Ancient Symbols

[whitesilk]

Hi, in my personal practice journal, I started a science of sound        

discussion. I just modified a function, and this picture was the result:

 

 

 

To me at least, it looks like a heart shaped tai chi tu. Does anyone else here believe that ancient people were actually very advanced, and modern people are for the most part primitive?

[whitesilk]

adding a function I got this:

 

[whitesilk]

changing the first function that I modified, and keeping the second:

 

[Michael Sternbach]

49 minutes ago, whitesilk said:

Hi, in my personal practice journal, I started a science of sound        

discussion. I just modified a function, and this picture was the result:

 

 

 

To me at least, it looks like a heart shaped tai chi tu.

 

Your sound art is beautiful!

 

49 minutes ago, whitesilk said:

Quote

Does anyone else here believe that ancient people were actually very advanced, and modern people are for the most part primitive?

 

'Ancient people' is a bit of a broad term, but yes, I would agree there was a decline in some respects.

 

However, this is a rather complex topic.

Edited November 3, 2018 by Michael Sternbach

[whitesilk]

9 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

Your sound art is beautiful!

 

Not as beautiful as Grace Slick:

 

 

[whitesilk]

original function is on the right side of the screen:

 

 

[wandelaar]

Those are nice pictures. Looks like creating "sound art" is your thing.

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, whitesilk said:

 Does anyone else here believe that ancient people were actually very advanced, and modern people are for the most part primitive?

 

Depends what you mean by 'advanced'. Under some definitions and in some areas I think they were.  In some oral cultures memory seems more advanced than it is in modern 'westernised'  people  .

 

 

https://www.amazon.com.au/Memory-Code-traditional-Aboriginal-Stonehenge-ebook/dp/B01DCWNITW

 

[whitesilk]

15 hours ago, Nungali said:

Depends what you mean by 'advanced'

 

If we presume that immortality is a reality, then a 2200 year old being might be more advanced than a 22 year old. The 22 year old would have a naive human nature, whereas a 2200 year old might have experienced more of the dark and light of life. Just because the 22 year old does not see or perceive the world as a 2200 year old might, the few 2200 year old beings might have created symbols, tools and ideas to guide the many 22 year old beings.

[whitesilk]

Here is a nicer view of the original function:

 

 

 

The white data in all of the above graphs is in spherical coordinates.

 

The red data is the same data as the white data, just in Cartesian coordinates.

 

 

[Nungali]

7 hours ago, whitesilk said:

 

If we presume that immortality is a reality, then a 2200 year old being might be more advanced than a 22 year old. The 22 year old would have a naive human nature, whereas a 2200 year old might have experienced more of the dark and light of life. Just because the 22 year old does not see or perceive the world as a 2200 year old might, the few 2200 year old beings might have created symbols, tools and ideas to guide the many 22 year old beings.

 

I do not want  to get involved with theories that are based on a string of presumptions, might haves and maybes.  They tend to support fantasies.

[whitesilk]

Here is a fun symbol:

 

[zerostao]

On 11/3/2018 at 1:00 PM, whitesilk said:

Does anyone else here believe that ancient people were actually very advanced, and modern people are for the most part primitive?

yup

[whitesilk]

Can you see the Heart?

 

[whitesilk]

Can you see the heart here?