes bring these speculations into categories of alleged theory and/or serious consideraton tantamount to theory. Particle accelerators (thingee slingers) and cloud chambers are notorious for procreating still births which are adopted, named and baptized.

Regards,
- RP

[MJA]

Phenomenon are observed and experienced with an avoidance of all interpretation, explanation, and evaluation. For example, dark matter is the result of observations of galaxy velocity. We offer no explanation, we do not try to interpret the results, and evaluation is lacking.

The velocities of galaxies suggests the presence of much more matter than can be seen. This phenomenon has come to be known as the dark matter problem.

Perhaps that will suffice for a beginning. Please feel free to comment.

Hi Michelle,

I think dark matter is simply the space that unites all things.

As far as the velocities of galaxies phenomenon, I believe space or dark matter moves equally or the same as a galaxy or any other part of the whole or the universe. Equal in that the universe has infinite as well as uniform direction at the same time. An example in nature is in the motion of a river or stream. Through examination one can see water moving in infinite directions. Yet we also know the stream moves from the mountain to the sea, in a single direction. So, what direction does the stream or the galaxay or the dark matter, or the universe travel, in infinite directions, or in one single direction? The universe is phenomenal, isn't it? We cannot even measure with certainty the direction of a stream!

MJA

[bottomlander]

An example in nature is in the motion of a river or stream. Through examination one can see water moving in infinite directions. Yet we also know the stream moves from the mountain to the sea, in a single direction. So, what direction does the stream or the galaxy or the dark matter, or the universe travel, in infinite directions, or in one single direction? The universe is phenomenal, isn't it? We cannot even measure with certainty the direction of a stream!

MJA

Thanks for reminding readers upon atomic motions, statistical and overall motions and directions whereas our physical world can be viewed with micro and macro scales.

TOE is to explain, demystify and put all phenomena in their own positions in a unified framework.

Best Regards. Bottomlander

[labelwench]

abt the phenomenon i don't understand. We can intrepret, explain, evaluate only if we know its nature. I feel "phenomenon" is a characteristic of observation.

'Phenomenon is a characteristic of observation'.........

Something about that phrase grabs at the edges of my mind, or perhaps it is merely that I am hungry at the moment.

Then again, in addition to the hunger of our stomach, are we not also a species that 'hungers for knowledge?'

[RascalPuff]

Hi LW:
The dictionary says 'Phenomeonon' is an "observable fact or event. An outward sign of the working of a law of nature. An extraordinary person or thing".
The thesaurus says 'Phenomenon' is "something that happens."
Synonyms are "occasions, episode, incident, happening, development, turn of events".

[RascalPuff]

[OCTOBER 14, 1066]

A particular happening, occasion, incident and turn of events:

THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS - The Conquest of England by the Normans.


THE morning of the decisive day, Saturday, October 14, at last had come. The duke of the Normans heard mass, and drew forth his troops for their march against the English post. Then in full armour, and seated on his Spanish war-horse, William led his host forth in three divisions. The Normans from the hill of Telham first caught sight of the English encamped on the opposite height of Senlac.

First in each of the three Norman divisions marched the archers, slingers and cross-bow men, then the more heavily armed infantry, lastly the horsemen. The reason of this arrangement is clear. The light-armed were to do what they could with their missiles to annoy the English; the heavy infantry were to strive to break down the palisades of the English camp, and so to make ready the way for the charge of the horse.

Like the Normans, the English had risen early. The king, after exhorting his troops to stand firm, rode to the royal post; he there dismounted, took his place on foot, and prayed to God for help. The battle began at nine in the morning. The trumpet sounded and a flight of arrows from all three Norman divisions was the prelude to the onslaught of the heavy-armed foot. The French infantry had to toil up the hill, and to break down the palisade while a shower of stones and javelins disordered their approach, and while club, sword and axe greeted all who came within the reach of hand-strokes.

Both sides fought with unyielding valour. The war-cries rose on either side. The Normans shouted 'God help us!' The English called on the 'Holy Cross.' The Norman infantry had soon done its best, but that best had been in vain. The choicest chivalry of Europe now pressed on to the attack. The knights of Normandy and of all lands from which men had flocked to William's standard now pressed on, striving to make what impression they could with the whole strength of themselves and their horses on the impenetrable fortress of timbershields and living warriors.

