Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Divine Spooning
Good lord, don't ask why, but I sent an evaluation of the conceptual stability of god vs. the spoon to a friend of mine Darrell Grizzle. Actually, in the 30 seconds since I have written that sentence, I've found out that it is an old tradition for godparents to give their godchild a spoon. Darrell is my brother's godfather so maybe that's why... (Well, actually actually, initially it was about which one is more easily bent, which, if you know anything about bending spoons, is an interesting question). Anyway, Darrell, I'm sure that I speak for Rusty when I say, don't bother until you have acquired the Unbendable Spoon of God (or a comparable utensil (no apostle spoons!)).
Okay... so, in response to the conceptual stability of spoon vs. god, Darrell sent me a few questions. I'll post them here with my answers, but I encourage you, reader, to provide your own responses in the comments. I'll take those responses and add them to my post. If you would like to revise an answer that you've already given over the phone, just say so in the comments. Also, if you have any other good questions that relate to spoons and god, don't hold your tongue, unless you can do that and type your question with the other hand.
1) If the spoon bends in the forest, will anybody hear it?
John: Yes, if someone with very good hearing is bending it.
Chip: Insufficient data to compute probability.
2) Can God create a spoon so strong that even he/she/it cannot bend it?
John: And give up omnipotence?! Pshh! It is currently the second strongest spoon in the western hemisphere (The Unbendable Spoon of God).
Chip: You can abbreviate the question to its first two words, and the answer is the same as for #1.
3) Would God use a spoon to eat soup? What kind of soup would God eat?
John: Yes, obviously God uses a spoon to eat soup, unless God is asian, which HE is NOT, because neither is Santa. Actually, I just asked a Greek Orthodox preacher who was walking by (and who DOES look like Santa, lol) and he told me "His food is not of this kingdom." I replied, "So, you don't know, then?"
Chip: Ditto. But if there is a God who eats soup, it would have to be Vegetable Beef. After all, he placed us omnivores at the top of the food chain, didn't he? Or didn't he?
Matt B: Cream of Mushroom. What's the real answer?
Katie R: "Ambrosia is the food of the gods, duh."
Andrea Q: Split Pea because it is the best soup so God must be made of it.
Rusty: Clam Chowder, obvi (Why?) Cause its the best, helloooo
Andrea L: Welll as much as it pains me to say... chicken soup is for the soul right? And god's all soulful probably.
Brent A: God eats baby soup.
Jeff W: Ambrosia soup. (Well done! Someone else said that too. It's a good answer). Credit Carolyn. I just mumbled something about my tears and my balls.
Okay... so, in response to the conceptual stability of spoon vs. god, Darrell sent me a few questions. I'll post them here with my answers, but I encourage you, reader, to provide your own responses in the comments. I'll take those responses and add them to my post. If you would like to revise an answer that you've already given over the phone, just say so in the comments. Also, if you have any other good questions that relate to spoons and god, don't hold your tongue, unless you can do that and type your question with the other hand.
1) If the spoon bends in the forest, will anybody hear it?
John: Yes, if someone with very good hearing is bending it.
Chip: Insufficient data to compute probability.
2) Can God create a spoon so strong that even he/she/it cannot bend it?
John: And give up omnipotence?! Pshh! It is currently the second strongest spoon in the western hemisphere (The Unbendable Spoon of God).
Chip: You can abbreviate the question to its first two words, and the answer is the same as for #1.
3) Would God use a spoon to eat soup? What kind of soup would God eat?
John: Yes, obviously God uses a spoon to eat soup, unless God is asian, which HE is NOT, because neither is Santa. Actually, I just asked a Greek Orthodox preacher who was walking by (and who DOES look like Santa, lol) and he told me "His food is not of this kingdom." I replied, "So, you don't know, then?"
Chip: Ditto. But if there is a God who eats soup, it would have to be Vegetable Beef. After all, he placed us omnivores at the top of the food chain, didn't he? Or didn't he?
Matt B: Cream of Mushroom. What's the real answer?
Katie R: "Ambrosia is the food of the gods, duh."
Andrea Q: Split Pea because it is the best soup so God must be made of it.
Rusty: Clam Chowder, obvi (Why?) Cause its the best, helloooo
Andrea L: Welll as much as it pains me to say... chicken soup is for the soul right? And god's all soulful probably.
Brent A: God eats baby soup.
Jeff W: Ambrosia soup. (Well done! Someone else said that too. It's a good answer). Credit Carolyn. I just mumbled something about my tears and my balls.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Rags to Riches: Foreign to Awesome
In belated celebration of Darwin's and Lincoln's 200th birthday, I present a poorly composed propaganda piece based on Darwin's Decent of Man:
In The Decent of Man, Charles Darwin reveals his theory of mankind’s evolution through natural selection. He delineates the processes of evolution from a strictly biological perspective. However, he digresses, “there is apparently much truth in the belief that the wonderful progress of the United States, as well as the character of the people, are the results of natural selection.” (pg. 168) This brief foray into the realm of cultural analysis deserves further interpretation. Transformations in the physical form of the United States citizen attest to Darwin’s theory of man’s evolution. These changes are the result, in part, of differences in the natural environment, the unique ethnic diversity of the people, and the rigorous process through which these people seek out their genetic supplement: dating.
Ironically, in the introduction to The Decent of Man, Darwin praises the French naturalist George Louis Leclerc, a man whose theory of American degeneration earned him a place of infamy in the hearts of the first U.S. citizens. Leclerc believed that organisms in the Americas were smaller and less fertile than those of Eurasia, and that plants and animals imported from the Old World would diminish accordingly within a few generations. In defense of the national pride, Thomas Jefferson had the remains of a moose exported to Paris, where it easily dwarfed their largest local game. Leclerc’s theory was put to death, but U.S. citizens would exact even further vindication.
Not only did America's wildlife grow to epic proportions, so did its people. Darwin tells of how German soldiers appeared ridiculous donning American made clothes that were much too long for them. “Thus, as is generally admitted European settlers in the United States undergo a slight but extraordinarily rapid change of appearance. Their bodies and limbs become elongated.” (pg. 227) Here, Darwin links the environment (specifically, as we now know, the increased abundance and diversity of food) to the physical development of its inhabitants.
Moreover, measurements of over 1,000,000 U.S. soldiers produced a linkage between a man’s size and the general area in which he was reared: “For instance, it is established, ‘that residence in the Western States, during years of growth, tends to produce increase of stature.’” (pg. 49) Thus, the United States not only demonstrates an environmentally related physical departure from Europe, but also intra-national physical diversity as a result of its various landscapes. Such changes in stature undoubtedly affect an individual’s standard of living and, thus, his ranking in the horrible hierarchy of natural selection.
