Robert Grosseteste had some interesting thoughts in regards to his treatise, "On Light." In his treatise, Grosseteste mentioned the nine heavenly spheres and how the ninth sphere's mass is constituted out of the four elements (Earth, Air, Fire, and Water) and how this sphere is able to bring forth lumen from itself. Grosseteste explained that from light through the expansion to its mass formed fire and thus fire produced air, which is able to bring forth a spiritual body from itself. Then water and earth would be produced from air. From a personal standpoint, it seems like Grosseteste is trying to say that everything in the universe is derived from light. However, the light that Grossteste is speaking of is not the physical light that we are accustomed to everyday, but rather spiritual light as stated in the Introduction.
In the reading, Grosseteste also mentioned about the thirteen spheres of this sensible world and that only nine of the thirteen were heavenly spheres. He stated that the nine heavenly were not subjected to change, but the four others are. The first reading this passage, the first thing I thought about the planets because Grosseteste also mentioned about how these spheres had to motions to them in the introduction, daily motion and firmament. To me, these motions basically described rotation and revolution of planetary motion. However in accordance to the text, I think Grosseteste is trying to explain how these planetary spheres move in regards to a higher being.
Timmy,
ReplyDeleteThanks for getting this started. I really appreciate that.
I believe that Grosseteste is definitely trying to explain the origin and purpose of a higher being, a primary being, and how it related to us. He takes a very scientific approach, which Timmy has already explained, but then ends with somewhat of a spiritual being that came from what first started as light. Whether this light represents some higher, spiritual being, I am not sure... Maybe there is a correlation between religion and science through his explanation. All of what Grosseteste explains seems to be controlled, or started, by a supreme being.
ReplyDeleteI found Grosseteste's Teatise interesting. There were several areas that had many noted similarities to today's way of thinking. For example, he put forth that light was what created space for other things to exist "it proceeded... to extend matter which it could not leave behind" this is markedly similar to the big bang theory which puts forth that a point of infinite density brought forth the space in which objects in the universe can exist in a split second of an incredible output of energy.
ReplyDeleteI also applaud his lack of reliance on scripture. It is a step in the right direction, however, the degree to which Grosseteste relies on "infinities" simply feels like a substitution.
In summary, I am thrilled that Grosseteste isn't employing the "because god said so" argument, but I still wish to see a treatise which refers to quantifiable objects and subjects that can be analyzed logically rather than saying that light multiplies itself to create the view-able universe.
Also, thanks for posting the blog, however, (this was an aforementioned question in a previous blogpost) could the Prime mover of the blogpost please include some questions with the creation of the forum post? this way we could have some predefined subjects to sharpen our teeth on. Thanks,
I was unsure as to whether Grosseteste's work was supposed to be largely metaphorical or was more simply the product of the scientific understanding of his time. Either way, I found it very interesting as a look into how one theologian sees the cosmological relationship between God and the universe.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Irant's post, I wanted to mention that I don't think that quantification is really the point of this text. In contrast to a specifically scientific view, this text seems to be treating more of overall concepts and ideas rather than getting into 'x chemical interacts with z, l and b to produce a gas which God then uses to manipulate the world'. It seems like that sort of text would run into problems of its own - where do you even start to quantify things with that mindset? But maybe this isn't what you meant. Either way, it seems that the conversation would benefit from more specific criticism and maybe a slightly more tractable perspective.
I think what Grosseteste meant by "light" is "good". The highest form of being is God who represents the highest level of good. Obviously darkness would be a symbol of evil that represents all bad things. I think it is interesting how Grosseteste uses these subtle symbols to get his point across without using any specific examples or linking it to God. Timmy made a great observation about the motions of the spheres. I think it is entirely plausible for Grosseteste to state that their motion (planetary) motion is caused by a higher form of being (God).
ReplyDeletehttp://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/30478/glowing-lake/
ReplyDeleteJust an interesting article I thought we all might benefit from with regards to the reading for today.
"The study of lines, angles and figures is extremely useful, for without them it is impossible to understand natural philosophy."
ReplyDeleteThis was one of the interesting lines I read from the intro.
"In this way light, by extending first matter into form of a sphere, and by rarefying its outermost parts to the highest degree, actualized completely in the outermost sphere the potentiality of matter, and left this matter without any potency to further impression"
I spent a lot of time going back and forth on page 13. The line above caught my attention the most; it got me thinking, but each time I read it again; I would read something new into it. One of the main thoughts was about how we illuminate our dwellings today. Ranging from the materials we use for building; which is gotten from the earth. To energy generation for lighting up the dwellings, to towns and cities; energy also generated from the earth.
I enjoyed how he was talking about when the lumen is completely actualized (firmament), it diffuses its light inwards to its center (earth's core). Now if we look at a night time image of the world, it does look like we are trying to unveil that diffused (lumen) light. Or trying to get from it the potential light we know it carries within that mass solid. With the different layers of the soil (spherical layers); it is quite interesting thinking about this as an architect. We could almost say our building are little windows to the center light of the earth.
I found that I enjoyed this reading the most out of them all. They way he talks about the spheres and of light really intrigued me. In the way he metaphors about light reminded me of Plato and Socrates but he puts a new spin on it, which seems like it was possible because of the technological advances.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that the lack of reliance on scripture is a nice break, and I would share Chelsea's question about how to read this text. While part of me thinks that it was just the scientific understanding of the day in the way he talks about the four elements and light, it may very well be metaphorical as well.
ReplyDeleteIt could be twofold, as I am partial to what Bryan had proposed. With all the emphasis on spheres I am inclined to think of a celestial metaphor, explaining the movement of the heavens and the source of good.
Sorry this is coming so quickly before class, just got off a train!
ReplyDeleteLast class I had a big problem reading things in a historical context, so I'm doing my best to do so here. I think that when he speaks about Light, I think the text could be read from a religious stand point as light being God/truth or also simply a scientific study as well. While most maths/sciences were being discussed in the arab world at the time, as we learned in last class, Europe was being facinated with the study of optics. Therefore, I think that the purpose of this text is two-fold: firstly to be a scientific treaties as well as a spiritual/metaphysical one.
I think Bryan was correct in saying "I think what Grosseteste meant by "light" is "good". The highest form of being is God who represents the highest level of good." The contrast between light and dark is important here as well, between the spiritual sense and the physical, with light being a sign for goodness and truth and darkness being that mirror.