Ramos de Pareja passes from notes matched to planets to intervals between planets, modes ruled by planets, humors ruled by planets on account of their modal associations, and finally returns to modes ruled by planets. In his Musica practica (1482), Ramos mentions that:
“If therefore the Moon [is matched to] proslambanomenos, the Sun indeed to lichanos hypaton, it is clear that those two planets arrange their song in the species of a fourth and that likewise the Moon takes the Hypodorian mode and the Sun the Dorian. From which it is plainly established that the Moon increases in man the phlegmatic and damp humors while the Sun dries them up. Hence those two planets, because they are principals and luminaries, rule the first and second modes, that is, the authentic protus and the plagal of the protus.”
In doing so, Ramos de Pareja fully merged musics, ethics and cosmology, offering to his readers a discursive context for the relations between music, medicine (including psychology) and astrology.
You sure are full of yourself. I bet you'd not even be worthy of cleaning Carl Sagan's boots. It's not a pedantic rant, with Greek and Latin words (oh, my!), that's going to make you an interesting person.
I received a bunch of these kind of comments after my post - from Sagan’s faithful followers. This is the only one I’m going to publish.
As for me, I have no saints. If someone is wrong, it is - be it Jesus or that Sagan. Plus, I have no intention whatsoever to be “an interesting person.” Sorry about that.
P.S. Of course I’m full of myself and I’m writing pedantic rants. This is how stupid people are and this is what stupid people write. But when you look for inspiration and truth (because Sagan was speaking the rational truth, as we all know) and you’re ‘betrayed’ by those very same people, then what to do other than ranting - while countless faithful followers are stuffing the internet with those fake quotes? Hm?
What to do when those who introduce themselves as truth-bearers prove to be as deceiving as their enemies?
I have to say that one of the reasons I don’t like Carl Sagan is that I repeatedly found in his work misquoted citations [that are now filling the rational and atheist side of the Internet], tailored in such a way to fit on his populist claims.
Here’s one example (from many others) I found in his bestseller Cosmos (the Greek and Latin titles are mine):
On his book Περι Αρχαιης Ιητρικήσ (On Ancient Medicine), Hippocrates wrote: “Men think epilepsy divine, merely because do not understand it. But if they called everything divine which they do not understand, why, there would be no end of divine things” (as quoted in Sagan 1985: 145). The statement, aside from being completely decontextualized, is actually from Hippocrates’ De Morbo Sacro (On the Sacred Disease).
Introducing Hippocrates as a rational atheist is a serious methodological mistake, showing the level of Sagan’s analysis as being not very far from the Wikipedia’s one.
If you want to educate people about the wonders of atheism (pun intended), that’s fine with me. Really. But at least do it as a gentleman, not as a cheap burglar.
And no, I’m not saying this because I favor the anti-Sagan, religious party. Not at all. I’m saying it because no matter how much of an anti-religion / irrationality thinker you introduce yourself as being (again, I’m fine with that), as long as your arguments are built on sand, you’re no different at all from those you’re pathetically trying to unmask as a fraud. Here, Dawkins included.