Darwin’s theory is also exemplified in the racial history and diversity of the United States. The institution of slavery produced rapid physical adaptations: “There is also a considerable body of evidence shewing that in the Southern States the house-slaves of the third generation present a markedly different appearance from the field slaves.” (pg. 228) As politically incorrect as it may sound, the process through which United States slaves were physically transformed is parallel to the domestication of animals. Darwin studied the breeding of pigeons, noting that very few generations were required to change the birds’ physical appearances when bred with a purpose. Likewise, slaves in the South were divided into field-slaves or house-slaves based upon certain characteristics. These traits were undoubtedly reiterated when members of these distinct groups produced offspring together. Meanwhile, slaves endured extreme physical stress in the crowded, often diseased ships in which they were transported to the U.S., or also from the continual strain of field work. Thus, one might argue that modern African Americans are the product of a fiercely concentrated selection process because slave owners favored certain traits and also due to the harsh physical challenges which their ancestors endured.
Meanwhile, the interbreeding of races in the U.S. has produced individuals with some interesting characteristics. Darwin writes of the “inferior vitality” of mulattoes (pg. 224), but also mentions that they are “almost completely exempt from the yellow fever so destructive in tropical America.” (pg. 193) In both cases, the mixing of races in America illustrates the inheritance of traits that result in unique offspring, a central aspect of Darwin’s theory as to the emergence of man. Moreover, the United States gene pool is more diversified than that of any other country. No single ethnicity dominates the population. U.S. citizens are so diverse that racial groups considered distinct in other countries are often lumped together as Latinos, Whites, Blacks, Asians, or even just Americans. Presidential candidate Barak Obama, who is of mixed ethnicity, is an iconic personification of this genetic diversity. Thus, the United States provides evidence of human forms that have distinguished themselves from their ancestors, an inherent part of Darwin’s assertion that man descends from organisms that were quite distinct from his modern manifestation.
According to Darwin, all would-be progenitors are subject to the trials of sexual selection. The dating atmosphere in the modern U.S. demonstrates some of the ways in which many organisms pursue their drive towards procreation. As a young lad, I am acutely aware of women's discrimination, none of which seem to comply with my request that they “see through the life choices to the genetic potential.” Darwin relates, “the exertion of some choice on the part of the female seems a law almost as general as the eagerness of the male.” (pg. 257) A lack of pre-arranged marriages in the U.S. results in a highly competitive mate market. The American male is obliged to advance, and he does so in a fashion that is not unlike the attempts of his brethren among other species in natural environments: the so-called act of “peacocking” entails male adornment for the express purpose of distinguishing himself to the feminine eye. Literally, the term refers to the flamboyant feathers of the male peacock, and Darwin observes such brilliant elaboration across a wide variety of animals. Similarly, bird-song is used to attract a mate, and some birds even imitate each others’ songs towards this end. (pg. 94) Such behavior is mirrored in my own feeble musical creations, which so often give way to more surefire cover-songs. Darwin also describes the use of “a musky odour, which we may suppose serves to charm or excite the female.” (pg. 408) Likewise, Ax Body Spray commercials depict one lucky guy being engulfed by a mob of women who are apparently zombified, unable to resist the scent of the Ax product. Thus, the various endeavors of the American man against the horrific prospect of genetic oblivion as a consequence of sexual deselection are directly parallel to those of other species, supporting Darwin’s connection between man and beast in the theory of evolution.
On the same token, U.S. women employ a wide array of agents, ranging from make-up and hair removal to mind-warping social games, in their pursuit of the least repulsive mate. Darwin argues that, through this process of coupling, only the best persist. He explains, “if such [well nourished] females select the more attractive, and at the same time vigorous males, they will rear a larger number of offspring than the retarded females, which must pair with the less vigorous and less attractive males.” (pg. 255) Theoretically, a United States citizen could be too poor to support a family. However, in general, nutrition is not a significant issue in the U.S., enabling “retarded…and less attractive” progenitors to make their contribution to the gene pool (see “lower class Conservatives”).
Thus, the U.S. by no means represents the greatest culmination of man through Darwin’s principles of evolution. Perhaps it is fitting that Jefferson chose the moose to represent the grandeur of the United States, as the analogy can be extended to modern times: “during his progress he [the moose] holds his nose up, so as to lay the horns horizontally back; and in this attitude cannot see the ground distinctly.” (pg. 577) The great international influence wielded by the U.S. is roughly parallel to enormous antlers of the moose. Moreover, some argue that it has proven to be similarly cumbersome as, for example, the focus on the war in Iraq has drawn attention away from significant domestic issues. Finally, foreign criticism of the American citizen is well known, and generally entails something like, “he holds his nose up…and in this attitude cannot see the ground distinctly.” In other words, many feel that the United States’ great success has resulted in an excessively proud, spoiled and ignorant population. Moreover, Darwin writes, “It even appears from what we see, for instance, in parts of S. America, that a people which may be called civilised, such as the Spanish settlers, is liable to become indolent and to retrograde, when the conditions of life are very easy.” (pg. 169) No one can deny that, within the last century, the standard of living in the United States has become quite comfortable. Some argue that welfare programs, for example, create a situation not unlike the conditions that spoiled Darwin’s Spanish settlers. If the trials of the American frontier once chiseled out a heartier race of man, the close proximity of the fast food restaurant has now, perhaps, returned him to the obscurity of his folds.
Of nineteenth-century America, Darwin writes, “obscure as is the problem of the advance of civilization, we can at least see that a nation which produced during a lengthened period the greatest number of highly intellectual, energetic, brave, patriotic, and benevolent men, would generally prevail over less favoured nations.” (Pg. 168) In the twentieth-century, the United States, without question, affirmed Darwin’s prediction of greatness. As to whether it will continue on this course throughout the twenty-first century remains to be seen. Regardless of the United States citizens’ future, they are a testament to the principles of Darwin’s theory of evolution, as is exemplified by their various physical adaptations to the American landscape, the unique forms that have arisen as a result of their ethnically diverse gene pool, and in the animalistic methods they employ against the smothering potential of sexual selection throughout the process most commonly referred to as dating.
Boyle, T. C., and Charles Darwin. Descent of Man : Selection in Relation to Sex. Ed. Adrian Desmond. New York: Penguin Group (USA) Incorporated, 2004.
In The Decent of Man, Charles Darwin reveals his theory of mankind’s evolution through natural selection. He delineates the processes of evolution from a strictly biological perspective. However, he digresses, “there is apparently much truth in the belief that the wonderful progress of the United States, as well as the character of the people, are the results of natural selection.” (pg. 168) This brief foray into the realm of cultural analysis deserves further interpretation. Transformations in the physical form of the United States citizen attest to Darwin’s theory of man’s evolution. These changes are the result, in part, of differences in the natural environment, the unique ethnic diversity of the people, and the rigorous process through which these people seek out their genetic supplement: dating.
Ironically, in the introduction to The Decent of Man, Darwin praises the French naturalist George Louis Leclerc, a man whose theory of American degeneration earned him a place of infamy in the hearts of the first U.S. citizens. Leclerc believed that organisms in the Americas were smaller and less fertile than those of Eurasia, and that plants and animals imported from the Old World would diminish accordingly within a few generations. In defense of the national pride, Thomas Jefferson had the remains of a moose exported to Paris, where it easily dwarfed their largest local game. Leclerc’s theory was put to death, but U.S. citizens would exact even further vindication.
