Cultural effects of living in a binary star system

[gestaltist]

As you can tell from my other thread, I am working on a conworld set in a binary star system, where the planet orbits both Suns which in turn orbit a common barycenter.

I would like to open this thread to brainstorm the cultural effects of having two Suns. May it serve as a source of inspiration. My conworld will be preindustrial but I think these would apply also to science-fiction cultures.

- sun clocks wouldn't be as readily available because of having two shadows, leading to a more liberal understanding of time - the concept of „an hour“ wouldn’t appear as quickly, and maybe not at all
- having two shadows would also change the associations people have with those: instead of seeing your shadow as your dark alter ego, people would recognize faster that the shadows are relative to the Suns and treat them in a more naturalistic way
- there would be no myths about the lovers: Sun and Moon. Other myths would abound: e.g., about the marriage of the two Suns and their wayward child, the Moon.
- there would be a stronger tendency to think dualistically

I will add more later.

[Keenir]

As you can tell from my other thread, I am working on a conworld set in a binary star system, where the planet orbits both Suns which in turn orbit a common barycenter.

I would like to open this thread to brainstorm the cultural effects of having two Suns. May it serve as a source of inspiration. My conworld will be preindustrial but I think these would apply also to science-fiction cultures.

- sun clocks wouldn't be as readily available because of having two shadows,

maybe they'd be even more available...except in a few areas. (think about how easy a single sun can get a person lost in the woods)

- having two shadows would also change the associations people have with those: instead of seeing your shadow as your dark alter ego, people would recognize faster that the shadows are relative to the Suns and treat them in a more naturalistic way

ahh, evil servants of the suns, sent to follow me around everywhere.
:)

- there would be no myths about the lovers: Sun and Moon. Other myths would abound: e.g., about the marriage of the two Suns and their wayward child, the Moon.

why can't one sun be having an affair with the moon?

- there would be a stronger tendency to think dualistically

um...why?

having a sun and moon has given us, among others, Yin-and-Yang. why might having three major objects in the sky (sun1, sun2, moon) increase the amount of dualism.
(there have been plenty of trinities - not just in Christianity - with only two major objects in the sky)

[gestaltist]

Some good points Keenir.

- sun clocks wouldn't be as readily available because of having two shadows,

maybe they'd be even more available...except in a few areas. (think about how easy a single sun can get a person lost in the woods)

Why do you think sun clocks would be more available? The two stars would orbit each other, generating two shadows with a variable angle between them (and only one shadow every few days during the eclipse). It would be utterly confusing to use shadows to determine time.

ahh, evil servants of the suns, sent to follow me around everywhere.
:)

I like and I’m stealing it. (For at least one culture.) I am thinking: as long as you cast a shadow, you are being watched by the gods. If there is no shadow, they don’t see you and you can sin without repercussions.

why can't one sun be having an affair with the moon?

Sure it can. The thing about culture is that people can assign any random meaning to the cosmology around them. I wanted to point out what is different. Even if a culture decides one of the suns is having an affair with the moon, it would have a whole other meaning than in our world.

I don’t know how well-versed you are in mythology, but in a lot of cultures, there are myths about the Sun chasing the Moon eternally and without success - and explaining it as some sort of tragic love story. Having a third party in this would have to change the meaning of such a story considerably.

- there would be a stronger tendency to think dualistically

um...why?

having a sun and moon has given us, among others, Yin-and-Yang. why might having three major objects in the sky (sun1, sun2, moon) increase the amount of dualism.
(there have been plenty of trinities - not just in Christianity - with only two major objects in the sky)

This is a very good point. Whatever the cosmological explanation, it would be a lot different than what we have on Earth. Thanks for the additional inspiration.

A binary-star-based dualism probably wouldn’t be like Yin-Yang. I can think of some possible philosophies:

- concentration on the duality of light (the two Suns) while downplaying the role of the moon: there is no inherent good and evil. The life-bringing light is brought to us by the godly twins: it is possible to enrich the world while maintaining your individuality. Such a philosophy would encourage individual contributions to the greater good.