But all was in vain. The English had thus far stood their ground well and wisely, and the tactics of Harold had so far completely answered. Not only had every attack failed, but the great mass of the French army altogether lost heart. The Britons and the other auxiliaries on the left were the first to give way. The whole of William's left wing was thrown into utter confusion.

The strong heart of William, however, failed him not, and by his single prowess and presence of mind he recalled the fleeing troops. Order was soon restored, and the Norman host pressed on to a second and more terrible attack. The duke himself, his relics round his neck, sought out Harold. A few moments more, and the two might have come face to face, but Gyrth, the noble brother of the English king, hurled a spear at William. The missile narrowly missed the duke, but slew the Spanish steed. But William could fight on foot as well as on horseback. He rose to his feet, pressed straight to seek the man who had so nearly slain him, and the earl fell, crushed beneath the blow of William's mace.

The second attack, however, failed, for the English lines were as unyielding as ever. Direct attack was unavailing. In the Norman character fox and lion were equally blended, as William now showed. He ventured on the daring stratagem of ordering a pretended flight, and the unwary English rushed down the slope, pursuing the fugitives with shouts of delight.

The error was fatal to England. The tide was turned; the duke's object was now gained. The English were no longer entrenched and the battle fell into a series of single combats. As twilight was coming on an arrow, falling like a bolt from heaven, pierced Harold's right eye, and he sank in agony at the foot of the standard. Round that standard the fight still raged, till the highest nobility, the most valiant solidery of England were slaughtered to a man.

Had Harold lived, had another like him been ready to take his place, we may well doubt whether, even after Senlac, England would have been conquered at all. As it was, from this moment her complete conquest was only a matter of time. From that day forward the Normans began to work the will of God upon the folk of England, till there were left in England no chiefs of the land of English blood, till all were brought down to bondage and sorrow, till it was a shame to be called an Englishman, and the men of England were no more a people.

- Outline of Great Books, Vol. 1

[RascalPuff]

[WAR IN RELATION TO LAW - HUGO GROTIUS - THE RIGHTS OF WAR AND PEACE]

THE law of nature is a dictate of right reason indicating that moral guilt or rectitude is inherent in any action according to its agreement or disagreement with our rational--and social--nature; and, consequently, that such an action is either forbidden or enjoined by God, the Author of our nature. The actions upon which such a dictate is given are in themselves either obligatory or unlawful, and must consequently be understood to be either commanded or forbidden by God Himself.

This natural law does not only respect such things as depend not upon human will, but also many things which are consequent to some act of that will. Thus, property, as now in use, was introduced by man's will, and, being once admitted, this law of nature informs us that it is a wicked thing to take away from any man against his will what is properly his own.

Wherefore Paulus, the civilian, says that theft is prohibited by the law of nature; Ulpian, that it is dishonourable by nature; and Euripides, that it is hateful to God. Furthermore, the law of nature is so unalterable that God Himself cannot change it. For though the power of God be infinite, yet there are some things to which this infinite power does not extend. For instance, as God Himself cannot effect that twice two should not be four, so neither can He effect that what is intrinsically evil should not be evil.

The Lawfulness of War

AMONG the first impressions of nature there is nothing repugnant to war; nay, all things rather favour it; for both the end of war--being the preservation of life or limbs, and either the securing or getting things useful to life--is very agreeable to those first motions of nature; and to make use of force in case of necessity is in no wise disagreeable thereunto, since nature has given to every animal strength to defend and help itself.

But right reason and the nature of society, which is to be examined in the second and chief place, do not prohibit all manner of violence, but only that which is repugnant to society--that is, which invades another's right; for the design of society is that everyone should quietly enjoy his own, with the help and by the united force of the whole community. It may be easily conceived that the necessity of having recourse to violent means for self-defence might have taken place, even though what we call 'property' had never been introduced. For our lives, limbs and liberties had still been properly our own and could not have been--without manifest injustice--invaded. So also to have made use of things then in common, and to have consumed them as far as nature required, had been the right of the first possessor; and if anyone had attempted to hinder him so doing, he had been guilty of a real injury.

