What Source Genius

Post Reply New Topic

What manner of aspiration caused master masons to design those magnificent Gothic cathedrals? We cannot offer any proof that they were inspired by God, yet considering the resources available to the masons of that time we should stand in awe at the wonderful achievements. How did they make the load bearing structure of an arch, which would support a roof, or later a flying buttress without advanced calculations an architect of today would use.

So, how did the masons know how to design these buildings? Do you think they had everything figured purely by using the internal power of the brain? I'm not sure it would be possible. I think there is a case for consciousness outside of the person. This is being taken seriously by some scientists of our time.

As a Christian, I whole-heartedly agree. The Medieval period was not one of darkness, put one of innovation. The one commonality of all the more advanced culture at the time was the belief in one God. Also, the fact that the architect was made to stand underneath any archway, etc. when the framework was removed probably didn't hurt.

Gravity.

A look at the older building show design flaws, and what did not fall down and kill people.

A lot of Foundation work was substandard, with building sinking over time. The ground floor bubbled up, became a dome, and when the walls sank unevenly, something had to give. Outside walls bulged, as that is the only way for the load to move. A Flying Buttress countered the force.

In a Europe filled with crumbling ruins, some things looked like the day they were built. Roman Aqueducts still stand, many of their roads and bridges are still in use.

The main factor, some Gothic Cathedrals took 300 years to build. The building standard was, Good enough for God.

In practice each was a university of stone work, which developed skills over many generations.

It shows in other works, water, sewer, wells, village walls, and buildings for common use. They lacked the finish of the Cathedral, but included the structure and design features. They include beginner work, where only Master work shows on the Cathedral. Only the best and flawless stone was used on the cathedral, lesser grades can be seen on other buildings.

It is something we lack today, sparing no effort or expense to make a gift to God that will last through the ages.

It also shows in their painting, compared, all modern work seems an unfinished piece.

Mostly based on observation and experience, observation of what others had done before and past experience of what works and what fails. The aspiration you mention is combining the above and add typical human drive to go one better.

Detailed calculations, drawings and models were made during the design of these structures, it's rare for them to have survived.

As Inventor describes, look at the Leaning Tower of Pisa for a classic example of were it went a little bit wrong.

The other that they did not spare, which we do, is time. The concept of a multi-generational project is just gone from our culture. We balk at something that takes 5 years to build, never mind centuries. I looked up which structures took the longest to build and the York Minster Cathedral took 252 years. That is more than enough time for multiple rounds of try/fail/try again with construction concepts. Amazing Angkor Wat apparently took 482 years.

Modern technology could shave a lot of time of those figures just by not needing human muscle for the heavy stones. But the whole concept of it being ok if it doesn't get finished in your own lifetime nor even in the lifetimes of your children and grandchildren is something we can't deal with today. We want to get it right the first time and get it done ASAP.

I really love the ancient architecture. We have chopped, pressed, and formed ticky-tacky houses and buildings, things not meant to last forever. Older buildings were built with the idea of lasting for a long time (albeit they didn't always) and now, we don't care.

A friend was talking about the Kailasa temple the other day and it's so fascinating

Some of the videos insist that aliens had to have done it, but maybe that's because they just can't grasp the level of dedication these civilizations had for building temples and cathedrals to please their chosen deity/deities, because of how fast paced everything is now. I constantly hear people saying that even ancient humans couldn't have done this or that, but we've seen humans do amazing things today. It just takes a lot of time and patience. Many people never even got to see the finished product.

Some things can be done by dedication.

Some learning comes from what went before.

Some things like the huge stones at the temple of Baalbek, are dated before the flood.

Stonehenge, the quarry is known, forty miles away and across two rivers, with no idea how the stones were moved or set up.

Vera Cocha's city at Lake Titicaca have precise machined stones of twenty tons that were quarried sixteen miles away on the other side of the lake. Thousands of stones were used.

Some of this is beyond us.

Glebel, the monastries of that time were indeed a very functional part of society, not just spiritual. However, war does seem to have been the expensive hobby of bored kings.