- concentration on the duality of light vs dark: more similar to Earthly dualism but probably without a single demiurge, and more likely with a godly couple (two Suns) bringing about order and fighting against the night. Such a philosophy would emphasize the role of family and social order and look suspiciously at individuality (as represented by the moon: solitary and sneaking around the night sky).

- a variation of the former where the Moon is seen as a child or an emissary of the godly couple: this would result in a more positive outlook where even in the night, there is help to be found. Evil is not an equal force fighting the good: it is the lack of gods’ presence that results in evil and disorder. This philosophy would be likely to believe in social order and the inherent goodness of institutions.

Of course, trinity-based systems would also be possible. Some of the above already border on trinitarian. I don’t have the time to draw up any more ideas at the moment, though.

[Micamo]

The main difference would be in mythology: Take a look at the various myths from different cultures that explain what the sun is. Now, when writing conmythology, you have to explain why there are two of them.

Examples from my own conworld (which is also in a circumbinary orbit):

In Tazaric mythology, the suns are two sisters who are gigantic birds made of fire. Every day they fly across the sky to reach Heikamidda, the god of death, in the west, who's stolen their eggs. They fight Heikamidda to get their eggs back, but every day he wins and kills them. Then the next day, they're reborn far in the east, and fly across the sky to fight him again. When Heikamidda finally loses the world will end, because the suns will no longer have a reason to fly through the sky, and everything will freeze in an eternal night.

In Mithara mythology, there used to be one sun, which their goddess of death kept locked away in a box to keep it all to herself. Then a human child named S'ira broke into her house and stole the sun so she could play with it. But she accidentally dropped it and it broke into two pieces, so she put the suns up high in the sky so nobody else could touch and break them further, but everyone could see and enjoy them. The goddess jealously takes the suns back for a few hours every day (the regular eclipses by the moon's gas giant), and keeps them to herself for each winter.

[Keenir]

Some good points Keenir.

- sun clocks wouldn't be as readily available because of having two shadows,

maybe they'd be even more available...except in a few areas. (think about how easy a single sun can get a person lost in the woods)

Why do you think sun clocks would be more available? The two stars would orbit each other, generating two shadows with a variable angle between them (and only one shadow every few days during the eclipse). It would be utterly confusing to use shadows to determine time.

only if the shadows looked utterly alike.

why can't one sun be having an affair with the moon?

Sure it can. The thing about culture is that people can assign any random meaning to the cosmology around them. I wanted to point out what is different. Even if a culture decides one of the suns is having an affair with the moon, it would have a whole other meaning than in our world.

I don’t know how well-versed you are in mythology, but in a lot of cultures, there are myths about the Sun chasing the Moon eternally and without success - and explaining it as some sort of tragic love story. Having a third party in this would have to change the meaning of such a story considerably.

maybe.

consider how many cultures IRL practice multiple marriages - not just polygamy, but up to and including three husbands per wife.

[gestaltist]

The main difference would be in mythology: Take a look at the various myths from different cultures that explain what the sun is. Now, when writing conmythology, you have to explain why there are two of them.

Examples from my own conworld (which is also in a circumbinary orbit):

In Tazaric mythology, the suns are two sisters who are gigantic birds made of fire. Every day they fly across the sky to reach Heikamidda, the god of death, in the west, who's stolen their eggs. They fight Heikamidda to get their eggs back, but every day he wins and kills them. Then the next day, they're reborn far in the east, and fly across the sky to fight him again. When Heikamidda finally loses the world will end, because the suns will no longer have a reason to fly through the sky, and everything will freeze in an eternal night.

In Mithara mythology, there used to be one sun, which their goddess of death kept locked away in a box to keep it all to herself. Then a human child named S'ira broke into her house and stole the sun so she could play with it. But she accidentally dropped it and it broke into two pieces, so she put the suns up high in the sky so nobody else could touch and break them further, but everyone could see and enjoy them. The goddess jealously takes the suns back for a few hours every day (the regular eclipses by the moon's gas giant), and keeps them to herself for each winter.

Very cool. I am loving this! Do your concultures have any myths revolving around sun eclipses? Or is the moon’s orbit not coplanar with the gas giant’s orbit?

only if the shadows looked utterly alike.

