THIS IS MATERIAL FROM THE ICE CAVE. IT HAS NOT YET BEEN FORMATTED.
See also the discussion of the Nervous System.
From: Mark McFadden
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 04:00:40 EST
« I'm certain there is some genetic anomaly behind the mummy and accounting for the adult proportions. It just wasn't anencephaly »
If you are *certain* it *wasn't*, you must, inevitably, be *sure* of what *was*. To be consistent. :P
Just messing with you. If you knew it was a test, you would have picked your wording more carefully.
Not that I do, of course.
I was just putting my notes together for the Semantics part of Fun With Your Nervous System. Following up on the theme that our nervous system doesn't seem to like ambiguity…or mysteries.
As an experiment, I once spent a month consciously avoiding the use of "is," or any variations. A vow of silence would have been much, much easier. Yes, yes, it sounds flaky, but my motives were far from crunchy granola. I had just reread Stranger In A Strange Land, and was again struck by the idea of a bonded professional Fair Witness. Someone who can maintain an absolute objectivity and accurately report only what they perceive, without embellishment or speculation. Sort of the Platonic Ideal scientist.
First, I became sensitive to how much of our language and thinking proclaims certainty we don't have about alleged facts we've accepted from secondhand sources we haven't checked on subjects we are unfamiliar with. I would constantly have to hesitate and pare away any statements about conditions I had no knowledge of, and carefully define precisely what I thought I saw. Whew!
Now I know what it's like to be a Vulcan.
I mean, now I can imagine how thinking in the manner we've described for Vulcans would feel. To me.
I was sooooo glad when the month was over.
However, I had the impression that I was noticing more things in everyday life during the experiment. First, in order to accurately report what I saw, I had to really look. But the second sensation was more subtle; I was always slightly "more there." I seemed to have more peripheral vision and focus was always sharp.
Now that I think about it, it reminded me of a flight deck during ops. There is so much noise that you lose any orientation you would normally get from hearing. You can't depend on hearing to warn you of anything. Like an F-14 Tomcat taxiing 6 feet behind you. So your vision takes up the slack.
My theory is, that the new Mission Statement from Headquarters galvanized the satellites and subsidiaries, and all normal routines were put on hold until they received further instruction. The nervous filters stopped filtering (or did less) while they waited to find out what I thought was important.
The lesson I learned is this: the first step in customizing your nervous system is to change your routine. And pay attention.
Special bonus ObDG: does anyone really look at graffiti anymore? Messages that I don't consciously read are in my face all the way to work and back. On the overpasses, on the walls, on the freeway signs I look at to spot my offramp.
And you can't really read the words because they are in those highly stylized gang fonts. Or at least, that's what I've been told they are. Can't say for sure, didn't see them being painted.
That's funny. Graffiti everywhere, up on seemingly inaccessible surfaces that would appear to require a team of dedicated laborers to paint the 5/10 foot "letters," and I have never ever seen one in progress.
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 13:53:48 +0200
From: Davide Mana
Mark "To the best of my recollection at this point in time" McFadden wrote
Yes I do.
Those that are actually readable, that is - a lot of the new stuff is simply too cramped and distorted to scan.
I do it as "research" - you never know when such knowledge might come in handy.
Lacking a good book to read, the best activities for a person travelling by public transport are graffiti-reading and eavesdropping on your fellow passengers, which is not proper and all that but gives great resources for adding real life details to fiction or scenarios - and have a laugh.
[like that time on the London Circle Line when two attractive young women started discussing a very convoluted and highly kinky dream one of them had - in Italian!
Absolutely incredible - totally relaxed, talking about their fantasies and such in a crowded train because they were sure nobody was able to understand. It did feel weird, yes.
But I'm digressing…]
Once with a pair of friends we spent a weekend running around town and trying to map the gangs turfs through their signature doodles.
It was a mess.
But of course, our gangs are just trendy clones of the ones seen on TV, graffiti being part of an exported, self-contained culture. I guess they'll never seriously define their turfs till the day they start seriously packing guns.
And you can't really read the words because they are in those highly stylized
I guess nobody does - now you mention it.