Not only did America's wildlife grow to epic proportions, so did its people. Darwin tells of how German soldiers appeared ridiculous donning American made clothes that were much too long for them. “Thus, as is generally admitted European settlers in the United States undergo a slight but extraordinarily rapid change of appearance. Their bodies and limbs become elongated.” (pg. 227) Here, Darwin links the environment (specifically, as we now know, the increased abundance and diversity of food) to the physical development of its inhabitants.
Moreover, measurements of over 1,000,000 U.S. soldiers produced a linkage between a man’s size and the general area in which he was reared: “For instance, it is established, ‘that residence in the Western States, during years of growth, tends to produce increase of stature.’” (pg. 49) Thus, the United States not only demonstrates an environmentally related physical departure from Europe, but also intra-national physical diversity as a result of its various landscapes. Such changes in stature undoubtedly affect an individual’s standard of living and, thus, his ranking in the horrible hierarchy of natural selection.
Darwin’s theory is also exemplified in the racial history and diversity of the United States. The institution of slavery produced rapid physical adaptations: “There is also a considerable body of evidence shewing that in the Southern States the house-slaves of the third generation present a markedly different appearance from the field slaves.” (pg. 228) As politically incorrect as it may sound, the process through which United States slaves were physically transformed is parallel to the domestication of animals. Darwin studied the breeding of pigeons, noting that very few generations were required to change the birds’ physical appearances when bred with a purpose. Likewise, slaves in the South were divided into field-slaves or house-slaves based upon certain characteristics. These traits were undoubtedly reiterated when members of these distinct groups produced offspring together. Meanwhile, slaves endured extreme physical stress in the crowded, often diseased ships in which they were transported to the U.S., or also from the continual strain of field work. Thus, one might argue that modern African Americans are the product of a fiercely concentrated selection process because slave owners favored certain traits and also due to the harsh physical challenges which their ancestors endured.
Meanwhile, the interbreeding of races in the U.S. has produced individuals with some interesting characteristics. Darwin writes of the “inferior vitality” of mulattoes (pg. 224), but also mentions that they are “almost completely exempt from the yellow fever so destructive in tropical America.” (pg. 193) In both cases, the mixing of races in America illustrates the inheritance of traits that result in unique offspring, a central aspect of Darwin’s theory as to the emergence of man. Moreover, the United States gene pool is more diversified than that of any other country. No single ethnicity dominates the population. U.S. citizens are so diverse that racial groups considered distinct in other countries are often lumped together as Latinos, Whites, Blacks, Asians, or even just Americans. Presidential candidate Barak Obama, who is of mixed ethnicity, is an iconic personification of this genetic diversity. Thus, the United States provides evidence of human forms that have distinguished themselves from their ancestors, an inherent part of Darwin’s assertion that man descends from organisms that were quite distinct from his modern manifestation.
According to Darwin, all would-be progenitors are subject to the trials of sexual selection. The dating atmosphere in the modern U.S. demonstrates some of the ways in which many organisms pursue their drive towards procreation. As a young lad, I am acutely aware of women's discrimination, none of which seem to comply with my request that they “see through the life choices to the genetic potential.” Darwin relates, “the exertion of some choice on the part of the female seems a law almost as general as the eagerness of the male.” (pg. 257) A lack of pre-arranged marriages in the U.S. results in a highly competitive mate market. The American male is obliged to advance, and he does so in a fashion that is not unlike the attempts of his brethren among other species in natural environments: the so-called act of “peacocking” entails male adornment for the express purpose of distinguishing himself to the feminine eye. Literally, the term refers to the flamboyant feathers of the male peacock, and Darwin observes such brilliant elaboration across a wide variety of animals. Similarly, bird-song is used to attract a mate, and some birds even imitate each others’ songs towards this end. (pg. 94) Such behavior is mirrored in my own feeble musical creations, which so often give way to more surefire cover-songs. Darwin also describes the use of “a musky odour, which we may suppose serves to charm or excite the female.” (pg. 408) Likewise, Ax Body Spray commercials depict one lucky guy being engulfed by a mob of women who are apparently zombified, unable to resist the scent of the Ax product. Thus, the various endeavors of the American man against the horrific prospect of genetic oblivion as a consequence of sexual deselection are directly parallel to those of other species, supporting Darwin’s connection between man and beast in the theory of evolution.
On the same token, U.S. women employ a wide array of agents, ranging from make-up and hair removal to mind-warping social games, in their pursuit of the least repulsive mate. Darwin argues that, through this process of coupling, only the best persist. He explains, “if such [well nourished] females select the more attractive, and at the same time vigorous males, they will rear a larger number of offspring than the retarded females, which must pair with the less vigorous and less attractive males.” (pg. 255) Theoretically, a United States citizen could be too poor to support a family. However, in general, nutrition is not a significant issue in the U.S., enabling “retarded…and less attractive” progenitors to make their contribution to the gene pool (see “lower class Conservatives”).
Thus, the U.S. by no means represents the greatest culmination of man through Darwin’s principles of evolution. Perhaps it is fitting that Jefferson chose the moose to represent the grandeur of the United States, as the analogy can be extended to modern times: “during his progress he [the moose] holds his nose up, so as to lay the horns horizontally back; and in this attitude cannot see the ground distinctly.” (pg. 577) The great international influence wielded by the U.S. is roughly parallel to enormous antlers of the moose. Moreover, some argue that it has proven to be similarly cumbersome as, for example, the focus on the war in Iraq has drawn attention away from significant domestic issues. Finally, foreign criticism of the American citizen is well known, and generally entails something like, “he holds his nose up…and in this attitude cannot see the ground distinctly.” In other words, many feel that the United States’ great success has resulted in an excessively proud, spoiled and ignorant population. Moreover, Darwin writes, “It even appears from what we see, for instance, in parts of S. America, that a people which may be called civilised, such as the Spanish settlers, is liable to become indolent and to retrograde, when the conditions of life are very easy.” (pg. 169) No one can deny that, within the last century, the standard of living in the United States has become quite comfortable. Some argue that welfare programs, for example, create a situation not unlike the conditions that spoiled Darwin’s Spanish settlers. If the trials of the American frontier once chiseled out a heartier race of man, the close proximity of the fast food restaurant has now, perhaps, returned him to the obscurity of his folds.
Of nineteenth-century America, Darwin writes, “obscure as is the problem of the advance of civilization, we can at least see that a nation which produced during a lengthened period the greatest number of highly intellectual, energetic, brave, patriotic, and benevolent men, would generally prevail over less favoured nations.” (Pg. 168) In the twentieth-century, the United States, without question, affirmed Darwin’s prediction of greatness. As to whether it will continue on this course throughout the twenty-first century remains to be seen. Regardless of the United States citizens’ future, they are a testament to the principles of Darwin’s theory of evolution, as is exemplified by their various physical adaptations to the American landscape, the unique forms that have arisen as a result of their ethnically diverse gene pool, and in the animalistic methods they employ against the smothering potential of sexual selection throughout the process most commonly referred to as dating.
Boyle, T. C., and Charles Darwin. Descent of Man : Selection in Relation to Sex. Ed. Adrian Desmond. New York: Penguin Group (USA) Incorporated, 2004.
Huh? T.C. Boyle of Tortilla Curtain fame?