Why wouldn’t they?

maybe.

consider how many cultures IRL practice multiple marriages - not just polygamy, but up to and including three husbands per wife.

Yes, but multiple marriages are almost never of love. Plus, where there is more than two people, there is jealousy and all that dynamic.

So, an example mythos could be: two brothers (the Suns) are competing for the same beautiful woman (the Moon) but she keeps escaping because she cannot decide whom of the two she loves (or because she has been promised to one of them but she loves the other. And the eclipses would be explained as the two brothers fighting for her love).

Or: the Suns are the two wives of the Moon.

Either way, the mythology would be very different. Micamo’s examples show it very well.

[Micamo]

Very cool. I am loving this! Do your concultures have any myths revolving around sun eclipses? Or is the moon’s orbit not coplanar with the gas giant’s orbit?

The moon is tidally locked and has an obliquity of 0, so the gas giant never changes its position in the sky over a particular point on the planet. From where the Tazar live the gas giant hangs on the center of the west horizon (they believe it to be where Heikamidda lives, a palace made of spider web and hard chitin); They believe the eclipses (which always happen at sunsets) are the two sisters entering Heikamidda's palace to do battle with him for their eggs. From where the Mithe live near the north pole, the gas giant hangs in the southern sky, just above the rings (which they say is where the breath-souls of the dead go); The eclipses happen at midday.

[Keenir]

EDIT: couldn't find the art. basically, two suns (one blue, one yellow), and each cast its own shadow (anti-blue and anti-yellow, I think were the words bandied about at the time)

only if the shadows looked utterly alike.

Why wouldn’t they?

mea culpa; I grew up on the milk of paintings which, when there were two suns in the depicted skies, they cast two shadows - each of different colors. *goes google-searching*

maybe.
consider how many cultures IRL practice multiple marriages - not just polygamy, but up to and including three husbands per wife.

Yes, but multiple marriages are almost never of love. Plus, where there is more than two people, there is jealousy and all that dynamic.

I'll be sure and inform Tibet that they're doing it wrong.

seriously, Discover Magazine a few years back had an article "When brothers share a wife" (which included the Tibetan example, and some other examples across the planet, including but not limited to the Na of China, who have no husbands at all)
{it was also in my anthropology textbook, for what that's worth}

of course, all this assumes that your conpeople are human. (not impossible)

other cultures on your conworld might consider the moon and both suns to be peripheral powers, secondary (at best) to the deity(s) that is the ocean or glaciers.

[Salmoneus]

As you can tell from my other thread, I am working on a conworld set in a binary star system, where the planet orbits both Suns which in turn orbit a common barycenter.

I would like to open this thread to brainstorm the cultural effects of having two Suns. May it serve as a source of inspiration. My conworld will be preindustrial but I think these would apply also to science-fiction cultures.

- sun clocks wouldn't be as readily available because of having two shadows, leading to a more liberal understanding of time - the concept of „an hour“ wouldn’t appear as quickly, and maybe not at all

sun clocks would be just as useable with two suns, albeit a bit more complicated (and they could also tell you the day of the week!)

- having two shadows would also change the associations people have with those: instead of seeing your shadow as your dark alter ego, people would recognize faster that the shadows are relative to the Suns and treat them in a more naturalistic way

people have ALWAYS recognised that shadows were cast by the sun. people aren't idiots.

- there would be no myths about the lovers: Sun and Moon. Other myths would abound: e.g., about the marriage of the two Suns and their wayward child, the Moon.

as pointed out, that's hardly the case. As for "but most polygamy isn't for love" - well sure, because love was invented specifically within the context of a particular monogamous culture. Most monogamy, historically speaking, hasn't been for love either. A polygamous culture is perfectly capable of developing its own love-concepts, however. And there's no reason to think that there is inherently less affection within polygamous relationships - although the definitions would have to be a bit more complex (eg covering attitudes toward younger/newer and older/former co-spouses).

- there would be a stronger tendency to think dualistically

No there wouldn't. Philosophy is not a branch of astronomy.

[gestaltist]

sun clocks would be just as useable with two suns, albeit a bit more complicated (and they could also tell you the day of the week!)

A very interesting idea.

people have ALWAYS recognised that shadows were cast by the sun. people aren't idiots.

