A Review of Blood, Bread and Roses: How Menstruation Created the World by Judy Grahn, Beacon Press Boston 1993

Memories of certain events from childhood can still be vivid in adulthood. I cannot exactly remember the years but like a face from a distant past some events lurk. A certain young girl, dark in colour and somewhat short in stature, whose guardian was known to our family was brought into our home to see whether she would grow out of her affliction. She seemed to show some strange behaviours. This case was discussed by me in the book, the lure of noma [1]. Being a young boy then, I neither knew what puberty meant nor whether the girl was at puberty. From my viewpoint today, given her looks and the social status it was likely. My memory says that she was only referred to as a girl not a woman. Girls at puberty especially maidservants were known to have the tendency for such strange behaviours. That experience subconsciously led me to my work on puberty rites.

I am now ashamed that I didn’t refer to Blood Bread and Roses by Ms. Judy Grahn in my writings, before this review now being written about ten years after first expressing my opinions on the rituals of menarche. I admire Late Prof. Stephen Jay Gould for his pioneering views about the scientific knowledge. All good ideas need not to be in the form of tightly written journal articles. He set an example by being bold enough to write some of his brilliant scientific opinions for popular columns. I understand almost all of the academic community treat my ideas expressed in a series of accessible papers on the subject of seclusion of girls at puberty with certain amount of disdain. I am neither a feminist nor an anthropologist. I am neither European nor a scholar on European archaeology nor art. I am neither an academic nor a person with any acclaimed credentials like a well-known scientist, philosopher,  writer or a poet. Thus, I didn’t have any standing whatsoever above Ms. Grahn’s was to ignore her work. Today, I feel being unfair to the book  I am now reviewing. In spite of all of that, I then thought I had a reason. When I first came across Ms. Grahn’s book, the authour’s view that menstrual blood attracting dogs led to the seclusion of girls by sending them up trees or into thickets made me really weary of her work. I believe this is unfair treatment of her work on my part and irrespective of my strong reservations, I should have read and mentioned this book in my previous work. But I am glad that I am now making amends to correct that omission. To facts to emerge all opinions should be pondered upon.

Full review as an open source document can be found at Humanities Commons

Posted in Seclusion of Girls at Puberty, Topics of Anthropological Interest | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Moon and Human Behaviour

This work was a result of a book review I had been working on. Full review of the book will be made available in the future. The book that was being reviewed was Blood Bread and Roses: How Menstruation Created the World by Judy Grahn, Beacon Press, 1993. Around 2009 I first came across the book but did not read it at the time. However, when it grabbed my attention for the second time in the recent past, I was determined to read it. Through this reading with a review in mind, I got the urge to test one of the consistent themes of the book about the influence of moon on the human female and the human culture. The following investigation was based on the simple attempt to see the veracity of the above claim using a dataset available to me. The following is some details about the investigation. This work follows a different way to look into the relationship between moon and humans. Instead of using statistical testing as many scholars generally do, visual observation is given prominence in this investigation. Do the moon’s position and its phase synchronise with the driver behaviour in a visually perceptible way? If they are not, does any number crunching to find evidence in a deeper layer really matter? Perhaps, it is a question that I leave to the experts.

The study in focus here considered the data on road traffic accidents in order to see the influence of the moon on the driver behaviour by way of its position and illumination.  The analysis was based on the visual tools widely used for time series data in time and frequency domains. The present study could not detect any influence of the moon on the traffic accidents. This study does not see a reason for this result not being valid for the human behaviours underpinning similar data.

The overarching hypothesis the current authour worked with was that any link between moon phases or the distance to the moon and the daily traffic accidents should be visible in the periodicities of data. In the sample presented for November 2016 in the Figure 3, any synchronicity between these variables, if it exists, should be apparent.  But there was no significant periodicity of 29 days other than the strong weekly variability in the accident data series. The dominant feature of the accident data across all categories considered in this study was the above mentioned seven-day periodicity dictated by the working week. However, the patterns observed in this study are not universal, partly due to the differences in the nature of data used. For an example, Pape-Kohler et al (2014) reported that in their study using the data from Germany, they saw the highest number of severely injured road trauma cases admitted to hospital on Saturdays. Their explanation for the trauma cases were mainly based on the daily peak traffic periods. They also couldn’t see any influence of lunar phase on the number of trauma cases. What we may also have to remember in the studies of this nature is that it is not easy to unravel the cultural entanglement between our modern-day behaviours and conventional constraints on our daily lives. The working week universally ends after Friday and only begins again on Monday. Our week is 7 days and four weekly cycles give us a period that is very close to the lunar month and our standard month in the Gregorian Calendar. When future work habits blur the weekdays and weekends, there may be a different picture emerging that does not relate to the weekly cycle and hence, not tied to the lunar month. This may help to untangle any influence of the moon, if there exists one, extraneous to the habit-forming human behaviours.  

