|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Oct 24, 2012 22:06:16 GMT
Well, I must say that I'm not in love with any of the existing theories. Besides the two you've mentioned, there's the one of venus-figurines-as-paleolithic-porn, and of protective birth icons/totems. Each has its problems (and so does the fertility theory - fertility tends to be something agricultural societies obsess about, not hunter-gatherers). Only for the purposes of discussing the Jones theory do I lump all the fertility, sex and birth totems under the "fertility" banner. The comic is a modern take on a blending of myths from all over. Also it's just easier. ;D Now that you mention it I think I've heard the venus-figures-as-paleolithic-porn theory aka "stone age trading figures theory" before. It relies on a fully-developed concept of the abstract to separate it from the totemic sex figure, yes? A long time ago I think I heard an explanation of the exaggerated aspects of the more rotund ones that I liked but I can't remember many details... It was based on the point-of-view being that of the young child held close to the breasts/belly. Have you heard of that one?
|
|
|
Post by skythorn on Oct 25, 2012 4:14:37 GMT
I had a quick scan, and could not see that it had been mentioned before - could Jones be the observer of the first particle formed from the big bang? Quantum Theory speaks of the need to observe a particle for it to be both a wave and a particle? www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGcJones is the wandering eye letting the universe know it's being observed? *edit* yes, Quantum Theory does not quite reflect what I said above, but it's not wrong, it's just not right either. Quantum mechanics speaks of no such thing, and what you just said above was, indeed, very wrong. QM is merely a mathematical framework that happens to describe several physical effects at the nanoscale very well. And because our brains are hardwired to deal with everyday 'classical' physics, QM comes over a bit counterintuitive and abstract, leading to all sorts of vague comments like the above. I don't mean to snap, but saying you weren't wrong was too much. For informative purposes: "It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer." - Quantum Mechanics Non-Relativistic Theory, Third Edition: Volume 3 i.e. when QM mentions 'observing', no intelligent being whatsoever is required. Particle A feeling the field of particle B is more than enough. OK - firm, yet fair, correction noted. < reads a bit more on quantum theory and various Wikipedia articles on cats in variable states> < generates whoppinghead ache> I am not arguing that I am right, or wrong, but that there is a role for the universe's existence being played by someone/thing to observe it. Perhaps it's not quantum theory as such but the way I recall it (It's someone else's concept, not mine - perhaps the SF author Robert Reed?), there was a description by some smart guy saying that for possibilities to become actualities (like the cat in a box scenario by Schrödinger) someone needs to open the box and look inside. The start of the universe is such a case. I'd like to think Jones is a bit like that - mind you - this idea of mine only suggests the 'eye' bit, not the wandering bit of her name by Coyote. PS - I don't mean to suggest Jones is associated with the Watcher from Marvel, nor any of the endless from the Sandman universe.
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Oct 25, 2012 4:21:20 GMT
That leads to the third treatise, not the third treatsie. And I just noticed that there's a beat-up-looking poster on the wall with a picture of the moon - bearing a fingerprint. That was quick: the third treatise is page 560, and Annie only poked the moon on 492.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Oct 25, 2012 8:24:34 GMT
Since I do most of these posts at 3am local you're all lucky they're as coherent as they are. The poster's not too surprising... if a big meteor or something hit the moon and made a huge mark I figure there would be tons of dead-tree images all over inside a week; all sorts of ad campaigns would be trying to capitalize on the publicity.
|
|
rahel
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by rahel on Oct 26, 2012 3:20:38 GMT
Now that you mention it I think I've heard the venus-figures-as-paleolithic-porn theory aka "stone age trading figures theory" before. It relies on a fully-developed concept of the abstract to separate it from the totemic sex figure, yes? A long time ago I think I heard an explanation of the exaggerated aspects of the more rotund ones that I liked but I can't remember many details... It was based on the point-of-view being that of the young child held close to the breasts/belly. Have you heard of that one? I know different versions of both of these, and I'm sure there are countless more The venus-figurines-as-porn story I know comes from the work of Guthrie, who showed convincingly that many of the deep cave paintings were teenage doodles, with hunting and sexual themes. He falls short though when trying to apply that to the figurines, which are not in a "teenage space" like the caves, were carefully made unlike most of the more sexual line-drawings, and don't even convincingly look like them. The perspective story I know is that women made those as self-portraits, and that this is what your own body looks like from your head. Which is true, but also kinda stupid, unless you've never seen another woman. Obviously humans are social animals and that wouldn't be the case.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Oct 26, 2012 7:16:00 GMT
The venus-figurines-as-porn story I know comes from the work of Guthrie, who showed convincingly that many of the deep cave paintings were teenage doodles, with hunting and sexual themes. He falls short though when trying to apply that to the figurines, which are not in a "teenage space" like the caves, were carefully made unlike most of the more sexual line-drawings, and don't even convincingly look like them. The perspective story I know is that women made those as self-portraits, and that this is what your own body looks like from your head. The perspective-based one I think I remember was based on the figures being made by youths. Being weaned much later the we do now, and also having short focal depth, allegedly explains the rotund characteristics and the emphasis on the breasts and belly. The facelessness may be the result of being nursed by more than one woman. I'm not sure I buy it but I can see how that vague shape could potentially trigger some important and possibly comforting memories. But if that were the case I would think that the artist would want some sort of characteristic that would identify a particularly well-liked woman, as opposed to a generic woman, though maybe the huge caboose or rack did indeed narrow it down to one individual in the group. [successfully resists urge to make jokes] ...Which is true, but also kinda stupid, unless you've never seen another woman. Obviously humans are social animals and that wouldn't be the case. I guess it supposes that no reflecting surfaces were available and that there are taboos against looking another person in the eye. Even if there were no open bodies of water that the person could go to I figure leather cauldrons and bowls had to have been way too mundane for a prohibition against looking at yourself in the reflection to actually work. And I agree, even with a violent taboo against it people would still sneak peeks at each other, while asleep if nothing else. That reminds me of some banter (mental gymnastics) about the trading figures theory. The facelessness could also be explained if these were beta males on the edges of a settlement or family group, not actual members. Supposedly they didn't want to be seen looking at the women so they would be hiding when anyone was looking in their direction. I can understand how spying on the women would be considered a threat but I think even if they were kicked out of the group at puberty they would still remember a female face, at least enough to fake it. But even if these started as trading figures among ancient dorks on the fringes of paleolithic societies I think the economics of the situation would encourage a magical effect. In other words, you could get more trade goods in return for your venus figure if you allowed the implication to develop that these figures would help you get your own woman. And all you'd have to do to accomplish that is brag about your own fictional conquests.
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Oct 28, 2012 3:15:34 GMT
Another couple possible explanations of the faceless Venus figures, based on the fact that faces would require much finer detail:
a) they didn't have the tools/techniques to do such fine detail
b) the fine detail would more easily be eroded away
|
|
|
Post by cu on Oct 31, 2012 11:12:47 GMT
|
|