Not so sure about that second part. ;)

My main point here was that having two shadows would shape the experience very differently. I am referring to the psychological Jungian archetype, if you will. I am wondering how it would develop with people having two shadows.

as pointed out, that's hardly the case. As for "but most polygamy isn't for love" - well sure, because love was invented specifically within the context of a particular monogamous culture. Most monogamy, historically speaking, hasn't been for love either. A polygamous culture is perfectly capable of developing its own love-concepts, however. And there's no reason to think that there is inherently less affection within polygamous relationships - although the definitions would have to be a bit more complex (eg covering attitudes toward younger/newer and older/former co-spouses).

„Love was invented specifically within the context of a particular monogamous culture“ sounds ridiculous to me. It’s as if we had no bodies, no evolutionarily driven experience of infatuation, no oxytocin to help us create lasting bonds with our SOs... Also, what I meant is not that there is no love in polygamy but that the relationship dynamics are different.

- there would be a stronger tendency to think dualistically

No there wouldn't. Philosophy is not a branch of astronomy.

Of course not. But they were strongly interconnected. Early philosophy was a mixed bag of various sciences. It was the philosophers who tried to calculate the distance to the moon, to give one example.

I have a feeling we are speaking from very distant frames of reference. I guess my main question is: how would having two suns affect the collective unconscious of the mankind.

[Keenir]

My main point here was that having two shadows would shape the experience very differently. I am referring to the psychological Jungian archetype, if you will. I am wondering how it would develop with people having two shadows.

why would Jung exist?

as pointed out, that's hardly the case. As for "but most polygamy isn't for love" - well sure, because love was invented specifically within the context of a particular monogamous culture. Most monogamy, historically speaking, hasn't been for love either. A polygamous culture is perfectly capable of developing its own love-concepts, however. And there's no reason to think that there is inherently less affection within polygamous relationships - although the definitions would have to be a bit more complex (eg covering attitudes toward younger/newer and older/former co-spouses).

„Love was invented specifically within the context of a particular monogamous culture“ sounds ridiculous to me. It’s as if we had no bodies, no evolutionarily driven experience of infatuation, no oxytocin to help us create lasting bonds with our SOs... Also, what I meant is not that there is no love in polygamy but that the relationship dynamics are different.

love in monogamy is not a single thing either - it has its own relationship dynamics. (even without including serial monogamy)

- there would be a stronger tendency to think dualistically

No there wouldn't. Philosophy is not a branch of astronomy.

Of course not. But they were strongly interconnected. [/quote]

of course they were (particularly in the Classical Age)...but then, so were philosophy and the cardiovascular system - bleeding your humours if they're out of balance.

Early philosophy was a mixed bag of various sciences. It was the philosophers who tried to calculate the distance to the moon, to give one example.

also the ethnographers and cartographers tried it, as did the religious scholars.

I have a feeling we are speaking from very distant frames of reference. I guess my main question is: how would having two suns affect the collective unconscious of the mankind.

that depends on how much sleep anyone gets.

[gestaltist]

My apologies, Keenir, but I have no idea what you were trying to get across with that last post.

[Micamo]

I have a feeling we are speaking from very distant frames of reference. I guess my main question is: how would having two suns affect the collective unconscious of the mankind.

There are many people, including the majority of professionals in modern psychiatry (who have rejected Freud, Jung, and the other psychoanalysts), who would balk at the suggestion that a "collection unconscious of mankind" even exists, let alone that it would be affected in any particular way by having two suns.

[Keenir]

My apologies, Keenir, but I have no idea what you were trying to get across with that last post.

people think differently if they get less sleep, and-or there is less nighttime...and I only remembered that when I was doing my previous reply -- there being two suns in the sky, will days be signifigantly longer than the nights, no matter where on the planet one is?

[Salmoneus]

My main point here was that having two shadows would shape the experience very differently. I am referring to the psychological Jungian archetype, if you will. I am wondering how it would develop with people having two shadows.

I would maybe take a step back and question whether Jung would actually be born in your conworld, rather than ask how his theories might be different. After all, not every RL individual needs to have an exact parallel in a conworld - that's why they're fictional!

