Tuesday, September 26, 2006
The Sun
In today's lecture we reviewed a lot again (sometimes I wish we would go a little faster... maybe our professor just doesn't remember what we've already covered). We did have a neat reading in Heaven and Hell by Swedenborg - about how all of heaven is truth and love. Like the sun is a flame and its heat gives us energy, love is a burning which radiates truth. I like that metaphor. I wanted to find the Piercian Semiotics thesis in the library this morning, but it was already checked out (sadness). I asked my professor if he knew about Piercian semiotics, and he mentioned familiarity with both Pierce and semiotics, and said that semiotics would be good to study. So, I checked out Signs: An Introduction to Semiotics today. I've also been reading Parkinson's talk "We Have Received, and We Need No More" as part of the expansion assignment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Rachel Helps
- Indie videogame writer and Wikipedian-in-Residence at the BYU Library. You are probably wrong about something, and so am I.
10 comments:
Love radiates truth? I think not. Nothing more deceptive than love. Love says that your quite ordinary child is a genius of surpassing beauty. Truth is objective, love is subjective.
Not that I care to live in a cold hard world of truth without love.
Actually, Swedenborg says that God is Divine Love, and from Him, Divine good and Divine truth go forth:
Heaven and Hell #139.
"It must be understood that the Divine good and the Divine truth that are from the Lord as a sun in the heavens are not in the Lord, but are from the Lord. In the Lord there is only Divine love, which is the Being from which the Divine good and the Divine truth spring. This, too, can be made clear by comparison with the world's sun. The heat and light that are in the world are not in the sun, but are from the sun. In the sun there is the nuclear reaction (fire) only, and it is from this that heat and light spring and go forth."
Also from H&H #13:
"From this it is clear what the Divine truth that goes forth from the Lord's Divine love is-that in its essence it is Divine good joined to Divine truth, and being so conjoined it gives life to all things of heaven; just as in the world when the sun's heat is joined to light it makes all things of the earth fruitful, which takes place in spring and summer. It is otherwise when the heat is not joined with the light, that is, when the light is cold; then all things become torpid and lie dead."
swedenborg dude, thanks for setting me straight. I'm new to the world of the mystics.
Swedenborg is mistaken. There is heat and light in the sun. Heat is the excitation of particles. There is plenty of that in the sun. Light is the presence of electromagnetic energy - normally in the band that stimulates our eyes. There is plenty of that radiation in the sun.
Divine love and Divine truth are not physical elements.
The sun's heat is not something separate from the light. What we preceive as heat from the sun is the absorption of electromagnetic radiation, which excites molecules to higher vibration levels.
There is no such thing as cold light. There is weak light, and there is electromagnetic radiation which may not be as readily absorbed as other electromagnetic radiation, but light by itself is neither hot nor cold.
It is hard to pay attention to what the guy is saying when he uses physics as his example, and he gets his physics all wrong.
it's a metaphor... ;;
So, you like metaphors with metaphysics? Or at least pseudo physics? Maybe you’ll like this one:
Love is like a butterfly. As the butterfly passes through solid walls and hypnotizes you with its flashing love-light, it descends upon you, crushing you to the ground with its superior weight. Slowly you are pressed into a hallucinogenic semi-conscious state of agitated quasi bliss.
nectar, you must be a physicist! And as one, you should know that heat and light are human beings' descriptions for the way they perceive two distinct parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.
The electromagnetic spectrum is very broad and includes radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiaton, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, x-rays, and gamma rays (to name a few). All of these are fundamentally similar in that they move at 186,000 miles per second, the speed of light. The only difference between them is their wavelength, which is directly related to the amount of energy the waves carry.
Each star outputs energy across nearly the entire electromagnetic spectrum, with slight differences that give astronomers and physicists clues as to the composition of the star. This energy results from the various nuclear reactions going on inside the star -- mostly nuclear fusion of two hydrogen protons into a helium one, but there are myriad reactions going on given the enormous temperatures inside the star.
We feel heat when our body is bombarded with infrared radiation. We see light when our eyes are bombarded with wavelengths between 400 and 700 billionths of a meter (400 to 700 nanometers).
A common example of heat without light is a piece of well burning charcoal. It will look gray, and when well burned, it will not emit any light (not even a faint red glow). But it will radiate heat -- and if one were to look at the piece of charcoal using an infrared detector/meter, it would be glowing.
A common example of light without heat is light reflected off the moon. The moon reflects certain frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum, but not infrared wavelengths. You cannot feel any warmth by standing under a clear sky with a full moon.
