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

"Chambers Dictionary refers to more words than the others, many times more than the Shorter Ox (the two-volume one). It is the official arbiter for Scrabble, and it is a beauty."

Thanks. I sought out their website and it is marvelous. I shall have to see if I can order one.

according to http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/the_horn_fair.htm
which is a, to me, fascinating rummage around the origins of the Horn Fair, my initial gut feeling that goats were the wrong animal, however ruttish was correct:
"To wear the horns. To be a cuckold: In the rutting season, the stags associate with the fawns: one stag selects several females, who constitute his harem, till another stag comes who contests the prize with him. If beaten in the combat, he yields up his barem to the victor, and is without associates till he finds a stag feebler than himself, who is made to submit to similar terms. As stags are horned, and made cuckolds of by their fellows, the application is palpable"
Hence, probably, stag nights and all those pubs called the Stag's Head

>> according to http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/the_horn_fair.htm <<


Excellent.
The Green Man mythology again.

There really is a lot of 'stuff' back there in the past that somehow survives today in mere fragments of misundertanding. For many I guess neo-paganism is just an excuse for a party, but I continue to have this deep sense of loss and a growing resentment toward the forces that have deprived us of our cultural roots.

It is not just the academic 'meaning' of the old European myths that is frustratingly absent from our modern consciouness but also the very real insight and understanding behind them. These oral traditions were the sum of human understanding, passed down to help ensure our survival. It's a shame we don't have that information today.

I also hesitate to abandon the idea that the randy goat myths of the Mediterranean may be involved or at least had parallel foundations in some once obvious but now obscured reality of our primitive psyches.

I am not a racist - though some might think my general antipathy toward Mediterranean cultures and religions indicates some racist tendency - and I'm sure that on a purely psycho/physiological level the functions of human procreational and recreational sex, including the areas of competition and jealousy, would not be much different between Euro-pagan hunter gatherers and the wandering shepherds of the middle east.

Hopefully speakers of other languages will further add to our discussion if they recognise horns as symbols of male jealousy in languages they know. And perhaps someone has a knowledge of classical art and can enlighten us on those randy goat-men images.

A couple of years ago we did establish there was an 'eastern' parallel to the European Green Man which was also abandoned when the simpler (and much less satisfactory) monotheistic religions arose to scatter the multiplex pantheons, wiping out tens of thousands of years of observation and understanding about our human condition.


~jwf~

~jwf~, the randy goaty guys of mythology were called satyrs or fauns.

The book "The Da Vinci Code", which is an amusing romp through most of the best European conspiracy theories, says that the American little boy prank of two extended fingers behind the brother's head in a group photo to look like horns derives from an ancient fertility symbol. I wonder...

>>simpler (and much less satisfactory) monotheistic religions<<

That'll be why they enjoyed such limited success, then ...

The 'dilemma' of which we sometimes find ourselves on the horns was definitely a goat ,star>

>>The 'dilemma' of which we sometimes find ourselves on the horns was definitely a goat<<

I'd say a bull is more probable. The phrase comes from the Latin 'argumentum cornutum': you'll get gored by whichever of the two lemmas you pick. Or as Nicholas Udall explained in a translation of Erasmus' works, "Thys forked questyon; which the sophisters call a horned question, because that to whether of both partyes a bodye shall make a direct aunsweere, he shall renne on the sharpe poyncte of the horne". Incidentally, the Udall & Erasmus combo is also responsible for giving us the phrases 'a mountain out of a molehill' and 'calling a spade a spade' (the latter, ironically, is due to a mistranslation of a Greek phrase on Erasmus' part, as it should have been 'calling a trough a trough').

The horns of a cuckold, however, are definitely those of a stag. The reason why horns come into the picture is because a husband whose wife bore another's child was implicitly sexually inadequate, so his masculinity was 'given' to him by the third party. Incidentally, I may have mentioned it before, but there's a rather nice (natch) Michelangelo statue of a horned Moses lurking in the Vatican, although that's due to Mr. Buonarroti mis-translating the Hebrew word for "rays of light" rather than an implication of any extra-marital shenanigans on the part of Deborah.

And to fly off at one last tangerine, the word for a happy cuckold is "wittol", which is the name of a bird (aka wheatear, fallow chat and dykehopper) presumed to knowingly accept cuckoo's eggs in its nest.