„Love was invented specifically within the context of a particular monogamous culture“ sounds ridiculous to me. It’s as if we had no bodies, no evolutionarily driven experience of infatuation, no oxytocin to help us create lasting bonds with our SOs...

On the contrary. We've always had oxytocin bonding, we've always had lust, we've always had infatuation. We had these things long before we invented either love in its modern sense or monogamy. The fact that almost no societies in history have had monogamy, yet they've all had bodies, should demonstrate either that 'love' is cultural rather than physical or that 'love' is just as natural outside monogamy!
[Agricultural societies have been overwhelmingly polygynous. Some surviving hunter gatherer societies have instead been matrilineal with vague, complex or transient partner-bonding. Which system is older is probably debateable, as both are similar to common behaviours among other primates. By contrast, monogamy is only known within the last two thousand years - although it's possible some earlier groups also practiced it in particular conditions (eg apparently some people think the PIE-speakers were monogamous, even though all the descendent cultures returned to full or partial polygyny)]

Also, what I meant is not that there is no love in polygamy but that the relationship dynamics are different.

That's a long way from what you said!

- there would be a stronger tendency to think dualistically

No there wouldn't. Philosophy is not a branch of astronomy.

Of course not. But they were strongly interconnected. Early philosophy was a mixed bag of various sciences. It was the philosophers who tried to calculate the distance to the moon, to give one example.

Now you're arguing by pun! Yes, the people we now translate as "philosophers" were, in addition to philosophy, also interested in other subjects, such as astronomy. That does not mean that philosophical theories derived from astronomical theories. The invention of mind-body dualism did not reflect the discovery of the moon - nor did earlier trialist conceptions of the self reflect the belief in a second satellite...

I have a feeling we are speaking from very distant frames of reference. I guess my main question is: how would having two suns affect the collective unconscious of the mankind.

As I say, it's improbably for an explicitly Jungian figure to independently develop, and so the question of how his theories of collective unconsciousness might develop differently seems a little backward to me. In any case, you'd probably have to be a serious Jung scholar to retrace his thinking and plausibly posit what the man might have said in different circumstances.

[alynnidalar]

I... don't think gestaltist actually is implying a Jung analogue will exist in this conworld.

[gestaltist]

I... don't think gestaltist actually is implying a Jung analogue will exist in this conworld.

Thank you, I was starting to question my ability to communicate...

Guys, I never said there would be a Jung in my conworld. Heck, there will probably be no psychology at all, since I am going for a preindustrial setting. I was trying to explain to you how I am looking at this topic: I believe that living in a world with two suns has to have an impact on the general notions people have about the world. And as the experience of having two suns is universal, and the associated notions are likely to be automatic, I used the Jungian analogy. Please try to see the picture I am painting instead of arguing about the paint I am using...

My apologies, Keenir, but I have no idea what you were trying to get across with that last post.

people think differently if they get less sleep, and-or there is less nighttime...and I only remembered that when I was doing my previous reply -- there being two suns in the sky, will days be signifigantly longer than the nights, no matter where on the planet one is?

Thanks for the explanation. Yeah, that’s a good point. Micamo tackled it in my other thread, and it seems that the day length wouldn’t be so different with the two suns being as close as I plan them to be.

You are right, though, that this could have significant impact. (Maybe especially at the polar circle - if the planet is warmer than the Earth, having longer days in winter would make living there much easier.)

On the contrary. We've always had oxytocin bonding, we've always had lust, we've always had infatuation. We had these things long before we invented either love in its modern sense or monogamy. The fact that almost no societies in history have had monogamy, yet they've all had bodies, should demonstrate either that 'love' is cultural rather than physical or that 'love' is just as natural outside monogamy!
[Agricultural societies have been overwhelmingly polygynous. Some surviving hunter gatherer societies have instead been matrilineal with vague, complex or transient partner-bonding. Which system is older is probably debateable, as both are similar to common behaviours among other primates. By contrast, monogamy is only known within the last two thousand years - although it's possible some earlier groups also practiced it in particular conditions (eg apparently some people think the PIE-speakers were monogamous, even though all the descendent cultures returned to full or partial polygyny)]

It’s been a long time since I’ve been reading up on early societies, but what you are writing is somewhat different from what I have learned. My understanding has been that most early hunter-gatherers were generally monogamous due to the limitations of the amount of food one man could hunt. Agriculture allowed that women contribute more to food production which made it advantageous to have multiple wives. Now that I think of it, there is no reason for hunter-gatherers not to have polyandry by that logic.