Sovereignty and Right of Making War

LAWYERS do not agree whether in those cases wherein it is allowed that inferior magistrates have a right to take up arms such a war ought to be called 'public.' Indeed, if by 'public' we mean only what is done by virtue of a magistrate's power, no doubt such wars are 'public'; and therefore they that in such a case resist the magistrate are liable to the punishments due to those that rebel against their superiors.' But if 'public' be taken in a higher sense, for that which is regular, they are not public wars; because to render the idea complete there must be an express resolution of the sovereign and several other circumstances. Sovereign power is said to be that whose acts are not subordinate to another's authority, so that they cannot be invalidated at the pleasure of any other human will.

Here we must reject their opinion who will have the supreme power to be always, and without exception, in the people; so that they may restrain or punish their kings as often as they abuse their power. What mischief this opinion has occasioned, and may yet occasion, if once the minds of people are fully possessed with it, every wise man sees.

There are others who fancy to themselves a reciprocal dependence between the king and the people, so that, according to them, the people ought to obey the king while he makes a good use of his power; but likewise, when he abuses it, he becomes in his turn dependent on the people. Now, if by what they say they mean only that our duty to our sovereign does not oblige us to do anything manifestly unjust, they say but the truth; but this implies no right to compel the king or to command him.

Indeed, all men have naturally a right to secure themselves from injuries by resistance, as we said before. But civil society being instituted for the preservation of peace, there immediately arises a superior right in the state over us and ours, so far as is necessary for that end. Therefore the state has a power to prohibit the unlimited use of that right towards every other person, for maintaining public peace and good order, which doubtless it does, for if that promiscuous right of resistance should be allowed there would be no longer a state, but a multitude without union.

Rebellion Admissible in Extreme Cases

THOSE princes who depend on the people--whether they at first were established on that footing, or their authority was thus regulated by a subsequent agreement, as in Sparta--if they offend against the laws and the state, may not only be resisted by force, but, if it be necessary, may be punished by death. If a king or other prince has abdicated his power or manifestly abandoned it, we may thereafter do the same to him as to any private individual; but negligence in discharging the functions of government is not to be taken for a real abdication. If a king alienates his kingdom, or renders it dependent on any other power, he forfeits the crown. If a king shall aim at the ruin of his whole people he loses his kingdom.

Justifiable Causes of War

NOW, as many sources as there are of judicial actions, so many causes may there be of war. For where the methods of justice cease, war begins. Most men assign three just causes of war: self-defence, the recovery of one's own property, and punishment. If a man is assaulted in such a manner that his life shall appear in inevitable danger, he may not only make war upon, but very justly destroy, the aggressor; and from this instance, which everyone must allow us, it appears that such a private war may be just and lawful. I can by no means approve of what some authors have advanced, that by the law of nations it is permitted to take up arms to reduce the growing power of a prince or state, which, if too much augmented, may possibly injure us. In general, there is no just cause of war save injury done to rights of persons or property. International law, therefore, passes over into civil law, in many questions affecting possession or acquisition of rights, performance of contracts, or compensation for damage.

To be continued

[RascalPuff]

Property in the Sea

WE affirm that none can have property in the sea, whether taken in the whole, or in respect to its principal branches. The cause which obliged mankind to desist from the custom of using things in common has nothing to do in this affair; for the sea is of so vast an extent that it is sufficient for all the uses that nations can draw thence, either as to water, fishing, or navigation. It seems to appear that the property and dominion of the sea might belong to him who is in possession of the lands on both sides, though it be open higher up, as a gulf, or above and below, as a strait--provided it is not too great a part of the sea compared with the lands on both sides. But it must be owned that in all parts of the sea that were known in the time of the Roman Empire, from the first ages even down to the time of Justinian, it was the law of nations that no people whatever should claim a property in the sea.

Now, if a certain space of sea may be, as it were, an appurtenance to the ground of a private person, so far as it is shut up there, and so inconsiderable that it may be thought part of their ground, and if this be not repugnant to the law of nature, why may not a part of the sea, surrounded with land, belong to one or more nations who are in possession of the shores?