I generally see the two separate elements - the scruffy kid with the spraycan and the painted wall.
Putting two and two together and all that.
But someone actually painting… no.
That's funny. Graffiti everywhere, up on seemingly inaccessible surfaces that
It could be a matter of the hours you keep - but on the other hand, there are some graphics out there that, if they were made by night, either required a battery of arc lights or a troop of trained lemurs to be completed.
A thing that might have some DG relevance came up after that weekend spent mapping - the theory that some of the aforementioned doodles (the small, monochrome ones) are actually self-replicating:
Guy goes around with a spray-can in his pocket
Sees a weird looking doodle
Likes it
Walks a little distance
Paints it from memory.
Redo from start.
This way the scrawl not only reproduces, but mutates, too. The mutation - the fact that different hands duplicate with some imprecisions the original - was actually the detail that started us on the self-duplicating thing.
Being a bunch of natural scientists out for a lark, of course, theories proliferated after that. Like the one about said self-replicating doodles being the first colonizing a virgin surface.
The rationale: even the most hard-core graffitist has some misgivings when it comes to attacking a totally clean surface. But if a small, insignificant little splash of colour is already there, well… why not?
Another bit that was thrown around was the fact that some graffiti turn people into graffitistas. You see it. You _have_ to duplicate it somewhere.
Finally, different evolutionary speeds were found, helping us to classificate graffiti - the most recent, gangsta-wannabe stuff appears to be tachithelic, meaning that they evolve with a high speed; political and sports-fan slogans are instead bradithelic in the extreme (having remained unchanged through decades).
And before I go, a final observation: Turin has been the place of a number of riots this past year - the local self-styled anarchs (I'll spare you my opinion of the guys) went on rampage on the city streets in various occasions. The guys turned out to be rabid slogan-scrawlers and ferocious iconoclasts where graffiti are concerned. What I mean is that the anarch guys attacked and defaced on purpose many of the more colourful wall-paintings in town, doing a much more thorough job of cancelling them than the Turin Administration ever did.
The reasons behind this attitude remain unclear.
From: POOH
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 11:47:55 -0400 (EDT)
One thing I've discovered in my attempts to be an artist is a very curious manner of perception. That is, once you try to replicate the world through pencil or brush, you realize something very very startling.
You see almost nothing that you are looking at.
I've taken psychology and neuropsychology, which gives me a clue about what goes on. That is, our brains are wired to interpret, to fill in information that it does not posess. When you see a face, you matcvh only a few sketch details with your memories. We understand perspective and define objects in mental shorthand.
However, as you try to learn to draw a face (for example), you start seeing more, breaking people's features down, learn how it REALLY looks, how it's REALLY constructed.
Proportions become more accurate… people tend to draw big head/torsos and tiny legs, because of what they typiucally focus on. In time, this can be corrected. Perspective is easily recognized… duplicated with great difficulty.
This is part of the explanation of why artists and writers are so vulnerable to the mythos. They interpret less of (some aspects of) the world, at a very basic level. Writers watch people, understand people and events, and can replicate them in their heads. They understand how events often hang together, inscrutable patterns of meaning and symbolism. Visual artists understand the underlaying shape of things, the nature of color and lighting, and so forth.
Anyway, my 2c. Neuropsych, by the way, is a very disturbing thing to learn about for anyone with a spiritual or mystical bent. But very very interesting.
From: Robert Thomas
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 18:30:06 GMT0BST
>Special bonus ObDG: does anyone really look at graffiti anymore?
Yes I do.
<deletia of good stuff, what was that dream about Davide ;-)>
That's funny. Graffiti everywhere, up on seemingly inaccessible
surfaces that would appear to require a team of dedicated laborers
to paint the 5/10 foot "letters," and I have never ever seen one
in progress.
There is a good example of this outside London Paddington station / tube line. I noticed it a few weeks back when on my way to see a Rugby international, I remember this because I asked the person with me if they could think how it was done? The wall this grafetti is on is next to one of the busiest railway lines in the UK and is about 20ft tall, surely the Transport Police would be alerted by drivers of trains when they see someone with ladders etc to paint it unless it's not a natural phenomenon? As for the question of hours this line is busy 24 hours a day with probably a small gap 2-4am.
