h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

With reference to the complexity of the modern world my feeling is that it has been channelled into the superficialities of consumer choice. (Do I eat a Macdonalds or Burger King? Do I buy my electricity from Powergen or British Gas?) The question of how much tropical forest has ben chopped down to provide grazing land, or how much pollution the power generators are generating recede into the background. The network of real connections that linked us to important aspects of reality has been obscured for the profit of the few.

Noggin

How far back does "the modern world" extend?

I'd say between ten and twenty thousand years. The move to settled farming brings in tow all the stuff we complain of: land and property ownership, the inexorable march of technology, the loss of "real connections that linked us to important aspects of reality", all the ills of society.

The problem is easily cured, but that would involve the extermination of most of the world's population, so I am prepared to put up with a lot of it.

>> from Paul Simon's "Diamonds On The Soles Of Her Shoes":

She makes the sign of a teaspoon
He makes the sign of a wave <<

Yes that's the one!

Now what is the sign of a teaspoon?

>> Apparently a lot of it was total free association. There may be more to this one than that, but I doubt it. <<

No question that the image of 'diamonds on the soles of her shoes' is an unrealistic but not unpleasant idealisation of the lady's grace and beauty. But we all have some idea what diamonds and the soles of shoes look like. As unlikely as they might be, we can even imagine diamond studded soles. In the same league as pearl-encrusted bath-mats in the pig-sty.