I was hoping you would contribute to this thread Inventor. Thanks.

I'd be very surprised the find math calulations survived from the 12th Century. Math was just beginning to come from the Arabic world, with some Euclidean geometry. Trig came about much later in the Fifthteenth Century. Detailed calculations as you say were not going to happen.

I agree in some ways Janissy. The creative process usually require prior knowledge and for the best work training, however that misses my point.

Kamiyu, as Inventor points out there are so many ancient buildings which seem to point to lost knowledge. The Great Pyramid seems to me to be the most remarkable. I think Inventor will be more knowledgeable to tell us why.

A lot of people seem to thing that creativity is a purely logical thing in integral to the brain. I'm not understanding my own experience, but it does seem to want a better answer than that.

Some say that the Egyptians could not have built the Pyramids at Giza without help from space aliens.

Yet pound-for-pound the Gothic Cathedrals were a lot harder to build than the pyramids. Much more fighting with gravity to build, and much more fighting with gravity to stay up. But with a lot less of the same material (stone) the builders of the cathedrals managed to enclose a lot more usable space than exists in the Pyramids.

Good points naturalplastic. Thanks.

The Pyramids were big, and useless.

No aliens, just a water government that mapped the extent of the Nile flood every year, assigned plots, and collected taxes. Egypt was a Sharecropper State.

Planting and harvest took up half the year, and the other half had a labor surplus.

Crews marked their stones, insulted other crews, and records of bread, beer, onions, cucumbers, given to the workmen survived. Keeping the people out of trouble by public works programs. Something they learned from Sumaria, where mud bricks built pyramids. Both were solid built. At least the Sumarian had flat tops, with a home for the god.

Middle America is built on a rubble base, with a rubble core, and sheathed in good stone. only the Mississippi Valley pyramids are solid mud. They skipped the brick step, just baskets.

The west coast of South America built mud brick mounds, with cities on top, and the highlands built in stone with inside living space. The coastal cities put more effort into an irrigation canal, that connected six rivers, over sixty miles. In the Amazon public works were raised gardens of man made soil.

The tribes of the Southwest built houses, some public spaces, but most effort went into private homes.

Worldwide, some was impressive for scale, but irrigation systems are much more useful. One less pyramid and Egypt could have produced two crops a year. I would have gone for a mega dock, warehouse, and market.

Out of it all there are few buildings that stand out.

We are slow, pictures a hundred years ago show the same streets, houses, with a horse and buggy.

Little girls are wearing dresses that show all their legs, which the older girls do now. By 1920 they were going to night clubs wearing only a slip.

One thing they all seem to have had, Cultural Unity.

War seems to have taken the place once filled by great group activity.

Keeping the people out of mischief, or feeding the massive ego of a king? I'm thinking especially of The first Yellow Emporer's tomb where 750,000 people were either worn to death or buried alive just to keep his secrets so nobody could raid it. It seem to strange that he wanted to ensure a good after life so all those people had to die to ensure it for him. He seems to have ensured himself a place in deepest hell.

But that all gets away from the title of this thread: What Source Genius.

There is no one "source" for genius, just like there is no one "cause" for autism.

Kraftie, I can accept that. I doubt good and evil genius have the same source at least. What sources do you suggest？ Think of this as a chat over a pint, not a debate. No Pepsi, I don't drink alcohol these days.

I think there are individualized "sources" and sources which are tapped into communally.

"Evil genius," in my opinion, is usually "created" through life experience, with some innate traits which lean toward an amoral sort of logic. Hitler didn't take rejection well--he didn't like being a corporal during WW I! Hence, he decided to create scapegoats, the Nazi idea really becoming synthesized as he was writing "Mein Kampf."

I don't drink, either. Ever try Cherry Granadine?

Kraftie, I'm an old guy now and my creativity seemed to have left me after major surgeries, so I'm mostly looking back at my life. Anyhow, I've written stories which seem to have been already written. I used to tap the keys with whatever came into mind, stream of consciousness. I believe a lot of writers do it that way and Virginia Woolf certainly did.

I've never heard of Cherry Granadine. Sounds nice.