Now there is one other way to feel heat, and that is as nectar suggests -- through molecular excitation as a result of bombardment of the thing with frequencies from the electromagnetic spectrum. Visible light can cause a molecular excitation in one's skin and cause a feeling of heat or burning. Just think of a laser cauterizer.
What Swedenborg was doing was creating a common metaphor that everyone is familiar with: namely heat and light from the sun. Eveyone says it -- forgetting the basic physics of the electromagnetic spectrum.
That said, physically, Swedenborg isn't wrong. Light and heat are simply synonyms for two parts of the electronmagnetic spectrum that the sun (any star) radiates. That spectrum is not IN the sun, but proceeds from it. The heat IN the sun is from the excitation of the molecules there -- because the sun is simply a collection of molecules.
The electromagnetic radiation is not the sun. It is different than the sun -- which by definition is a physical object comprised of atoms, protons, neutrons, electons, and a host of sub-atomic species and that has formed essentially a spherical shape due to gravity. The electromagnetic radiation is a RESULT of the reactions going on in the sun. There is no visible light IN the sun since there is no detector there. The visible light must proceed from its source to the detector. What is IN the sun is the excited molecules -- the sources of the electromagnetic radiation.
So, Swedenborg is correct -- the heat of the nuclear reaction causing molecular excitation deep within the sun CORRESPONDS to the Divine Love, God's essence. The electromagnetic radiation that proceeds from these reactions are heat, light, and other wavelengths. And heat CORRESPONDS to Divine good and light CORRESPONDS to Divine truth.
Now, Swedenborg did not say that these things, truth and good, love and wisdom, etc., are physical properties like spin, charge, color, etc., are properties of a sub-atomic element. Rather they are spiritual properties. And he is a metaphor guy, using metaphors to help people see the spiritual concepts more clearly -- give them a concept they do understand to enable them to see a concept that has to do with the spiritual world.
As to mystical metaphors and metaphyics, etc., nectar's example, respectfully, makes no sense. Whereas, Swedenborg's is part of an intricate and detailed system of correspondances that are non-contradictory. These correspondences lie at the heart of his theology. He says they are not of his design, but of God. He uses these correspondences to reveal the meaning of the stories of the Bible.
Swendenborg Dude,
“nectar, you must be a physicist! And as one, you should know that heat and light are human beings' descriptions for the way they perceive two distinct parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.”
Well, yes, I do have a Ph.D. in Optical Sciences, from the University of Arizona, 1993. And, no, science disagrees with you that heat and light are the way we describe our perception of two distinct parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. We perceive any electromagnetic radiation that is absorbed by the skin as heat. Our eyes are very sensitive to light, and we thus more easily perceive the visible spectrum through our eyes than through a warming of the skin, but any visible light, if of the same intensity as infrared radiation we feel, will also be perceived as heat.
“The only difference between them is their wavelength, which is directly related to the amount of energy the waves carry.”
Not true. A source, say a laser, emitting one joule of radiation at 0.633 microns (in the visible) transmits exactly the same amount of energy as a laser emitting one joule at 1.06 microns (near infrared), or 10.6 microns (far infrared). Now, a photon of electromagnetic energy at short wavelengths is believed to carry more energy than a photon at long wavelengths, but this is due to the quantization of the light, not to something intrinsic to the wavelength.
“We feel heat when our body is bombarded with infrared radiation. We see light when our eyes are bombarded with wavelengths between 400 and 700 billionths of a meter (400 to 700 nanometers).”
If the energy is intense enough we feel heat when our body is illuminated with infrared radiation. However, we also feel heat when the body is illuminated by visible light, and we feel it in exactly the same manner. The biggest difference is the absorption coefficient of the body at different wavelengths. Visible radiation at 500 nanometers is 60 percent absorbed by the skin of a typical Caucasian with very fair skin. For a typical African-American the percent absorbed is 88 percent. In the near infrared (1000 nanometers) about 43 percent is absorbed in the Caucasian, and 59 percent is absorbed in the African-American. Hence in the near infrared we actually feel less heat than we do with radiation at the visible 500 nanometer wavelength, for the same amount of incident radiation. However, past 2000 nanometers (2 microns) the percent absorbed rises to 90 to 95 percent, so most of that longer wavelength infrared radiation is absorbed and will be felt as heat. In other words we do in fact normally feel light as heat with our body, more efficiently at 500 nanometers than in the near infrared, but less efficiently than at the longer wavelengths.
“A common example of light without heat is light reflected off the moon. The moon reflects certain frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum, but not infrared wavelengths. You cannot feel any warmth by standing under a clear sky with a full moon.”
