Is the solar system like an atom? Is the earth like an apple? Is water like electricity? Is mathematical elegance like a haiku poem? Does nature work with any organizational templates or archetypes? And do natural archetypes, if they exist, have anything to do with design?
I take my inspiration for this topic from
Arthur M. Young, an early helicopter designer at Bell Labs. In his book
The Geometry of Meaning (1976), he reasons geometrically (and somewhat circuitously) that the twelve signs of the zodiac and the twelve “measure formulae” of physics can be aligned on a circle according to their prevailing archetypes (or ancient meanings, in quotes):
Aries ~ acceleration (L/T
2) ~ “Spontaneous Act”
Taurus ~ mass control (ML/T
3) ~ “Establishment”
Gemini ~ power (ML
2/T
3) ~ “Knowledge”
Cancer ~ velocity (L/T) ~ “Change”
Leo ~ force (ML/T
2) ~ “Being”
Virgo ~ work (ML
2/T
2) ~ “Fact”
Libra ~ position (L) ~ “Observation”
Scorpio ~ momentum (ML/T) ~ “Transformation”
Sagittarius ~ action (ML
2/T) ~ “Impulse”
Capricorn ~ control (L/T
3) ~ “Control”
Aquarius ~ moment (ML) ~ “Significance”
Pisces ~ moment of inertia (ML
2) ~ "Faith”
Now, I am not out to promote astrology. Neither was Arthur M.Young (p. 118):
quote:
The origins of the zodiac go further back in time than Greek Philosophy, or even the I Ching. The zodiac is, of course, the basis for astrology, currently regarded as a pseudo-science (largely because its critics misinterpret what it purports to do). Apart from the question of whether astrology is or is not valid, one can hardly question the zodiac. Spring is the time of physical acceleration; autumn is the opposite, the time of mental stimulus. Summer is the time of physical change, and winter is the time when growth has ceased.
“So what,” says the modern mind, putting its faith in the constructions of science.
But as I have been at pains to show and have obliged my patient reader to witness, the measure formulae, which are the very basis of science, draw their meaning from the same angular relationships, from dispositions about a circle, from the opposition and complementarity that thousands of years ago were evident to the ancients.
A. M. Young may have been way out there with the New Age crowd; I’ll admit that. But I still can’t shake the question: Does nature operate in any way through some template assistance from archetypes? In that respect, I take notice of the fact that the flow of water molecules in a gravitational system can be modeled using the same equations that express the "flow" of electrons in an electromagnetic system. And those two systems stand very far apart in nature; indeed they are quite separate forces.
Ah, but are they held together by archetypes, maybe? And does this have anything to do with design in nature? As scientists, we have to be careful here; it could get us into as much trouble as Haeckel got into with his delusion that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.
(I suggest this topic be placed under "Is It Science?")
”HM
™ Version 4.2