The following points:
This way the scrawl not only reproduces, but mutates, too.
The mutation - the fact that different hands duplicate with some
imprecisions the original - was actually the detail that started us on the
self-duplicating thing.
Being a bunch of natural scientists out for a lark, of course, theories
proliferated after that. Like the one about said self-replicating doodles
being the first colonizing a virgin surface.
The rationale: even the most hard-core graffitist has some misgivings when
it comes to attacking a totally clean surface. But if a small,
insignificant little splash of colour is already there, well… why not?
could be an explanation for an event that has happenened recently in the online game I play in that Shane runs however as the apprehended artist has connections to a certain NY club I think we can draw a more supernatural conclusion:
and specifically
http://w3.one.net/~deltag/sand_21.htm
http://w3.one.net/~deltag/sand_22.htm
things have gotten a little crazy since then and we haven't been able to follow up properly.
Anyway I'm off to play this weeks session.
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 14:32:22 -0500
From: Graeme Price
Mark "I have no recollection at this point in time. It's probably the Alzheimers playing up again. Ask Ollie."wrote:
If you are *certain* it *wasn't*, you must, inevitably, be *sure* of what
Not neccessarily. If you saw, for example, a Rhino and didn't know what it was, but you did know what an ostrich was, then you would be perfectly justified in saying "I don't know what it was, but I'm certain it wasn't an ostrich". But, as you rightly point out, that's just semantics.
The latter point about second hand learning is well taken, but really this is what society, most certainly what technology, depends upon. If everyone had to learn everything by direct experience, then we would still be in the stone age. The reason we don't need to do this is communiction - the ability of others to share their experiences, and hence their knowledge.
Perception, learning and knowledge are effectively meaningless unless they can be communicated well. A fact which unfortunately many scientists seem not to grasp fully. But this is off the point. One of the benefits of knowledge is the ability (in theory) for any individual to duplicate the findings of others. If you want to prove to yourself that chlorophyll really absorbs light in the wavelength that we call green, then the information is certainly available for you to do that. The question is, having done this would you believe it? Or rather more to the point, weighing the evidence would you beleive it? Or even would you believe it if you were told it by a man in the pub with no supporting evidence?
I would (reluctantly) subscribe to the view that there are some fundamental things which must be taken on faith [and I just know Davide is going to tell me that this isn't very scientific], because otherwise there could be no means of furthering our knowledge. One man can only achieve so much in a lifetime, and that I'm afraid is reality. Incidentally, taking things on faith can be a bad thing - how many centuries did man believe the Earth was the centre of the universe: an idea promoted by the Church, which is an organisation which most people of the time trusted… and one which deals with faith on a day to day basis. But I think this is going in a rather existential vein, and that is something I'm not wholly comfortable with before 3 am and a large quantity of alcohol.
My theory is, that the new Mission Statement from Headquarters galvanized the
The old "blind people have other heightened senses which make up for thier disability" thing? Personally I have never believed in this. But you are correct. How may time have you walked down a street you know well and suddenly realised that there is a shop there that you have never seen before? It's happened to me several times. Familarity breeds, well, complacency. You think you know something and you do it so often it becomes routine. Then something unexpected happens and a feeling of panic sets in.
The lesson I learned is this: the first step in customizing your nervous
I whole heartedly agree with this sentiment. Try walking to work instead of driving. I assure you that you will notice a lot more about your route than you would without the distractions of trying to control a vehicle.
Yes, frequently. I find it is a useful indication as to the state of a society (my favourite was written in a toilet cubicle in a university physics department: it read "Heisenberg may have been here", but I digress). For example, I know that the education system in my hometown is in trouble. Just before Christmas I saw graffiti written in an underpass saying "Fuk you". A society which cannot even teach it's vandals to spell obscenities correctly is clearly failing.
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 23:51:07 +0200
From: Davide Mana
Here's various elaborations on this ongoing discussion.
Graeme wrote
If everyone
Amen.
The big problem hereabouts is that theachers do not teach you to communicate your experiences either. Couple this with the haughty attitude some big shots science pratictioners usually throw around and you get real trouble.