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Widespread Stenopia (as far as I can see)
I've posted a little news clipping here:
"Are you far-sighted or near-sighted? This is the question most often used to ask someone about their vision. Yet, we rarely recognize the assumptions that are inherent in the question, assumptions which define our perspective on sight: we quantify the accuracy of vision by measuring its deviation from average eye-sight in terms of the detail observed along a spectrum of distance. Variations in the shape of the eye affect the point at which light comes to focus in relation to the retina. If light focuses before of the retina, then the result is near-sightedness, behind the retina, far-sightedness.
The effects of these conditions are often represented as 20/x, whereas the subject can read at 20 yards, what the average person can see at x yards. The way in which we codify vision represents our understanding of quality of vision: the clarity of universally perceived details as compared to the average person.
However, scientists have recently been investigating another, and apparently common, vision impairment known as narrow-sightedness. In this case, a person afflicted by narrow-sightedness may not even be observing the same image at all. Ironically, the predominance of narrow-sightedness around the world has thwarted the identification of disparate perception, and, therefore, any knowledge of the condition. In the past, vision has been judged by its ability to preform certain tasks. However, as we are beginning to see, there is more to vision than detail at a distance.
The exact cause of narrow-sightedness has been hotly debated. Regardless, several treatments have already been proposed. Many doctors in the United States have advocated surgical relocation of the eyes to the outside of the skull. Theoretically, widening the three dimensional field of vision would alleviate issues of narrow-sightedness and potentially increase depth perception.
However, this method has been criticized by those who believe that the condition occurs within the eye itself. If that is the case, they say, each eye must be altered in a way that would allow for an increased intake of light. Thus, many of those who ascribe to this vein of thought advocate dilation of the pupils. However, opponents of this theory argue that the dilation of pupils simply replaces the spectrum of vision with an equally limited albeit different spectrum, as perceivable levels of light are compromised.
Recently, the beginnings of a fine argument were made by those who advocated the use of recreational drugs to alleviate narrow sightedness. Unfortunately, they forgot where their train of thought was going.
Experts on narrow-sightedness have pointed out that many of these suggestions reveal symptoms of narrow-sightedness in the people who have developed them. However, the experts themselves have been accused of getting "too close to the case," and that they are projecting narrow-sightedness onto everything that they encounter. Thus, at the moment, a cure for narrow-sightedness is no where in sight."
Check out my sea serpent post from October 2008! I just finished it, or at least gave up and posted it (below).
"Are you far-sighted or near-sighted? This is the question most often used to ask someone about their vision. Yet, we rarely recognize the assumptions that are inherent in the question, assumptions which define our perspective on sight: we quantify the accuracy of vision by measuring its deviation from average eye-sight in terms of the detail observed along a spectrum of distance. Variations in the shape of the eye affect the point at which light comes to focus in relation to the retina. If light focuses before of the retina, then the result is near-sightedness, behind the retina, far-sightedness.
The effects of these conditions are often represented as 20/x, whereas the subject can read at 20 yards, what the average person can see at x yards. The way in which we codify vision represents our understanding of quality of vision: the clarity of universally perceived details as compared to the average person.
However, scientists have recently been investigating another, and apparently common, vision impairment known as narrow-sightedness. In this case, a person afflicted by narrow-sightedness may not even be observing the same image at all. Ironically, the predominance of narrow-sightedness around the world has thwarted the identification of disparate perception, and, therefore, any knowledge of the condition. In the past, vision has been judged by its ability to preform certain tasks. However, as we are beginning to see, there is more to vision than detail at a distance.
The exact cause of narrow-sightedness has been hotly debated. Regardless, several treatments have already been proposed. Many doctors in the United States have advocated surgical relocation of the eyes to the outside of the skull. Theoretically, widening the three dimensional field of vision would alleviate issues of narrow-sightedness and potentially increase depth perception.
However, this method has been criticized by those who believe that the condition occurs within the eye itself. If that is the case, they say, each eye must be altered in a way that would allow for an increased intake of light. Thus, many of those who ascribe to this vein of thought advocate dilation of the pupils. However, opponents of this theory argue that the dilation of pupils simply replaces the spectrum of vision with an equally limited albeit different spectrum, as perceivable levels of light are compromised.
Recently, the beginnings of a fine argument were made by those who advocated the use of recreational drugs to alleviate narrow sightedness. Unfortunately, they forgot where their train of thought was going.
Experts on narrow-sightedness have pointed out that many of these suggestions reveal symptoms of narrow-sightedness in the people who have developed them. However, the experts themselves have been accused of getting "too close to the case," and that they are projecting narrow-sightedness onto everything that they encounter. Thus, at the moment, a cure for narrow-sightedness is no where in sight."
Check out my sea serpent post from October 2008! I just finished it, or at least gave up and posted it (below).
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
unable to retrieve title
To both of my loyal followers:
My internet has been shut off. The term "outstanding balance" is kind of a misnomer, because now I am forced to type this from a hotel's "complimentary business center," as if I were living in some third world country.
To further complicate matters, my laptop has been shipped away for some repairs. It was attacked by a dog and then I accidentally closed it on a 1/8" to 1/4" adapter. Consequently, I can't even park in some stranger's driveway and mooch their signal.
Finally, one of my co-wokers went to the Caribbean so I've had to work everyday while trying to organize presentations and midterms for school.
Don't worry, though. I've been chipping away at my next post (below), in which I will examine many aspects of a certain, mysterious international icon.
In short, we are experiencing technical difficulties. Please stay tuned.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Jurass is Mine, Nessie!
The Loch Ness Monster has been a pop culture icon for decades. However, the release of the film Water Horse in 2007 has bolstered the boisterous basilisk into a limier light, the liminess of which should be tinging my light instead! Fortunately, I live in Denver, Colorado, which is technically a desert and has no significant bodies of water to speak of. It is the perfect place from which to launch my slanderous campaign against this ego-maniacal, attention-craving alligator. In this post, I will reveal Nessie's dark private life. I hope to show that this so-called "monster" is, in fact, a danger to people and tourism in the U.K.. Meanwhile, I will demonstrate that the media, in its hysterical love affair with the beast, has largely ignored the plethora of plesiosaurs around the planet.
The Loch Ness Monster made its major motion picture debut in the film Water Horse, in which it played a loveable little sprite of a dinosaur fit for Barney and Friends or The Land Before Time XLIII. Sadly, like so many other stars, there is a shadier side to Nessie behind the silver screen. Scottish lore (their equivalent to US Weekly) reveals the scandelous ways of the water horse ("each uisage"). The monster has been known to transform into a fine horse or pony and lure passers-by to climb on for a ride. However, at the first sight or smell of water, the creature suddenly becomes adhesive, and takes its rider for a deep dive and a watery death. In other cases, the water horse transforms into a handsome man, seducing women before ushering them into the afterlife. In this form, the creature can only be recognized by the sea-weed in its hair.