But we are going on a tangent very distant from the original topic, and I fail to see how this discussion is helping to answer my original question.

Now you're arguing by pun! Yes, the people we now translate as "philosophers" were, in addition to philosophy, also interested in other subjects, such as astronomy. That does not mean that philosophical theories derived from astronomical theories. The invention of mind-body dualism did not reflect the discovery of the moon - nor did earlier trialist conceptions of the self reflect the belief in a second satellite...

Well, I had the feeling you were arguing by pun, too. Or at least you were getting hung up on semantics. I definitely have to freshen up on the history of ideas. If I understand you correctly, you are contending that having an extra sun would have no significant impact on the development of philosophical theories. Am I getting this right? If yes, what do you think would be different?

[Lambuzhao]

No one has mentioned how close these two stars are.

If they are relatively close binary stars, then wouldn't any surviving planets orbit the gravitational center of both?

Thus, the twin suns would more or less occupy the same portions of the sky during the day.
There would be one shadow, then, in that case.

Are the binaries close, or far apart?

http://cdn3.whatculture.com/wp-content/ ... Sunset.jpg

http://www.dvdizzy.com/images/d-f/darkcrystal-04.jpg
(Yeah, yeah it's a TRIPLE Sun. Yes, we all know Thra is a Trinary System. Still kewl, tho )


Also, what sort of effect would this have on that pseudoscientific quackery known as Astrology?
There ought to have been Astrology on this conworld, oughtn't there?
I'm interested in how someone's so-called "sun-sign" would work if there were two suns to deal with.
I suppose they'd work similarly to the Sun's and the Moon's influences work on Earth: the major Yin-Yang sort of pair of major personality forces. I guess it wouldn't matter much, as long as the twin suns were relatively close, but there'd be a lot of fun in the suns were far apart (a quasi-example using Terran Astrology: My Sun1 is in Leo and my Sun2 is in Aquarius - now that'd be freaky).

Indeed, depending on how many moons are involved, that could be really fun.

http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/press/ ... 5R1_br.gif

On a slightly similar vein, I have often wondered how much of a chronological influence the moons of Mars would be, on practical things like time-keeping, and other things like Astrology. After all, in the sky, Phobos is no bigger than a hefty comet, while Deimos is nothing more than a somewhat fast bright Venus-like or Jupiter-like star.
Circadian rhythms... ....verging on aleatoric.

[gestaltist]

Very good points Lambuzhao.

I am not sure how exactly a shadow would look like with two suns relatively close to each other. Maybe it would be broader? I will have to think how to calculate that.

Your thoughts on astrology are also insightful. The two suns orbit each other, so their ecliptics would be far more complicated than on Earth. They would be „squiggly“. Not sure what the astrologers would do... Would they take the barycenter’s ecliptic as the basis for the signs? Would they take the whole area sketched out by the ecliptics at any given moment? Would they have a much more detailed „zodiac“ where they would in fact take two signs for each day, depending on the exact position of both suns on that day?

[Canis]

Also, what sort of effect would this have on that pseudoscientific quackery known as Astrology?
There ought to have been Astrology on this conworld, oughtn't there?
I'm interested in how someone's so-called "sun-sign" would work if there were two suns to deal with.
I suppose they'd work similarly to the Sun's and the Moon's influences work on Earth: the major Yin-Yang sort of pair of major personality forces. I guess it wouldn't matter much, as long as the twin suns were relatively close, but there'd be a lot of fun in the suns were far apart (a quasi-example using Terran Astrology: My Sun1 is in Leo and my Sun2 is in Aquarius - now that'd be freaky).

Noice, that raised another question: when exactly will those cultures tell apart one star from another, if they are similar in size, luminosity and appearance? If there are two stars, cultures will probably try to give names to both of them, but if they're just two glowing spots dancing on the sky, then how do they tell which one is which...