a word from our sponsor

[Sherwood, Harrison]

>From: 	Steven Maas (CUTR)

>> 229.30 `incomprehensibly and perversely, in willful denial of God's
>> Disposition of Time and Space, preferring 365 and a Quarter'  Well why
>> not?  (AD)
>
>I [Steven] wrote:
>> I took this to mean that in the Jesuit's view, God's Disposition was
>> that a year shall have 365 and a Quarter Days; a Circle shall have 360
>> Degrees; and Never the Twain shall meet.
>
>while Harrison S. sez:
>> There's also the matter of the fact that the phrase "God's Disposition
>> of Time and Space" implies that the two measurements--degrees of arc in
>> a circle and days of terrestrial orbit--*ought to be the same* [snip]

Steven again:

>I don't see that implication in the phrase--it seems to me almost the
>opposite, that the Jesuit is saying that god can set these things up
>however he she or it wants, regardless of what human logic would dictate. 

Perhaps I overstated it. I paraphrase Fr. Maire's speech in 229.30 as
"As a surveyor, you won't enjoy China; rather than God's own 360-degree
circle, they use one of 365.25." I am in a sense putting algebraic
brackets around the phrase "Time and Space,"--the post-Einsteinian
reading, if you will--and interpreting them as one and the same. It is
_counterintuitive_ to have the degrees and days not match up.

>[Note that I'm not saying there is validity to the belief I'm ascribing to
>Fr. Maire: namely, that 360 Degrees in a Circle is an incontrovertible law
>of god or nature rather than an arbitrary human construct.]

Exactly. That's why I wondered aloud who originally came up with 360
degrees: Was this number ever based on some slightly inaccurate
calendrical estimate of the length of a year? It seems it was not, which
implies that the numerical similarity between the 365.25-day year and
the 360-degree circle is entirely coincidental. They really have nothing
to do with each other, and this is what triggers Fr. Maire's comment.
>
>Harrison also said:
>> Isn't this yet one more example of the mysticism/science,
>> Medieval/Enlightenment, East/West dichotomies central to M&D?
>
>Interesting point, but except for East/West I'm unsure which viewpoint,
>Jesuit or Chinese, reflects which side of the coin.  Maybe I'm just
>especially dense today.

Think of the "eleven days" problem. Science/Enlightenment embraces the
new calendar as a more accurate measurement system. It has no problem
with 86'ing eleven days out of the calendar, because the measurement
system is entirely arbitrary. The modern, rational mind knows perfectly
well that it doesn't matter _how_ you measure the passage of time, time
will pass at the same rate regardless.

The _pre_-modern mind is deeply troubled by the disruption. It places
enormous weight on Monday invariably following Sunday, because that is
how it always has been done. Measurements are not arbitrary at all; they
have always been with us. Screwing around with the calendar upsets the
cycle of the seasons, the predictable march of religious holidays--the
medieval, agrarian life, in short.

Fr. Maire's harrumph about _chinoiseries_ in surveying is this conflict
in microcosm: Upon what do we base our measurement systems? The
mathematical utility of a promiscuously divisible but arbitrary number
(the scientific view), or an Earth-harmonious, cosmologically-centered,
but mathematically problematic number (the pre-rational view). 

Harrison
>