Nessie is the prodginy of a family embroiled in scandal accross the U.K.. A similar beast, sometimes called a "kelpie," is found in the rivers and lochs of Scotland and Ireland. It transforms convincingly into a lost pony, its secret nature only betrayed by a constantly dripping mane. Fittingly, this shifty creature maintains a wide variety of aliases. On the Isle of Man, it is referred to as a Cabbyl-Ushtey or Glashtin. Meanwhile, in the Orkney Islands, just north of the Scottish mainland, it is referred to as a Nuggle, while on the islands still north of there, the Shetlands, it is knowns as a Shoopiltee or a Njogal. The people of the Shetlands tell the tale of a man, "Black Eric," and his pet-beast named Tangie. The duo marauded across the countryside pillaging the helpless vilagers. Black Eric was eventually driven off a cliff by upset locals, but Tangie continued to ravage the land for some time, in search of his mortal bride.
Europeans have expressed an awareness of the aquatic-horselike-serpentine-thingy for thousands of years. The Greek god Poseidon was lord of both the sea and of horses. Eventually, artists and authors depicted his chariot being drawn by Hippocamps, the front half of which is horselike, the other half being fish or dragon. Hippocamps show up all over Greek pottery and sometimes currency. The Romans adopted the Hippocamp with fervor, illustrating it in complex mosaics and statues.
"This coin was minted in Taretum early the 5th Century BC. Taras (Taretum) was the most important Greek city in southern Italy during the 5th and 4th Centuries BC. Taras finally surrendered to the Romans in 272 BC.
Obv: Hippocamp Rev: Taras on Dolphin"
http://www.museumsurplus.com
"Byblos, Phoenicia (time of King Azemilcus/Uzzimilk; 347- 340 BC.). Obv: Melquart holding drawn bow & riding hippocamp, facing right; dolphin below stylized waves; raised circular decorative border. Rev: Owl standing right, facing head; crook and flail over shoulder, date year mark 10 (338/7 BC) to right."http://www.ancients.info/gallery/showgallery.php/cat/3153
Anyway, water-dragon-stuff has persisted throughout European history. Beaucaire, in Southern France, was home to one of the most infamous such creatures. Known as "Le Drac" (and pronounced with an exaggerated French accent), this supersized salamander inhabited the nearby Rhone River (left: a statue of Le Drac in Beaucaire). It was capable of transforming into a human, and used an underground network to get from the river to the town's well. One day, a luscious lavender babe (vendor) was gathering her herbs by the river and Le Drac!! kidnapped her to raise his son. According to wikipedia... she had to rub human fat or something on his kid. One time, she forgot to wash it off her hands before she rubbed her eye, and thus gained the ability to recognize Le Drac!!!. Years later, after her release, she spotted Le Drac! in town. In response, he ripped her eye out and then killed a ton of people. Whole armies failed to bring down the beast. Some say it has died of old age. Others believe it roams the Rhone still.
(pictured: Gargouille at Laon Cathedral; for scale, note the little dude holding the rope around its neck).
(lemme just say [sic] ahead of time)
The Tarasque cannot be destroyed by mere human strength or weapons. The people in Nerluc have suffered many years until Martha, the girl with a quiet disposition and a Christian, comes to spread the words of God to the pagan people. She listens to the stories of the Tarasque and sets out, bear-footed, to search the dragon. When she finds the dragon, she uses two sticks as a cross and that stops the dragon as if it is pierced by a sword. She sprinkles holy water on the dragon and that quenches all the fire in him. She uses his sharp tooth to cut off her braids and using the braids as a bridle, leads him back in town, tame as a lamb. The townspeople kills the Tarasque with a shower of stones and Martha weeps for the creature but forgives the people's action because she understands their long-time suffering.
North America's waters also appear to be chock full o' serpents. The natives of Okanagan Lake (British Columbia) refered to their resident reptile as Naitaka, although today, this popular serpent is known mostly as Ogopogo. The natives spoke ominously of "the great beast of the lake" or "the snake in the lake." They would carry an animal with them on their canoes to be used as a sacrifice in case they happened upon a... hungry hippo (I'm running out of alliterative terms for these things). Native pictographs along the lake's tributaries depict a serpent, perhaps functioning as warning signs. Viking pictographs of snakes found near... some lake I can't remember the name of... in the northeastern U.S., might have served the same purpose (maybe it was Lake Memphremagog?). Anyway, there have been all kinds of non-native Ogopogo sightings since 1860, the most noteable of which was an appearance that the beast made in 1926, when it was spotted by no less than 30 separate cars of people.
The Nootka, natives of British Columbia, had their own fearsome serpent, Haeitlik, a "lightning snake" that the thunderbirds would send out to kill orcas for food. To the north, Inuits believed in a snake-like creature which they called Tizheruk. The animal was said to have a seven foot head and a long tail ending in a flipper. It dwelled near Key Island, Alaska where it would occasional emerge to snatch Eskimos off the pier (no joke), or perhaps to turn tricks for Klondike Bars... Meanwhile, Souix legend told of a dangerous reptilian water monster which they called Unktehila. In their mythology, all but the smallest variety of these creatures were destroyed by the Thunderbirds. In our history, dinosaurs were supplanted with the evolution of birds, an intriguing parallel.
Well, I wanted to write a lot more, about Champ and those other guys, but I'm getting tired of this, and would like to blog about something else. In fact, I am just going to end this post prematurly and inconclusivly. May I placate you with some links?
The Ogopogo
The Loch Ness Monster made its major motion picture debut in the film Water Horse, in which it played a loveable little sprite of a dinosaur fit for Barney and Friends or The Land Before Time XLIII. Sadly, like so many other stars, there is a shadier side to Nessie behind the silver screen. Scottish lore (their equivalent to US Weekly) reveals the scandelous ways of the water horse ("each uisage"). The monster has been known to transform into a fine horse or pony and lure passers-by to climb on for a ride. However, at the first sight or smell of water, the creature suddenly becomes adhesive, and takes its rider for a deep dive and a watery death. In other cases, the water horse transforms into a handsome man, seducing women before ushering them into the afterlife. In this form, the creature can only be recognized by the sea-weed in its hair. 
Nessie is the prodginy of a family embroiled in scandal accross the U.K.. A similar beast, sometimes called a "kelpie," is found in the rivers and lochs of Scotland and Ireland. It transforms convincingly into a lost pony, its secret nature only betrayed by a constantly dripping mane. Fittingly, this shifty creature maintains a wide variety of aliases. On the Isle of Man, it is referred to as a Cabbyl-Ushtey or Glashtin. Meanwhile, in the Orkney Islands, just north of the Scottish mainland, it is referred to as a Nuggle, while on the islands still north of there, the Shetlands, it is knowns as a Shoopiltee or a Njogal. The people of the Shetlands tell the tale of a man, "Black Eric," and his pet-beast named Tangie. The duo marauded across the countryside pillaging the helpless vilagers. Black Eric was eventually driven off a cliff by upset locals, but Tangie continued to ravage the land for some time, in search of his mortal bride.If the reports of such unruly behavior are not incriminating enough, there also appears to be a history of conspiracy and cover-ups in the same area. In 1808, a storm in the Orkney Islands washed ashore a mysterious carcass. It was 55 ft. long, with three pairs of paws or wings, and a mane that ran all the way down its back. The locals drew several diagrams of the beast, and declared it an unknown species of sea serpent. Forty-one years later, a team of naturalists examined the skeleton and dismissed it as an exceptionally large, decaying basking shark.