But it is here to be noted that if in any place this law of nations about the sea should not be received, or though it were, should be afterwards abolished, it does not follow that a people, merely because they are in possession of the lands, are likewise in possession of the sea enclosed in them. Nor is an international act sufficient in this case; but the taking possession must, by an overt act, be signified and made known. And if afterwards the possession, thus gained by right of prior occupancy, shall be quitted, then the sea returns to its original nature.

It is also certain that he who is in possession of any part of the sea cannot lawfully hinder unarmed ships from sailing there; since such a passage, even through another's country, cannot justly be hindered, though it be commonly less necessary and more dangerous.

Jurisdiction and National Continuity

PROPERTY and jurisdiction may entirely cease by being abandoned. But there is another manner of their lapsing, when the subject in which the jurisdiction, or property, is vested ceases to be and leaves no successor. The body politic becomes extinct, either when all its members are destroyed; or when its constitution is broken up (as when subjects either are disunited on account of pestilence, or sedition; or, again, are by force so scattered that they cannot reunite, which often happens in a war).

A people, too, may lose all or some of those rights which they had in common; and this happens either when everyone is brought into slavery, or when, though they retain their personal liberty, they are yet deprived of sovereignty.

But if a people only leave their former place, then, provided their political form continue, they do not cease to be a people. The type of government, whether monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy, does not affect the point.

Aliens and Alliances

A PERMANENT abode ought not to be refused to strangers who, being expelled their own country, seek refuge elsewhere, provided they conform to the law as established and all other provisions for the avoidance of sedition.

Concerning leagues, it is often disputed whether they may be lawfully made with those who are not of the true religion. In respect of the law of nature this involves no doubt. For such right of alliance is common to all men, so as to admit of no exception on account of religion. As there is no harm in doing good to infidels, so neither is there any in entreating their assistance.

Here, then, we have not a case of intrinsic or absolute evil. It must be weighed in regard to circumstances; for we ought to take precautions lest by our too intimate relations we bring scandal or infection on the weak.

On Punitive Wars

WE must also know that kings, and those who are invested with a power equal to that of kings, have a right to exact punishments, not only for injuries committed against themselves or their subjects, but likewise for those which are in any persons whatsoever grievous violations of the law of nature or of nations. For the liberty of consulting the benefit of human society by punishments, which at first was in every particular person, does now, since civil societies and courts of justice have been instituted, reside in those who are possessed of the supreme power--not as they have authority over others, but as they are in subjection to none.

On Mercenaries in an Unjust War

BUT as those alliances which are entered into with the promise of assistance in any war without regard to the cause are unlawful, so there is no course of life more abominable than that of soldiers, who, without considering the justice of the cause, fight for pay. Did they sell only their own lives it were no great matter; but they sell also the lives of many a harmless creature--as much more odious than hangmen, as it is worse to kill without a reason than with one. War is no fine employment; nay, it is so horrible a thing that nothing but absolute necessity, or true charity, can make it honourable. - Ibid

[RascalPuff]

Essay on History (including an anthology of *essays), Ralph Waldo Emerson
- *[ Self-Reliance ] [ Compensation ] [ Spiritual Laws ] [ Love ] [ Friendship ] [ Prudence ] [ Heroism ] [ The Over-Soul ] [ Circles ] [ Intellect ] [ Art ]:

http://emersoncentral.com/history.htm

[labelwench]

Taken from one of the essays posted by RascalPuff

They resign each other, without complaint, to the good offices which man and woman are severally appointed to discharge in time, and exchange the passion which once could not lose sight of its object, for a cheerful, disengaged furtherance, whether present or absent, of each other's designs. At last they discover that all which at first drew them together,— those once sacred features, that magical play of charms, — was deciduous, had a prospective end, like the scaffolding by which the house was built; and the purification of the intellect and the heart, from year to year, is the real marriage, foreseen and prepared from the first, and wholly above their consciousness.

In today's world, it is becoming a far less common circumstance for a man and a woman to commit to a lifelong relationship, and to honor that commtment.

Yet, it does still happen, and when on occasion one meets such a couple, the glow of their shared journey, whether it has been easy or challenging, is something palpable. Such intellectual and emotional intimacy, forged over considerable time, is so rare as to be one of life's phenomena, in my observation.