Science disagrees. Since all of the radiation absorbed by the moon is reradiated in the infrared, the percentage of radiation in the infrared is actually somewhat higher from the moon than from the sun. Generally the spectrum is considered to be about the same from moon and sun. The reason we do not feel as much warmth from the moon as the sun is because sunlight is much more intense. In the visible the illumination at high noon in clear sunlight is 10,000 lumens per square foot, whereas the illumination from the moon during a full moon is 0.01 lumens per square foot. The sun feels hotter because on the earth it is 1,000,000 times brighter than the moon! (see, for example, Photoelectronic Imaging Devices,” edited by Biberman and Nudelman).
“Visible light can cause a molecular excitation in one's skin and cause a feeling of heat or burning.”
It is the same process, whether it is by visible light or by infrared radiation. There are no separate “heat” rays and light rays. It is all the same.
“There is no visible light IN the sun since there is no detector there.”
Science disagrees. The presence of a detector makes no difference to the existence of the electromagnetic energy. There are some who argue that if a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one there to hear it, it makes no sound. That idea relies on a particular definition that sound is the sensation vibrating molecules make on a human ear. But, scientifically, light is not the reaction of a detector with the electromagnetic spectrum. Light is the presence of energy in the electromagnetic spectrum whether or not there is a detector present.
We know that the light is in the sun, because we know what the products of the reactions are in the sun, and we can detect it when it gets to earth. We know how long it took to get here. If the light did not exist in the sun, it could not just spring into existence when it got to a detector on earth. The fact is that we know it had to exist in the sun in order for it to have an existence here. We know that if it were possible to put a detector in the sun and have it survive, it would detect the light.
To suppose that something does not exist because we do not have a detector available to detect it is absurd. We might as well suppose that when we aren’t looking no light reaches the plants on the earth. They aren’t soaking up the rays of the sun, because we haven’t got a detector there.
My absurd metaphor of the butterfly was meant to be humorous. I, at least, enjoyed writing it. It was also meant to point out that anyone can create a metaphor, particularly if they aren't careful with reality. Frankly I like my metaphor better than Swedenborg’s metaphor.
It is not that I can't understand Swedenborg's metaphor. I am familiar with various misconceptions about the physics of light. But I do agree with you that Swedenborg's incorrect and misguided theology makes a good correspondence to his false ideas about the physical nature of heat and light.
Touche! Teaches me to get into an argument with a PhD.
Let's shift the debate back to the idea of God that Swedenborg is talking about. That idea is of a God of Love. From this Love proceeds both Divine good and Divine truth.
The idea is that from God, good and truth spring forth and flow into the created universe. This is the source of all good and truth -- the God of love. There is no other source. Not from people. Not intrinsicaly from nature. Just from God. Who is Love itself.
One can argue with that or not. That is a matter of belief, I believe, since nothing of spiritual matters can be discerned with certainty from our positions here on earth living a material life. (That is a stipulation, but one that I dare say everyone would agree with -- all matters of the spiritual world, religion, etc., are matters of belief. Believe this, or that, but whatever, it is a belief. One may think they are right, and defend their position, but it is only valid through a belief.)
Metaphors are ways that Swedenborg helps us understand these concepts. I think the metaphor would need to be well understood by the average person to be of use. Hence the notion of heat and light.
Here is another one. Cold is not the opposite of heat. Rather it is the ABSENCE of heat. Likewise, darkness is not the opposite of light; it is the ABSENCE of light. This sets up the relationship between good and evil and truth and falsity.
With good and heat in correspondence, evil is not really the opposite of good but the absence of good. With truth and light in correspondence, falsity is not really the opposite of truth but the absence of truth.
This helps one understand how a) God cannot comprehend evil, cannot do evil, etc. (it is essentially nothing, from His perspective), b) how one in evil and falsity may appear to be set up as a "god" in opposition to God, but is really removing him/herself from all life.
Actually, metaphors make up the whole of the Bible, in Swedenborgian theology. The stories of the Bible are all metaphors (parables) for deeper arcana.
Just something for someone to believe.
It was in an email that I first heard about the theory that evil is just the absence of good. It was one of those stories passed around the Internet of how a humble Christian boy completely put to shame an old, experienced, and arrogant atheist professor who for many years had successfully shaken the faith of his students in his class. I didn’t know it might be called the Swedenborg principle.
While I thought the argument was brilliant and clever, it didn't seem quite right to me. It did a nifty job of explaining how God, who is all good, could create evil. The fallacy of the argument is a little subtle. There is some truth in the idea. I do agree with the scripture, "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin" (James 4:17.) But is a failure to do good all there is to evil?