Villagers' drawings
A Basking Shark
This carcass, caught off the coast of New Zealand in 1977, was eventually identified as a basking shark as well.
A Basking Shark
This carcass, caught off the coast of New Zealand in 1977, was eventually identified as a basking shark as well.More mysterious maritime meat-monsters:
I've got more carcasses, but posting the pictures was causing weird format issues, so whatever.
Europeans have expressed an awareness of the aquatic-horselike-serpentine-thingy for thousands of years. The Greek god Poseidon was lord of both the sea and of horses. Eventually, artists and authors depicted his chariot being drawn by Hippocamps, the front half of which is horselike, the other half being fish or dragon. Hippocamps show up all over Greek pottery and sometimes currency. The Romans adopted the Hippocamp with fervor, illustrating it in complex mosaics and statues. 
"This coin was minted in Taretum early the 5th Century BC. Taras (Taretum) was the most important Greek city in southern Italy during the 5th and 4th Centuries BC. Taras finally surrendered to the Romans in 272 BC.Obv: Hippocamp Rev: Taras on Dolphin"
http://www.museumsurplus.com
"Byblos, Phoenicia (time of King Azemilcus/Uzzimilk; 347- 340 BC.). Obv: Melquart holding drawn bow & riding hippocamp, facing right; dolphin below stylized waves; raised circular decorative border. Rev: Owl standing right, facing head; crook and flail over shoulder, date year mark 10 (338/7 BC) to right."Wow, I ended up getting pretty into this coins-with-Hippocamps-on-them-thing. If anyone finds one in their change, please send it my way for, uh, verification. I'll post one more:
."
Phoenicia, Byblos, Azbaal 350-333 BC. War galley left with lion's head prow ornament, zig-zag row of waves below, three hoplites with round shields within, hippocamp left above murex. No between hippocamp and gally / lion attacking bull to the left."
http://www.vcoins.com/ancient/persisgallery/store/viewItem.asp?idProduct=32&large=0
Phoenicia, Byblos, Azbaal 350-333 BC. War galley left with lion's head prow ornament, zig-zag row of waves below, three hoplites with round shields within, hippocamp left above murex. No between hippocamp and gally / lion attacking bull to the left." 
Anyway, water-dragon-stuff has persisted throughout European history. Beaucaire, in Southern France, was home to one of the most infamous such creatures. Known as "Le Drac" (and pronounced with an exaggerated French accent), this supersized salamander inhabited the nearby Rhone River (left: a statue of Le Drac in Beaucaire). It was capable of transforming into a human, and used an underground network to get from the river to the town's well. One day, a luscious lavender babe (vendor) was gathering her herbs by the river and Le Drac!! kidnapped her to raise his son. According to wikipedia... she had to rub human fat or something on his kid. One time, she forgot to wash it off her hands before she rubbed her eye, and thus gained the ability to recognize Le Drac!!!. Years later, after her release, she spotted Le Drac! in town. In response, he ripped her eye out and then killed a ton of people. Whole armies failed to bring down the beast. Some say it has died of old age. Others believe it roams the Rhone still. There are several other similar cases. Out of laziness, I'm just going to quote some websites:
The Gargouille
From the waters of the Seine, a monster with a great scaled head appears one day and starts mercilessly satureating the land until the entire region is flooded. The Archbishop of Rouen, St. Romain, with one volunteer, a prisoner on the death roll, sets out to conquer the monster. When St. Romain confronts the monster, he places two fingers one against another, forming a cross. This gesture immediately tames the Gargouille. It is led submissively back in town and burned to death.
Comments
The story of the Gargouille is found in the "Serpent Dragons" section of this collection of dragon stories. The Gargouille is described as a colossal monster with a long neck, a slender snout and eyes greaming like moonstones. It is also claimed that the word "gargoyle" is derived from the name of this monster, borrowing both its shape and the water spouting trait. The taming process is very similar between this and the story of The Tarasque.
http://www.fairrosa.info/dragon/gargouille.html
From the waters of the Seine, a monster with a great scaled head appears one day and starts mercilessly satureating the land until the entire region is flooded. The Archbishop of Rouen, St. Romain, with one volunteer, a prisoner on the death roll, sets out to conquer the monster. When St. Romain confronts the monster, he places two fingers one against another, forming a cross. This gesture immediately tames the Gargouille. It is led submissively back in town and burned to death. Comments
The story of the Gargouille is found in the "Serpent Dragons" section of this collection of dragon stories. The Gargouille is described as a colossal monster with a long neck, a slender snout and eyes greaming like moonstones. It is also claimed that the word "gargoyle" is derived from the name of this monster, borrowing both its shape and the water spouting trait. The taming process is very similar between this and the story of The Tarasque.
(pictured: Gargouille at Laon Cathedral; for scale, note the little dude holding the rope around its neck).
The Tarasque,
(lemme just say [sic] ahead of time)The Tarasque cannot be destroyed by mere human strength or weapons. The people in Nerluc have suffered many years until Martha, the girl with a quiet disposition and a Christian, comes to spread the words of God to the pagan people. She listens to the stories of the Tarasque and sets out, bear-footed, to search the dragon. When she finds the dragon, she uses two sticks as a cross and that stops the dragon as if it is pierced by a sword. She sprinkles holy water on the dragon and that quenches all the fire in him. She uses his sharp tooth to cut off her braids and using the braids as a bridle, leads him back in town, tame as a lamb. The townspeople kills the Tarasque with a shower of stones and Martha weeps for the creature but forgives the people's action because she understands their long-time suffering.
Comments
This male dragon is enormous. His body is most like an ox but with six short bear-like legs with enormous claws. On his body he has two shields like those of a turtle but covered with curved spikes, and the rest of his body is covered with closely overlapping scales that formed his armor. His tail is long and curved like a scorpion. His head is that of a lion, yet with a horse's ears, but his face, with eyebrows and mustache, is that of a sad and bitter old man. The Tarasque is described as an evil fire-breathing beast.
http://www.fairrosa.info/dragon/tarasque.html (pictured: a statue of the Tarasque near King Rene's Castle in Tarascon. The town changed its name from Nerluc to Tarascon after the Tarasque incident).This male dragon is enormous. His body is most like an ox but with six short bear-like legs with enormous claws. On his body he has two shields like those of a turtle but covered with curved spikes, and the rest of his body is covered with closely overlapping scales that formed his armor. His tail is long and curved like a scorpion. His head is that of a lion, yet with a horse's ears, but his face, with eyebrows and mustache, is that of a sad and bitter old man. The Tarasque is described as an evil fire-breathing beast.
.
North America's waters also appear to be chock full o' serpents. The natives of Okanagan Lake (British Columbia) refered to their resident reptile as Naitaka, although today, this popular serpent is known mostly as Ogopogo. The natives spoke ominously of "the great beast of the lake" or "the snake in the lake." They would carry an animal with them on their canoes to be used as a sacrifice in case they happened upon a... hungry hippo (I'm running out of alliterative terms for these things). Native pictographs along the lake's tributaries depict a serpent, perhaps functioning as warning signs. Viking pictographs of snakes found near... some lake I can't remember the name of... in the northeastern U.S., might have served the same purpose (maybe it was Lake Memphremagog?). Anyway, there have been all kinds of non-native Ogopogo sightings since 1860, the most noteable of which was an appearance that the beast made in 1926, when it was spotted by no less than 30 separate cars of people.