The sign of a wave could a simple wave of the hand. Or it might be an undulation, drawing a rolling line in the air like the wavey lines in the sign of Aquarius.
~~~~~~~~~
Though it is ambiguous whether his 'wave' is Aquarian, regal or just a friendly acknowledgement, the image is fairly straightforward and we would all recognise it as a 'wave' of some kind. Despite any suggested free association, we are told he is 'waving' in response to some arm or hand signal she makes to indicate a teaspoon.

So what is the sign of a teaspoon?

Isn't it amazing the things some people lose sleep over.

~jwf~

I wouldn't lose sleep over a Paul Simon lyric. For most of the last two or three decades he has laboured to remove any vestige of significance whatever from his jingles.

Diamonds on the soles of her shoes implies to me that she walks with purpose. Stepping on a diamond without caring would be an extraordinarily hard thing to do. It may stop some from walking, knowing the value of that on which they tread. Sometimes we move on, the soles of our shoes being the most valuable thing we have. I doubt that the passing observer would even notice the diamonds.

The symbol of the cresecent is interesting in it's connection to nature. But what of the full and new moons? Symbols represent a moment of concept, not the whole. It is fascinating to imagine what may have happened the day they chose that symbol.

The Egyptians made a similar connection to heavenly bodies. The belt of Orion and the pyrimids of Giza have many stunning correlations. Even the sphinx plays into the connection. They made a symbol that is practically un-repeatable. It is one symbol connecting one time and the people with their surroundings. They observed and made connections to what they saw, then represented them in their surroundings. They tried to connect with what they didn't know, and left enduring markers of history within history.

Many people argue that the workers were slaves. That only people driven by masters could accomplish such a feat. Others say they were built by magic or space people. I doubt any of these. I feel they used knowledge, and respect to accomplish something. Their prize was the knowledge that it could be done, and that they did it. They incorperated their ideas into what they were building. They used understanding and simplicity to develop something beautiful and relavent. Having a goal is the best way to get things done. Enslavement will never equal the output of those working for the holistic good. There is a totally different motivation.

OK so anyone can convince me of anything really, but I saw a TV programme recently which showed that archaeologists have found out that working on building the pyramids wasn't as bad as we had always thought. The size of the kitchens and the sleeping areas seemed to indicate that the workers were given plenty to eat and had sufficient rest.

The highlight of the discoveries were some graffiti found inside a hitherto unopened chamber at the top of (can't remember which) a pyramid. They were made by the site overseers or someone in charge of the actual building work - they weren't chronicles or religious writings. Anyone know what I'm talking about? I wish I'd paid a bit more attention at the time!

Will this change our attitude to the Old Testament?

Not a lot. The Israelites slaving on the pyramids is Hollywood, not history.

Noggin

If "constellations are arbitrary drawings of lines between stars" ( ) who says that the Belt of Orion was actually recognised as a constallation by the Egyptians? They might have joined up the dots completely differently. Can't blame them, I've never been able to figure some shapes out myself.

And something that has bugged me since the subject of simplicity and monotheism cropped up - surely the oldest forms of worship were to more than one god - the sun, the moon, fertility, rain, various animals... The idea of a single God was something for more advanced peoples. Thought up just to be different from the Romans.

And before that, some very radical means were necessary to convince people that there was only one God, if I remember the general gist of the Old Testament.

Then, as has been pointed out, once monotheism had caught on, the majority of humans couldn't cope with this concept and started grouping Saints and Prophets around their one God, in a move back to what seems to be the instinctive "Safety in numbers" form of religion. One for seamen, one for miners, one for musicians, one for the internet etc.

The idea of a multitasking megagod is the complicated version, only conceiveable to more modern man. The simple man doesn't expect a god to be able to do more than himself - i.e. to stick to his trade - a carpenter won't slaughter the cow, a shoemaker won't bake bread, a tailor won't shoe a horse. So he needs a group of gods.

Sorry. Those empty brackets were meant to contain the name of the person who wrote the line I quoted. It was ReddyFreddy in Post 8755

>> The Israelites slaving on the pyramids is Hollywood, not history. <<

And who runs Hollywood? Huh?

Look lemme connect the dots for yuzz here.

There was this guy Joseph. He had a thing for pretty things and bright colours and he was a schmart boy so he wandered off to visit the Egyptians to corner the market on their latest dyes and hues.

Oi vay, you're getting way aheada me already aren't ya? You're thinking this is the foundation of the garment insustries. Wrong. Some schmuck had already started weaving wool and cutting cloth back in Babylon. Waddya think the all those sheep were for anyway, stew?

OK, so Joseph has seen the future in cottons and linens and all the new colours available in Egypt and off he goes. His mother asks, So, where's Joseph?" and his brothers, who were also schmucks said they'd sold him to an Egyptian so she wouldn't worry.

Joseph gets a job with the Pharoah. Now, fast forward to Moses. How many generations? How many Pharoahs had they served by then? How many pyramids got built in that time? Anyway Mister Schmarty-pants when you run Hollywood you can make up your own stories.


~jwf~

Why do they call them a pair of pants when you only wear one at a time?

There are those who contend, based on taking very accurate measurements of the pyramids and the stars that they could have been built some 12 000 years ago. These theories are based on relating the Nile to the band of the Milky Way, the minute movements of the stars that make the belt, and the position of the sphinx relating to a constellation visable at the break of dawn. Some believe this is why the sphinx was built wholly but partially covered.

Looking at the pyramids the sizes relate to the intensity of the stars. Two large and almost the same one offset and smaller. The alignment of the footprints on the ground is very similar but not exactly the same. Interestingly, though it is hardly percievable to man the stars do move in relation to each other over time. By tracing the paths of the stars to the point where they match the pyramid layout, they can be dated to 10 000 BCE. There are other clues that help substantiate this idea though it is still a mind boggling concept.

Please don't take this as fact, however, as I am just relating ideas I heard once some time ago. I may have some (or all) of the details wrong. I would welcome any comment from those who know about this subject.

(sha na-na, sha na-na-na...)

I seem to remember that by the time the Israelites came to Egypt, the Egyptians had stopped making pyramids. They only made the pyramids in the Old and Middle Kingdoms, and the Israelites were there during the New Kingdom. But that's from memory.

"Why do they call them a pair of pants when you only wear one at a time?"

Ah a linguistic question at last. "Pair" meant once any matching set, and was used for things like stairs. A pair of stairs.

But what is a pant? Obviously it's short for pantaloon; Shakespeare's "lean and slipper'd Pantaloon" could have been a caricature of an old geezer from the Commedia dell'Arte, Pantalone, or simply a man who's hung up his tough riding breeches and now wears the softer pantaloons, as in the French pantalon, a singular word for trousers, itslelf no doubt derived from the Italian pantalone. In Italian -one is a suffix meaning big; a violone is a big viola, and a vioilino is by contrast a small one. A violoncello is a small violone.

So long pants are pantalone; shorts should be pantalini; and plus fours or Bermuda shorts pantaloncelli.

violino.

Way way back, many centuries ago, a pair of trousers (pants) weren't joined at the waist. It was possible to buy a single trouser, although it would be more common to buy a matching pair.

RF

There's a good answer to the question "Is the word trousers singular or plural? -- Singular at one end and plural at the other."

It's possible that pants is a fake plural, and should be singular, as pantalon is in French. If as I surmise they both come from the Italian, then the English could well have mistaken "pantalone" as a plural word, which it isn't. I should have given the words for shorts as pantalino and for long shorts as pantaloncello above.

Other singular words that were mistaken for plurals include cherries (cf cerise) and peas (formerly pease, cf pois).

So a pants it is, perhaps. Not so sure about trousers.

I always felt it should be a brace of trousers.
I think the Scots may refer to one trew, but that may be wishful thinking

So: how many trousers in a pair of braces?

Whereas trousers/pants are plural only in English (AFAIK), the word is singular in French, and Italian, as we have seen, and also in German. (Die Hose) So we have panty hose but tights.

Scissors, on the other hand, are singular in German, "die Schere" but plural in French "les ciseaux".