Bad bad bad.
The basic traits of a scientis should be: curiosity, humility and an unstoppable will to chat with almost everybody. [well, two out of three isn't that bad ;>]
Hmmmm…. first hints that I'm building and projecting an image of myself that does not exactly conform to reality (aka the dreaded "MiB-Syndrome"). Chilling.
Forecastst apart, and speaking as one that made lots of high-up enemies in university by making a personal pastime out of calling their various bluffs, I can subscribe to Graeme's statement: you come to a point where you have to have faith in what they tell you or you will not progress. The big inherent freedom that science grants you (and religion and magic do not) is that you can go and verify their data, and call their bluffs. They'll sometimes be pissed out big time indeed, and probably will screw your carreer, but that comes with the inherent freedom.
Flippancy and autobiography apart, all of society is built on a network of acts of faith. It's all right as long as nobody starts to affirm his monopoly over the network or large chunks of it.
The lesson I learned is this: the first step in customizing your nervous
Amen, again.
Incidentally, I'm experiencing the opposite: having just taken my driver's licence after a lifetime as committed public transport victim, I'm seeing parts of my town that I never noticed before.
More generally, trying to get a different outlook on the standard issue reality we face every day is a good way to stay sane and increase the brain agility.
Habit is bad in our line of business.
Zen practice helps in this sense, as you are directed to develop an attention that is flitting, meaning that your attention does not have to privilege any aspect of the perceptive spectrum, focusing on it and leaving the rest behind.
It's not easy and it's not for everyone, but for some it works.
[this probably does not make sense - ask your local roshi for further enlightment]
By the way, the above probably links with what Will wrote…
Same for writers (or "would-be….").
We generally privilege one of our senses when we describe a scene or situation - for me (and for most, I'm told) it's sight.
Write something using only the sense of sight and you'll probably get a basic screenplay but not a story proper.
A good writer should be able to give an accurate description of the whole perceptive spectrum. To do this you need training. Once you start getting the whole picture and try and come to terms with it in order to describe it, lots of data spring at you that you never noticed. Holmes probably worked this way (but Conan Doyle cheated).
Very very good point.
A deeper perception leading to deeper understanding and therefore Mythos exposure and madness.
Perfect.
And here I can stop, I guess.
Despite Rob Thomas' kind request, I won't elaborate on those young ladies dream here - I'm saving it should I start a carreer as a writer of erotica.
PS: the Heisember graffiti thing _was_ fun.
THIS IS MATERIAL FROM THE ICE CAVE. IT HAS NOT YET BEEN FORMATTED.
From: Mark McFadden
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 03:19:04 EST
« Proportions become more accurate… people tend to draw big head/torsos and tiny legs, because of what they typiucally focus on. In time, this can be corrected. Perspective is easily recognized… duplicated with great difficulty. »
I had an epiphany while reading "Drawing With the Right Side of the Brain" when it has you measure the proportions of your own face to reemphasize the fact that your eyes are at midline between chin and the top of your head. People instinctively draw them in the upper half of the face, distorting the proportions of face and head.
Dondi, "Love Is" cartoons, anime of every stripe. What up with the big eyes?
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 14:24:00 +0200
From: Davide Mana
Mark set us straight about our head's proportions and wrote…
Dondi, "Love Is" cartoons, anime of every stripe. What up with the big eyes?
You forgot offenders number one - the greys!
In what we call the real world a theory says that the greys are a figment of the "abductees"/"contactees" imagination.
Even allowing for the cross-pollination coming from the media and all that, at least part of the iconography should spring from the dark depths of the mind.
Ergo, humans have apparently a thing for big eyes in disproportionate heads. Why?
ObDG: the Funguys engineered their puppets using our collective unconscious expectations as a template.
On the other hand, considering how distorted is our general perception of human faces - how much are distorted the descriptions of ETs? What would be the look of a grey "filtered" through the eye of an expert artist, adept at perceiving the true proportions of things?
And as a total unrelated note: does not all this tal of "true proportions" stuff ring a masonic bell somewhere?