The Nootka, natives of British Columbia, had their own fearsome serpent, Haeitlik, a "lightning snake" that the thunderbirds would send out to kill orcas for food. To the north, Inuits believed in a snake-like creature which they called Tizheruk. The animal was said to have a seven foot head and a long tail ending in a flipper. It dwelled near Key Island, Alaska where it would occasional emerge to snatch Eskimos off the pier (no joke), or perhaps to turn tricks for Klondike Bars... Meanwhile, Souix legend told of a dangerous reptilian water monster which they called Unktehila. In their mythology, all but the smallest variety of these creatures were destroyed by the Thunderbirds. In our history, dinosaurs were supplanted with the evolution of birds, an intriguing parallel.Well, I wanted to write a lot more, about Champ and those other guys, but I'm getting tired of this, and would like to blog about something else. In fact, I am just going to end this post prematurly and inconclusivly. May I placate you with some links?
This link provides written accounts of various "lake dragons" around the world. It is 1)an internet source for 2)cryptozoology, maintained by 3)a Young Earth Creationist. In terms of scientific credibility, it is 1)a desert, 2)sewn with salt, and then 3) nuked. In defense of YECs though, I do sort of find Sarah Palin attractive... in the way that the male mantis pursues his inexorable doom, or in a I-am-prepared-file-down-the-fangs-of-our-offspring sort of way. Hiss! Call me, Sarah. http://www.lakedragons.livingdinos.com/
When I first started looking at sea serpents, I came up with what I deemed to be a witty phrase, "different fakes for different lakes." However, there are astonishing similarities between the monsters, particularly amongst the reports that people give of their sightings. A few common features include: long neck with a mane, horse-like head held about one foot above the water, vertical undulations (unlike... everything, which undulates horizontally), glowing eyes, bla bla bla. In the end, I have to say, who knows... unless you've run into one, in which case, I suppose you know. Anyway, I've posted some links to videos on youtube that are kinda fun.
Champ on ABC News
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0wvZf8z_M4Connecticut Lake Monster?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcLrN0oagzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcLrN0oagzA
unknown creature in Kanas Lake
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgaihUBaTIM&feature=relatedThe Ogopogo
Swedish Lake Monster
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaNb_h2t018Animal X - Turkish Lake Monster
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OzjiAhqF1w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OzjiAhqF1w
Part 1 Lake Monster Canada - Animal X Classic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ed2cxz1R_8Part 2 Lake Monster Canada - Animal X Classic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCrk6fo3FIE&feature=channelUNSOLVED MYSTERIES!!
Loch Ness & OgoPogo Monster !! - (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXMIVpHGm-c&feature=relatedLoch Ness & OgoPogo Monster !! - (Part 2 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyb-hpDh-7M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyb-hpDh-7M&feature=related
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The Camden-(Walker) Hypothesis
The other night, I was talking to my friend and colleague (in the league of perennial extracurricular distraction), Liz Walker, and I came up with a crackpot theory. I was on the phone with Liz when I said it, so she's making me mention her name. That's right, the person that happened to be in the closest communicative proximity was some chick called Liz, and I think we all need to take a few moments to acknowledge the fact that she understood what I was talking about. Sorry, I'm just bathing in the childish satisfaction of pissing her off. Liz helped.
Anyway, so we're talking, and somehow we got on the Out of Africa II theory. The Out of Africa I theory postulates that H. sapiens evolved in Africa, and did not emerge onto other continents until they were fully anatomically modern. The theory implies that H. sapiens didn't get it on with other bipeds in Europe or Asia (Neanderthals or H. erectus, respectively), because they were already folks just like you and me. If us kids were the offspring of, say, Neanderthals, we wouldn't be able to make the claim that we were fully modern before we emerged from Africa.
There are a lot of other ideas about human dispersal and interaction with other biped species. Milford Wolpoff's got a fun one called Regional Continuity in which Neanderthals became Europeans, H. erectus became Asians, and A. africanus became, you guessed it, Africans. He argues that gene flow between these regions kept their inhabitants from diverging into distinct species. Apparently, one inter-regional hoedown every 70 years would do the trick, but how did they get to the party? Glacial periods and the sheer mileage would have put a strain on any long distance relationship. Moreover, Neanderthals seem to have had a radiating practice of foraging, meaning that they rarely traveled more than a day or two away from the cozy cave. Thus, it is highly improbable that these guys made the trip to meet their mates in Mongolia. Also, there is no evidence for the exchange of material culture between any of these groups for a long, loooooong time, so, in general, it seems that they lived in isolation.
On the other hand, I really wonder how much gene flow would have been necessary to keep these bipeds from growing apart. Basically, two species are distinguished by differences in their reproductive organs that are significant enough to prevent them from producing fertile offspring. Imo, human reproductive organs are good the way they are, so couldn't it be that Neanderthals and A. africanus met for the first time after hundreds of thousands of years, and the Neanderthal was like, "size doesn't matter," and the A. africanus laughed at him, just like today? Anyway, I don't know what to think about Regional Continuity, but let's move on.
The Out of Africa II theory is just the Out of Africa I, except it says, "P.S. The revolution in the material culture of H. sapiens (specifically the increased complexity and abundace of art and tools) that occurred ~60,000 years ago suggests a proportionate revolution of the mind (which, perhaps, enabled them to leave Africa). This revelation is talked about as "a light switch going on" in great grandpa's attic. Somehow, a crap ton of neurological pathways were all ready to go, and suddenly lit up, like the an irrigation network being filled for the first time. (Implications of eventual connection with agriculture, anyone)? A friend of mine told me about this dude's theory [Terrence McKenna] that the ingestion of hallucinogenics, like these trippy vines in Africa, awakened the human consciousness as we know it. Sort of a forbidden fruit thing going on there, so let's roll with it.
The Forbidden Fruit!
Now, back to the brain. Let's wrap this up. Neanderthal brains can grow to ~1750cc, actually larger than human brains which average maybe like 1500cc (this is a blog not a dissertation, you can look it up). For us, a larger portion of that space is filled with parietal and frontal lobes, areas of the brain that we associate with higher thought, including the conceptualization of parts. Neanderthals had larger temporal and sensory-motor areas, so lots of muscle control, but stuff would probably just have been blobs that they associated with some vocal ejaculations (The Neanderthal's vocal tract was identical to H. Sapiens). Cool, no racism right? At the same time, they would have been unable to make connections between the familiar and unfamiliar that would have assuaged the fear of the unknown, which, for some reason, I am assuming they had. Long story short, they're not racist or classist or anything, but, god, they can't be reasoned with. Anyway, enough conjecture. No one really knows whether Neanderthals were assimilated or replaced. If they were assimilated, did they learn human thought. If it can be spread, is it a contagious disease or an impartable gift? Is it a disease or a gift to be able to ask this question? How clear is the line between human and not, aside from the fact that we are apparently the only ones that are drawing these lines?