It is true that darkness is not a physical thing, in itself. It is the absence of light. Cold also is just the absence of heat. Darkness and cold are just mental concepts, the physical reality is light and heat. Are good and evil like that, a monopole, or are they a dipole? We can measure light and heat, but how do you measure goodness?
It is possible to construct a box such that there is absolutely no light in the box. Complete and utter darkness is attainable. There is a zero point of light in a space. You can't get darker than completely dark. There is also a zero point of temperature. You can't get colder than absolute zero. It is physically impossible. This seems like an essential consequence of Swedenborg's theory of good and evil; there is a finite, definite lower limit to evil. If something has no good in it, then it is as evil as it can get. Do we really believe this?
Well, how do we judge between good and evil? All things which are good come from God. That which is of God invites and entices you to do good continually, love God, believe in Christ, and serve him. We have the Spirit of Christ to know the difference between good and evil.
To my way of thinking the zero point of goodness would be the complete lack of desire to do good, love God, believe in Christ, and serve him. According to the Swedenborg theory absolute evil should be complete indifference to God. Yet it seems to me that man is capable of sinking much lower in evil than mere indifference.
Evil, according to the LDS theology, is that which comes from the devil, for the devil is an enemy to God, and fights against him continually, and invites and entices to sin, and to do that which is evil continually, and teaches you to not serve God and to not believe in Christ.
The first recorded example of evil on the earth is when the serpent
(Lucifer) came to Adam and Eve to tempt them to eat of the forbidden fruit. It doesn't seem to me that Lucifer is merely indifferent to the well being of Adam and Eve. He is actively trying to bring them to harm. Lucifer wants them to die. He wants them to be disobedient to God. He wants them to suffer. If he merely lacked goodness he wouldn't care, one way or the other. Instead Lucifer or the devil is miserable, and he seeks to make all men miserable like himself. The devil is anything but indifferent.
In the parable of the Good Samaritan we read that a certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. A priest came by, who ought to have helped him, but passed by on the other side. A Levite did the same thing. Now, the priest and the Levite apparently had no good in them, because they did nothing to serve God. They were guilty of the sin of omission; knowing to do good, but doing it not. It seems to me, then, that by Swedenborg's principle the priest and the Levite should be at the extreme of evil. But weren't the thieves even worse? Had the thieves merely had no good in them they would have had no desire to harm the man; just no desire to do him good. Yet they seem to have had a very definite desire to take the man's money, which by itself would hurt the man.
It could have been worse. The Samaritan could have been a person who hated the Jews and wanted to hurt them. He could have seen the helpless Jew on the road and decided to go over and pour salt on his wounds. He could have tortured the helpless man, perhaps telling him how he was going to find the man's wife and kids and torture them as well. In fact, it seems to me, that there is no end to the depth of depravity that we are capable of imagining the Samaritan might have done. Where is the zero point of evil? What is the absolute worst thing a person could do in the situation? The sad thing is, that whatever evil thing you think of, someone can imagine an even more evil thing.
I do not see that hate is merely the lack of love. When we go in a direction of desiring to inflict pain and suffering on another, to glory in wickedness, we sink to greater and greater depths of depravity that seems to have no bottom, and we are in a place much worse than the complete absence of goodness.
If evil is a negative, destructive enticement to pull us away from God, we might ask, "So where did evil come from? Surely not from God." The LDS theology has a somewhat unique answer to that. There are some things that God did not create. For example, matter has always existed. God organized that matter when he created the universe we know. Creation for God is much the same thing as when we take paint, paint brush, and canvas and create a picture. We don't create the paint in the picture; we just organize the paint into a beautiful painting.
We like to think that everything had a beginning. Our finite minds have trouble contemplating anything else. Yet, some things have just always existed. You cannot logically question why they exist, because a reason makes sense only if someone or some force of nature brought them into existence. Then you can ask why. I believe that God, matter, good, evil, the light of truth, and the relationship between good and evil have always existed.
The difference between the Swedenborg principle and LDS theology may appear subtle, but I think there are significant ramifications. As I see it, for Swedenborg good and evil are states of being, not forces. If the universe were such that there is a pole for infinite goodness, but no opposite poll for evil, then the devil would be just a convenient abstraction for the lack of God. He could not be a physical being, but only the absence of everything good. He would be nothing. Evil could neither attract nor entice if this were the case. Evil could not fight against goodness, nor drive it out. In the physical world darkness does not fight against light, cold does not drive out heat. Cold things always absorb heat to a lesser or greater extent, and dark places accept light without active rejection. But in reality I believe we are active agents, and can be enticed by both good and evil, and we have the freedom to choose the direction we will go.
Post a Comment