Finally, the usual consideration about sincronicity: Mark's message about eyes quoted above reached me while I was writing a tentative piece about big eyes in Anime and Manga for my website. Of course I dropped the subject instantly, and will wait a while before updating the pages.
Take care, guys, and don't lose your head!
From: Mark McFadden
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 03:03:15 EST
« The old "blind people have other heightened senses which make up for thier
disability" thing? »
Not at all. I think I confused the issue with my flight deck example. I think I was experiencing hyperawareness because the nervous system filters were in abeyance while waiting for new instructions from HQ, consequently I was getting more information through the same old channels.
<>
I'm a bit more agnostic in my approach. I subscribe to the view that there are some fundamental things that have a good track record of consistency (as far as I know) and I don't have the time or inclination to check into it personally and if it ain't broke don't fix it. Unless you're bored. You can build a civilization on Newtonian physics; who cares what state a hypothetical cat is in at the moment? The quality of *our* lives remains unchanged. We still haven't found the absolute value of Pi. And yet engineers don't hesitate to use it in design. They don't need a perfect circle, they just need something within tolerance.
Buckminster Fuller didn't feel the same way. So he eschewed the use of Pi in his designs. And learned some new things because he had to. Science should be a philosophy, because philosophy invites interactive discussion. When science becomes faith, discussion becomes lecture and theory becomes cant.
But you see, living as an agnostic scientist requires forever abandoning certainty, something we are hard-wired to greet with fear and loathing. Like Pavlov's dogs we whine and piss and bite the staff, unable to express the concept of "Not Square AND Not Circle."
So we create the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and before the ink is dry on their charter, they cook the data to refute the findings of one of their own because he inadvertently found statistical verification of astrological prediction. So they juggled the numbers to get the findings back in accordance with their certain knowledge of how the universe really works.
Investigation? If having The Amazing Randi standing on the sidewalk outside of a residence to which he was refused admittance, giving a press conference assuring everyone that the residents are scoundrels and charlatans and the whole issue is pure hokum and a fraud, then yeah, they investigate all right. Their official publication is the Skeptical Inquirer. I deeply resent them co- opting the term "skeptic." Look up the definition of skeptic: does it apply better to Carl Sagan or Aleister Crowley?
Crowley reported what he saw, and he reported it as what he saw. Not what IS. He was honest, or insightful, enough to admit that he didn't have all the information. But then, he was an amateur scientist. Pros are supposed to be authorities, and who wants an authority that doesn't have the answers? Because we need certainty. We demand it.
On a side note: I've noticed that we've been playing quote tag. I think we all basically agree, but we're doing it with a time lag. I don't grab a quote to tap-dance on your statements, it's just where I would have chimed-in if this was a real-time conversation. Jamming on a theme instead of arguing. This is the DGML. 2D thinkers would be happier elsewhere.
[Announcer]
We've blindfolded the board of CSICOP and asked them to describe reality
[Carl Sagan]
It has a hard conical surface, but in a defect I detected billions and billions of hairs.
[CSICOP 1]
Huh? It is wide and leathery, like armor plate.
[CSICOP 2]
It's vertical and cylindrical, like a tree trunk.
[CSICOP 3]
Guys, I was just feeling along the top, which is rounded and leathery, when something pecked the back of my hand. Like a bird.
[All]
Heretic! Parapsychologist! Fraud!
[The Amazing Randi]
What has gotten into you frauds and charlatans? It's so obviously rope-like that I question your motives for reporting otherwise. What's that smell?
[Announcer]
Gentlemen, remove your blindfolds.
[All]
It's a rhino!
ObDG: The native cultures of South America didn't use the wheel. They made toys using them, but they never did anything useful with them. Except calendars.
So the circle was the domain of the priesthood, not the engineers. Pi anxiety? A distrust of shapes without angles?
The only architectural circle I can recall is the hoop for that life-or-death basketball game they played so religiously.
Pyramids and dwarves and sacred circles. Pyramids, no dwarves and war chariots. And fair Atlantis beneath the waves. Any conclusions would have to be drawn freehand.
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 11:23:20 -0800
From: Josh Shaw
Pyramids and dwarves and sacred circles. Pyramids, no dwarves and war
chariots. And fair Atlantis beneath the waves. Any conclusions would have to
be drawn freehand.