This goes beyond tangental, but through the warped and cracked pane that is my world view it seems of a piece with the general theme: mackerel, as well as being a maculate fish, is also a pimp (ie on the make).

Interesting discussions again. Please don't let my post derail anything but i heard a new 'development' in English the other day and thought I would share it with you!
Overheard on a train, older business bloke talking on his mobile who said:
"Yes, but I am agnostic about it."
I think he may have meant ambivalent. Or even unsure. Unless this is some other usage of the word that I have never encountered. In which case I am willing to learn.

Anyway, I shall return you to what passes for normality round here.

"Agnostic" is often taken in a weak sense -- "I don't know".
Its proper definition however makes it a strong statement -- "Nobody knows" or "There is no way such a thing can be known".

So the businessman was mangling his words if he meant "I'm not sure". He may on the other hand have been challenging someone else's illusory certainty.

Ah, I see, I have only ever heard the word used in reference to beliefs and religion.

Of course that is its primary use but let's not be confined by such limitations . . .

I've always been fascinated by the corelation between the pyramids of Giza and the belt of Orion. Spaculations are made about the connection and what it means. It's hard to deny the correspondence.

I'm rather agnostic about it, though.
(That's a little joke!!!)

>> ..let's not be confined by such limitations. <<

Hey that's my line. I'm supposed to be the flaky, irresponsible, iconoclastic, rabble-rousing liberal.

Now you leave me no choice but to play the cautious conservative coming in to remind everyone that, despite your flagrant attitude toward the established parameters of a sane and just civility, limits are always set for good reason. I have to caution you all that rules aren't just for breaking y'know.
What polar disorder?

I jest. Good to see some support for the notion of flexibility. Now let's go milk some sacred cows.

~jwf~

>> ..prank of two extended fingers behind the brother's head in a group photo to look like horns derives from an ancient fertility symbol. I wonder... <<

Goats, bulls, Al Gore, antlers... it staggers the mind. What a cache of subliminal and lost meaning we're exploring here.

Obviously the idea of horns (beep-beep ) is very deepset in the collective human psyche. To proceed we each must first establish clearly in our own minds that the interaction between humans and wild (or even domesticated) beasts was much more prevalent in ancient times. Today we seldom see live animals, let alone have time to observe and contemplate their characteristics. What are we missing?

Primitive (I hate that word) peoples often wore animal heads on top of their own skulls in ceremonial dances and sometimes even battle. This idea is not confined to the horned animals and even in places where horned critters are available man has sometimes chosen to wear wolves, lions, bears and other unhorny critters on his head.

Such head-dress provides both defense, protection in the sense of armour, and offense in the psychological sense. Each would have (at least) symbolically provided some special powers of strength, cunning or stealth. What was it the horny heads gave us? Possibly it was just sexual and we are now so far removed from being able to see or feel this reality that we may never know.

But something about horns was obvious to 'primitive man'.

So far we have seen suggested references to sexual prowess, jealousy, the devil, and the concept of duality (the basis of logic, the parliamentary system and the evolutionary capacity to make choices or simply see another point of view - a big step sociologically).

All pretty important stuff, And yet we have no clear and distinct understanding of its source or meaning at a primal level. What about Mother Goose, The Grimm Bros and other surviving tales? Does anyone recall horns in the nursery rimes?

The mists of the eternal ether are now clouding my mind with an image of a stag whose antlers are caught in a bramble Bush. What was that story again?


~jwf~

> >>simpler (and much less satisfactory) monotheistic religions<< <
>> That'll be why they enjoyed such limited success, then ... <<

Your irony belies and begs the question.

The operative word there is 'simpler'. As we can see daily in our modern lives, the notion of simplicity is very seductive.

We are attracted to fast food, remote controls, disposable pens and lighters, instant access and gratification. We avoid thinking, feeling or working whenever we can. We prefer to be pampered, catered to and almost always choose sedantry and inactive lifestyles when possible. We like things easy, plain and simple and reject complexity and hard choices.

Monotheism is fast food for the soul. It provides a much simpler basis for harnessing the mystic powers of our existence. It requires much less thinking and avoids the great debates between the various gods of the ancient pantheons. No longer do we see or need contests between the gods.

Mercury will no longer race the moon across the sky. Diana will never again turn men into animals to teach them about LIfe. We are freed from making moral judgements on a case by case basis. Instead of arguing about which set of values ought to be applied in any given situation, we simply apply a fixed set of commandments (and interpret them to our own advantage as best we can).

