Reviews for Legacy of Mesoamerica History and Culture of a Native American Civilization

The average rating for Legacy of Mesoamerica History and Culture of a Native American Civilization based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2017-10-20 00:00:00 Luca Corvi I must admit that I enjoyed reading this imaginative reconstruction of the lives and work of astrologers (mostly) and some astronomers over some four thousand years of history. Berlinski’s style is beguiling, with a touch of literary aloofness, so it tends to read more like a novel than a history. It should be obvious to the reader that, in order to cover such a vast amount of time within 285 pages (including the endnotes), Berlinski has had to be very selective in his choice of representatives (he chooses those he believes to be the most memorable/successful/notorious); and also, since most of that time has been dominated by astrology (the most astonishing developments in astronomy have been accomplished only over the last hundred years or so), it should come as no surprise that the work is heavily biased towards the most colourful astrological characters of the past. It could be argued that astronomy developed from astrology in various ways; but it is also clear that the earliest work in this area was more astronomical and scientific in nature, concerned with identifying, naming and describing various patterns and movements of the objects seen in the heavens. By the time of Claudius Ptolomy, the most accepted cosmological system was earth-centred, with all the other elements of the solar system (at least) existing in separate spheres about the earth, with the stars occupying the outermost sphere. This geocentric universe concept dominated thinking right throughout the Middle Ages, until the Renaissance. It remains the core concept of modern astrology, as is revealed when one examines astrological charts. The astrological aspect (i.e. where specific patterns were eventually interpreted as significant in understanding life on earth) is most readily understood, perhaps, by the movements of the sun — essential for “understanding” day versus night; and the seasons of the year; all significant to how life on earth “works”. This lead to the idea that, as the movements of the heavens were predictable, and so essential for life, whatever happened in the sky was “significant” for what happened on earth. So far, so good. No one knew just how that influence occurred, but speculated that it must. It was all the influence of the “gods” (the sun, moon and planets were all personified for starters, deified, then given specific qualities) and when various elements of these formed specific aspects (e.g. conjunction; opposition; trine; square; etc) in specified locations (houses, determined in various ways), the understanding was that they would have corresponding influences on people on earth. Initially, this might be considered a very general concept that was more cosmological in nature, but eventually it became linked to specific individuals, and what might be in store for them. The influence on leaders, chieftains, kings, etc. was obviously most important; and this personal desire to know what best to do in certain circumstances fitted in neatly with previous (and often coexisting) superstitions and practices such as auspices, oracles, and other such divinations (e.g. in the cracks of heated tortoise shells; the fall of various types of dice; the alterations in the entrails and livers of specifically slaughtered animals; the chance fall of stones or sticks; etc.). Of course, this resulted in serious philosophical problems, particularly in relation to the connection between destiny or fate (a form of predestination) and the problem that created if one believed that all people have a free will. The Roman Catholic Church, in particular, objected (it needs its doctrine of free will in order to justify its very existence) but it was somewhat mollified by the suggestion that “the stars incline but do not compel”. This and other philosophical and scientific concepts are lightly dealt with by Berlinski; but I will not go into them here (one would need more than just a review to do them any sort of justice!) I mention them here because, unless one is careful, it could lead (as it does Berlinski) to not-quite-so consistent conclusions. At page 254, Berlinski talks about the specific problem of the value (or not) or prediction. He refers to a paradoxical argument: insofar as the future is known, it cannot be changed; but insofar as the future can be changed, it cannot be known. Berlinski continues: “This argument having been grasped, it is entirely possible that nothing of classical astrology remains. But if this is so, much besides astrology perishes with astrology, and in particular any attempt to bring free human action under the control of a scientific system of belief must be accommodated as an illusion.” This conclusion is not quite justifiable: the “argument”, such as it is, is paradoxical, and as such, it cannot be “grasped”, precisely because its two propositions negate each other. Berlinski seems to want to argue that both options of the paradox produce valid conclusions, whereas in fact those conclusions still remain paradoxical; and the final statement, with all its underlying unproven assumptions (e.g.: “all human actions are free”; “a scientific system of belief seeks to control”; only such scientific systems “attempt to… control”; and that all such attempts at controlling human action “must be accommodated as an illusion”) are not sustainable arguments. This book is really a threnody — a lament at the “passing” of “classical” astrology, and Berlinski presents it much as a bewailing of the passing of the innocence of childhood. When it comes to the value of predictability, however, instead of sneering at, or at best being condescending towards, the inevitability of the rise of the scientific method, the great irony is that science is, so far, the most efficient and effective predictor mankind has yet developed. The scientific method ensures that the inter- and infra-structures of cities, for example, are, for all intents and purposes, predictable and practical; ditto in chemical reactions, and in the scientific disciplines associated with medicine and health in general (including the still just emerging world of neuroscience), and, indeed, in all the material, physical, chemical, biological, astronomical, mathematical and other worlds science has opened up for us. Instead of mourning the so-called death of astrology, Berlinski should be praising its replacement by science; and when it comes to astronomy, the clever but inaccurate concept of spheres about an earth that is the centre of the universe, pales into complete and utter insignificance when the wondrous and mind-boggling discoveries of the immensity and majesty of the known universe as revealed by modern astronomy is far more spectacular than anything astrology has to offer.

Review # 2 was written on 2012-08-12 00:00:00 Rhonda Brown Narrative history, perhaps--you need to be a particular sort of person to read Berlinsky: Reject science but be fascinated by it. Be obsessed with our collective memory loss, the certainty that came about only forty years ago that we've conquered superstition and now all embrace empirical, objective science. If you're that sort (I am, quite), you might enjoy this. I did, but i also still believe in fairies.