Everybody built pyramids. (Babylon, Indian stupas, Mound Builders, ad infinitum.) Basically, it's the obvious way to build a tower if you haven't got the keystone arch. Bigger social organizations (Mayans, Egyptians) have more resources, build bigger, more impressive ones. Stone holds shape better than mud brick, available to impress tourists a thousand years later. No cross cultural contamination needed. Just try piling up rocks and the bigger at the bottom solution becomes clear to you. (The early Scots build castles this way)
Support your local architect.
From: Mark McFadden
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 17:34:31 EST
« Everybody built pyramids. (Babylon, Indian stupas, Mound Builders, ad infinitum.) Basically, it's the obvious way to build a tower if you haven't got the keystone arch. »
Yes. But that's the real world. Given the mundane ("Geez Dad, I never would have thought of a PILE") and postulating a sunken continent or Mythos activity, I'll always opt for the explanation or question that generates a scenario seed.
Call me irresponsible. I like questions better than answers.
From: "David Farnell"
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 14:05:02 +0900
Mark "My…..braaaaiiiinnnnn!" McFadden wrote:
So the circle was the domain of the priesthood, not the engineers. Pi
The only architectural circle I can recall is the hoop for that life-or-death
Now that is one of the big mysteries: wheels on toys, but not on carts or anything really useful. I can't remember if the Andean tribes had wheelsit might have just been the Central Americans. Anyway, the Central Americans had no suitable draft animals, so nothing to pull a cart. But I don't think that would've stopped them. A wheelbarrow is a real simple item, and extremely useful. But no chariots. But if trade to the south had brought them in contact with llama-breedersah, how history might have been different!
(I know, there were dozens of other major factors, especially disease and communication lines. Still, it could've kept the Spanish off long enough to have really changed things.)
And just getting bigger. Strange how Americans thought they were so sickeningly saccharine when that (Mexican?) artist and his copycats were selling them to every cheap motel in Norte America when I was a kid. Yet it's virtually impossible to have a cartoon character in Asia without those huge freakin shiny-with-almost-tears eyes (unless it's a villain— or rare exceptions in more realistic cartoons like Akira). I think the constant flood of media from East to West has worn down any resistance we had, and now you've got Sailor Moon and Pokemon everywhere. Then again, just look at Disney, or Little Nemo, or Krazy Kat. Or medieval Jesus frescos. It's been there a long time, just not so extreme.
The appeal lies in hardwired paternal/maternal feelings. We've covered this territory before: virtually all baby mammals (and a great many other species, like turtles) have big heads in proportion to their bodies, and big eyes in proportion to their heads. The cartoonists take this and run with it, manipulating our instinctive desire to care about babies with extremes of big heads and eyes. It makes us feel protective, and we love to feel protective.
ObDG: Baby Deep Ones could potentially be very cute. As could a very small Shoggoth.
From: Mark McFadden
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 03:52:05 EST
« Anyway, the Central Americans had no suitable draft animals, so nothing to pull a cart. »
All the more reason to use wheels. Sleds are good enough with animal power, but rickshaws need wheels. Wheelbarrows, too. Here's a good one that I don't have an answer for: did they use pulleys?
«The appeal lies in hardwired paternal/maternal feelings. We've covered this territory before: virtually all baby mammals (and a great many other species, like turtles) have big heads in proportion to their bodies, and big eyes in proportion to their heads. »
Hehe. Hey Davide! How 'bout that synchronicity?
I just finished a message to him about the hard-wiring in connection with the Cabbage Patch doll phenom. Pundits of the time conjectured that the caricatured features of the Cabbage Patch dolls was were a sort of generic template for "baby" that we responded to viscerally. This was expressed by either maternal behavior or at least a reluctance to step on the malformed little trolls.
Call me misanthropic, they made my hackles rise.
On a vaguely related note: has anyone seen those antique grotesques? Those teddy bears with little porcelain human doll faces? Creepy. Surreal. Imagine the warped esthetic that thought those would be great for children. Imagine a child waking from a dream to one of those things at the foot of the crib. Scarred for life.