One god, one law, one rule. Very convenient for setting up complex power structures and empires with a single titular head. It virtually eliminates debate or opposition even if the natural world shows us that there are infinite possibilities.

Yes, monotheism has been succesful. It is we who have failed. Because we are simple creatures. Like the animals we can now be herded, domesticated, fed crap and slaughtered at will, in the name of unity, monopoly and single source efficiencies.

Real life is more complicated than we like to imagination or are allowed to think.


~jwf~

~jwf~ - You talk about monotheism as though it first cropped up sometime in the mid-1970s I don't quite see how an attraction for fast food can be tallied with the last three milennia of Jewish history, for example.

I'm at a loss to know what you consider simple about monotheism, in any of its three main occidental varieties. The Summa Contra Gentiles a bit too straightforward for you, perhaps? Tired of St Augustine, 'dumbing things down'? All that Talmudic scholarship a little too basic, bored by Arabic learning? And, on a thread concerned with etymology, perhaps the roots of the word 'byzantine' - as in barely comprehensible in its complexity - would be worth mulling over.

But the principal reason for the irony was as an objection to the idea of monotheism as some sort of lacksadaisical soft option. The fact is that Christianity spread like wildfire through the pagan lands around the Mediterranean when the penalty for adhering to it was death. I've already mentioned Judaism - hard to see how, in an atmosphere of unremitting anti-semitism over countless centuries, this is compatible with the idea of the Jewish people favouring an 'easy life'.

I likes a good tangent, me.

>> ..mackerel, as well as being a maculate fish..<<


So that's what immaculate means!
Holy mackerel!


But I have to say in defense of the mackerel, that a lot of seafood is undeservedly called dirty by various regional prejudices that have no scientifically proven basis.

100 years ago, the lobster was classed as a bottom feeder suitable only for the poor who could catch them at will along the shore (such were their numbers).

The carp or sucker is a delicacy in the southern US and parts of Asia but scorned by most in the civilised west because of its appearance and tendency to hang about sewer outlets at feeding time.

Pollock, often a resident of polluted harbours, were so 'common' at one time they were simply discarded and gained a bad reputation as a dirty fish. Today they are called 'Boston Bluefish' and they sell quite well.

Traditional north Atlantic fish such as the much prized and over-priced haddock and sole are also bottom feeders, but they taste so good no one seems to have noticed or objected.

Having once had the pleasure of pulling a couple of large mackerel out of the ocean and quite literally straight into the galley fry-pan I have to say it's true, you can't beat freshness when consuming fellow organics. Admittedly they suffer a loss of quality more than most other fish if not eaten immediately and cannot be kept long. Smoked mackerel is at best a poor substitute.

Thanks for the tangent.

~jwf~

We still have a pantheon, we just don't call them gods any more, we call them celebrities. Anyway, I'm not sure which religion you're referring to but Catholicism certainly isn't truly monotheistic: if it were then Catholic net users would have no business praying to Saint Isidore of Seville to stop their connection dying.

Still we must think. And make decisions based on some sense of wright and rong, or more simply; good bad. The paradox is that what is good for the goose may not be so good for the gander.

Faced with the need to choose most decide to do what seems right. The outcome may not be totally good, but there it is.

Still others, knowing of dilemma decide that it is best to lay out some guidelines for the behavior of others, hopefully with good intentions. The environment affects all things, and even the most sincere good will can be twisted. Here those who strive for power for the sake of power may find their niche. Adjendas can be manipulated to spiral this power to a single point. Animals are penned instead of hearded.

Dominance is a trait found in nature, if not written in it. There is also duality, comprimise and rivalry. Our brain is an *advantage* over the animals but we are hurtling away from naturalness instead of embracing it. Rules are not all bad. Not all bad rules. We have many senses to make decisions with.

Just like the Alpha in a pack would be nothing without the rest, we all have a part to play. The difficulty to me lies in considering the potential outcomes of a decision. I make mine with good intentions. I make my mistakes the same, usually.

>>a bottom feeder suitable only for the poor <<

It is a sad fact that pollution is quickly spreading through the biomass. Clams that are harvested from some waters must first be decontaminated in clean water to be accepted for *public* consumtion.

i avoid eating animals. If I was starving though I'd slurp up one or two of those mercury laden dirt suckers (and like it).