Let me end it with this: I just remembered an experience (I thought I would never forget) that happened at the zoo when I was a teenager. I had wandered off alone and was thinking about crap as I half-consciously observed a mandrill. Out of the blue, he shot up to the glass and his hand stopped hard with a bang. I almost shit myself, but I still remember the hand, his long thin fingers pressed on the glass. Within half a second my eyes moved to his, which stared at me with an expression so intense that it has never failed to raise my hairs, even as a memory. For a moment we stood there. Almost subconsciously I thought it felt odd that he was standing. My conscious mind was consumed with his gaze. I've wondered if I could have mistaken the expression, befuddled by the subtle differences of his face, but no, I really think not. The absolute fury in his eyes that seemed to scream, "I am here, and you will know that!" I nervously laughed and said aloud, "I'm sorry," and raised my arms in an imploring gesture as I backed away, then turned and ran. I felt a profanity in observing him through the glass. Nobody else had been there to see what had happened, and when I found my group, I don't believe I said a word.
Anyway, so we're talking, and somehow we got on the Out of Africa II theory. The Out of Africa I theory postulates that H. sapiens evolved in Africa, and did not emerge onto other continents until they were fully anatomically modern. The theory implies that H. sapiens didn't get it on with other bipeds in Europe or Asia (Neanderthals or H. erectus, respectively), because they were already folks just like you and me. If us kids were the offspring of, say, Neanderthals, we wouldn't be able to make the claim that we were fully modern before we emerged from Africa.
There are a lot of other ideas about human dispersal and interaction with other biped species. Milford Wolpoff's got a fun one called Regional Continuity in which Neanderthals became Europeans, H. erectus became Asians, and A. africanus became, you guessed it, Africans. He argues that gene flow between these regions kept their inhabitants from diverging into distinct species. Apparently, one inter-regional hoedown every 70 years would do the trick, but how did they get to the party? Glacial periods and the sheer mileage would have put a strain on any long distance relationship. Moreover, Neanderthals seem to have had a radiating practice of foraging, meaning that they rarely traveled more than a day or two away from the cozy cave. Thus, it is highly improbable that these guys made the trip to meet their mates in Mongolia. Also, there is no evidence for the exchange of material culture between any of these groups for a long, loooooong time, so, in general, it seems that they lived in isolation.
On the other hand, I really wonder how much gene flow would have been necessary to keep these bipeds from growing apart. Basically, two species are distinguished by differences in their reproductive organs that are significant enough to prevent them from producing fertile offspring. Imo, human reproductive organs are good the way they are, so couldn't it be that Neanderthals and A. africanus met for the first time after hundreds of thousands of years, and the Neanderthal was like, "size doesn't matter," and the A. africanus laughed at him, just like today? Anyway, I don't know what to think about Regional Continuity, but let's move on.
The Out of Africa II theory is just the Out of Africa I, except it says, "P.S. The revolution in the material culture of H. sapiens (specifically the increased complexity and abundace of art and tools) that occurred ~60,000 years ago suggests a proportionate revolution of the mind (which, perhaps, enabled them to leave Africa). This revelation is talked about as "a light switch going on" in great grandpa's attic. Somehow, a crap ton of neurological pathways were all ready to go, and suddenly lit up, like the an irrigation network being filled for the first time. (Implications of eventual connection with agriculture, anyone)? A friend of mine told me about this dude's theory [Terrence McKenna] that the ingestion of hallucinogenics, like these trippy vines in Africa, awakened the human consciousness as we know it. Sort of a forbidden fruit thing going on there, so let's roll with it.
The Forbidden Fruit!
"Of man's first disobedience, and the fruit Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste Brought death into the world, and all our woe, With loss of Eden, till one greater Man Restore us, and regain the blissful seat," says Milton.
Christians, I'm not writing this one for you. Non-Muslim Ismailis (if you still exist after your fad dissolved in the fear that came with the Bush administration), no, I'm not waiting for the downfall of civilization and hoping that, however few survive, they remember not to farm. All I wanna say here is this...which, now that I think about it, is not a lot... sorry you read all this... main point: Perhaps the revelation that occurred 60,000 years ago, the one that we've examined through it's manifestations in material culture, was none other than the knowledge of Good and Evil!!!, and, I should mention, all things and their opposites. A dichotomous understanding of things, the necessary prerequisite to the conceptualization of parts, patterns, everything.
I feel like yelling, "That's why Roger Pedacter's dead! He found Captain Winky!" But I won't.
Here's some fun stuff. The necrophiliacs (paleoanthropologists) have gone so far as to say that only humans could (and can) perceive and codify things in parts. Winner of the beauty pageant "thanks for participating" award, and Cold-adapted Biped of the Eon, the noble Neanderthal came in second for brains, and yet, has no understanding of parts. (really quickly, I wanna clarify that the hideous, ape-like Neanderthal image is just a fabrication of a man named Boule, who didn't like people thinking that Neanderthals could be "human," and whose own traits are most likely reflected in his work. For the record, Neanderthal ladies, I would cross tundras for you).Now, back to the brain. Let's wrap this up. Neanderthal brains can grow to ~1750cc, actually larger than human brains which average maybe like 1500cc (this is a blog not a dissertation, you can look it up). For us, a larger portion of that space is filled with parietal and frontal lobes, areas of the brain that we associate with higher thought, including the conceptualization of parts. Neanderthals had larger temporal and sensory-motor areas, so lots of muscle control, but stuff would probably just have been blobs that they associated with some vocal ejaculations (The Neanderthal's vocal tract was identical to H. Sapiens). Cool, no racism right? At the same time, they would have been unable to make connections between the familiar and unfamiliar that would have assuaged the fear of the unknown, which, for some reason, I am assuming they had. Long story short, they're not racist or classist or anything, but, god, they can't be reasoned with. Anyway, enough conjecture. No one really knows whether Neanderthals were assimilated or replaced. If they were assimilated, did they learn human thought. If it can be spread, is it a contagious disease or an impartable gift? Is it a disease or a gift to be able to ask this question? How clear is the line between human and not, aside from the fact that we are apparently the only ones that are drawing these lines?
Let me end it with this: I just remembered an experience (I thought I would never forget) that happened at the zoo when I was a teenager. I had wandered off alone and was thinking about crap as I half-consciously observed a mandrill. Out of the blue, he shot up to the glass and his hand stopped hard with a bang. I almost shit myself, but I still remember the hand, his long thin fingers pressed on the glass. Within half a second my eyes moved to his, which stared at me with an expression so intense that it has never failed to raise my hairs, even as a memory. For a moment we stood there. Almost subconsciously I thought it felt odd that he was standing. My conscious mind was consumed with his gaze. I've wondered if I could have mistaken the expression, befuddled by the subtle differences of his face, but no, I really think not. The absolute fury in his eyes that seemed to scream, "I am here, and you will know that!" I nervously laughed and said aloud, "I'm sorry," and raised my arms in an imploring gesture as I backed away, then turned and ran. I felt a profanity in observing him through the glass. Nobody else had been there to see what had happened, and when I found my group, I don't believe I said a word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