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:54:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel M Harms
Now that is one of the big mysteries: wheels on toys, but not on carts or
anything really useful. I can't remember if the Andean tribes had wheelsit
might have just been the Central Americans. Anyway, the Central Americans
had no suitable draft animals, so nothing to pull a cart. But I don't think
that would've stopped them. A wheelbarrow is a real simple item, and
extremely useful. But no chariots. But if trade to the south had brought
them in contact with llama-breedersah, how history might have been different!
(I know, there were dozens of other major factors, especially disease and
communication lines. Still, it could've kept the Spanish off long enough to
have really changed things.)
There was actually a pretty good reason for all this. The first Old World civilization to develop the wheel - Mesopotamia, if I'm not mistaken - was based on the plains of the Middle East, where there's not much around to run into. On the other hand, the Olmec, Maya, and pre- Incas of various types were based in swamps, jungles, and mountainous terrain, where wheels would tend to get stuck, carts or chariots wouldn't have room to pass, or where the inclines were just too steep. (The Inca roads, BTW, had steps at some points, making wheeled traffic impractical)
Of course, this doesn't explain everything (like wheelbarrows), but it should be good for a start.
From: Mark McFadden
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 19:15:14 EST
« Of course, this doesn't explain everything (like wheelbarrows), but it should be good for a start. »
Or why all the other cultures with similar obstacles used wheels. South/Central America has swamps and such, but I doubt it's worse going than the Russian steppes after the thaw. Or Vietnam, or Thailand. Tibet has some hills, but that didn't eliminate the wheel. Incidentally, their priesthood incorporated wheels into prayer. To speed them up.
A path with steps is appropriate if you know it's dedicated to foot traffic, but with the wheel comes more attention to roadbuilding. And more emphasis on their importance.
You don't invest a lot of labor on good roads unless you have to. And you don't need to unless you use wheels.
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 13:46:47 +0900 (JST)
From: Jay and Mikiko
Not me, buddy: I loath manga. The anime is sometimes cool, but the crap that you have to wade through puts me off. That and the squeaky little girl voices.
Heh, for those of you who don't get Japanese television: Many Japanse TV sets have a bilingual option, so you can watch Western TV shows in English or dubbed Japanese. Switching back and forth on X-files can be a hoot. The actor doing Mulder's voice has a deeper, raspy voice, and Scully sounds a bit like Minnie Mouse.
From: "David Farnell"
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 21:02:19 +0900
Marko wrote:
Or why all the other cultures with similar obstacles used wheels.
South/Central America has swamps and such, but I doubt it's worse going than
Yes, but all those countries had neighboring countries which used wheels. The Andean cultures may never have even been exposed to the idea of a wheel (barring Graham Hancock-ian theories, or visits from their northern cousins). The New World cultures had to invent it from scratch. But them Mexicans had wheels on toys, used as propulsion, no less—I can see them taking a long time to come up with the pulley, but you'd still think they'd scale that sucker up some and have go-carts or something.
Tibet has some hills, but that didn't eliminate the wheel. Incidentally,
Very cool image, those are, and so very fitting with some Mythos notions—mechanistic prayer, that is. There's also the prayer flags; the wind blowing them about is symbolic of air moving through vocal chords to speak the prayer. In a way, the wind is praying. Beautiful image, until you think of Ithaqua. I wonder how those monks feel about their recorded chants being played all over the world. I'd imagine they'd think it was a very good thing, since the prayers seem to have the same effect whether a living being says them or not.
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 21:17:43 -0500
From: Daniel Harms
Or why all the other cultures with similar obstacles used wheels.
South/Central America has swamps and such, but I doubt it's worse going
Tibet has some hills, but that didn't eliminate the wheel. Incidentally,
But these areas had places nearby in which the wheel was practical, and where it could be re-made and elaborated and from which it could diffuse. If no one uses the wheel to begin with, no one's going to try to work on the other problems.
A path with steps is appropriate if you know it's dedicated to foot traffic,
emphasis on their importance. You don't invest a lot of labor on good
I'm not so sure about that; those Inca roads seem to be holding up much better than the one I drive to school on. ;-)