Reference

Pape-Kohler C. I. A, Simanski C, Nienaber U and Lefering R (2014) External factors and the incidence of severe trauma: Time, date, season and moon, Injury, Int. J. Care Injured, 45S (2014) S93–S99 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2014.08.027

Currently, the full paper can be accessed at Humanities Common as a paper yet to be approved.

Posted in Topics of Anthropological Interest | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Some Thoughts on the Nature of Reality

Summary The following few pages contain few thoughts on reality in general, Kantian view of it, whether mathematics captures it and why reality is an interconnected phenomenon. This is not a comprehensive essay on reality but some personal views that may be useful in understanding our grasp of reality.

What does my reality means? On one wintry night I reversed my car out of a parking space and was about to move forward. Then I noticed another car reversing out of the parking space next to where I had parked. I froze in time and was wishing my car would not be hit. But the little thud happened. Later when I recalled the incident, I only could think of a rear of a black car softly bumping the front bumper bar of my car. But the photos showed a dark maroon coloured car instead of a black car. The image my mind built was taking into account the darkness of the surrounds. My perceptions are not always the reality. The world I perceive can be coloured by many things including the ambient light. Unless we are unconscious or asleep, we live in the world of our minds rather than in our bodies. With every passing second, our existence becomes one of the mind rather than one of the body. Our life before this exact second is a series of memories, at times, jumbled up. Aptly, as Plato wrote about teachings of Heraclitus, “nothing ever is, everything is becoming” (Russell, 1961). In a book review I wrote previously I talked about three types of human existence based on memories, namely biographical, autobiographical and historical . Cartesian “Cogito ergo sum” becomes more complicated. Descartes asks “How could one deny that these hands and that my whole body exist?” (Cahn,1990). Do I have a continuous existence, even in the constant flux, as I am a ‘thinking being’? Am I the ‘thinking being’ as perceived by myself and as remembered by others? The person who remembered the colour of the car as black in my previous anecdote is the same person who experienced the accident as my memories link me back to the accident. But my memory failed me and I am now months older. Can a memory of a past dream get spliced with my other memories and create a new reality? Thus, the reality of our existence possibly is subjective at best and Descartes’ body in front of the fireplace feeling his hands is simply a continuum of momentary proprioception and thought. Our biographical existence together with our autobiographical and historical exitance make us feel real. Basically, our existence or reality in general is not an isolated phenomenon but a whole consisting of collection of frames of reference .

This article in full is available at Humanities Commons  http://dx.doi.org/10.17613/d745-b825

Related Article:
Visual Intelligence; How We Create What We See by Donald D. Hoffman, W. W. Norton, New York, 2000

Posted in Philosophical Musings | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Visual Intelligence; How We Create What We See by Donald D. Hoffman, W. W. Norton, New York, 2000- A Review

This is a review of the book on visual intelligence written by Prof. Donald D. Hoffman. This review questions the view that we create what we see. It is argued that we rather create a representation of reality. This view is peddled using a discussion around frames of reference.

Few days ago I was sitting on in the first compartment of a stationary train at a busy station. Looking through the windows I could see another stationary train on the adjacent platform. I could only see the train, nothing else, on that side. When I casually looked at the other train after few minutes, I felt very uneasy and almost dizzy. I was overwhelmed by the thought that my train was moving fast even though I couldn’t feel it. My logical faculties were affirming me all along that it was the other train that was moving. But, it seemed like my body didn’t want to believe it. My disbelief perplexed my thinking so much so that I didn’t turn my head to the other side of the train I was sitting on. This is a very real experience about the dissociation between the vision and the signals from the rest of the body. It is also an example about reality challenged by ‘virtual reality’. Something implicit in this example was a voice, however feeble it may be, against reductionism. It is the whole individual who would coax the brain for interpretation, not just the visual cues.

Find the full article here at HUMANITIES COMMONS  (“Humanities Commons is a project of the office of scholarly communication at the Modern Language Association and a trusted, nonprofit network where humanities scholars can create a professional profile, discuss common interests, develop new publications, and share their work.” )

Even though Prof. Hoffman’s book mainly focuses on the way we see the world, it is about the way we perceive the world in general. Prof. Hoffman fills the book with many examples from his wealth of experience, making it a tour de force in a moderately academic context. Thus, the book is not for the feeble minded who want to enjoy a quick and easy read. First six chapters of the book discuss the rules behind the way we see what we see and how we see the movement. With his experience in computing, Prof. Hoffman cannot be faulted for looking for rules to build algorithms usable in vision software. Given the sheer number of rules one wonders why the vision is so complex and overburdened by such a nexus of rules. The examples and rules remind one of the attempts of the proponents of Gestalt Theory to come up with laws to understand figure-ground issue. Here it is good to remind ourselves that figure-ground phenomenon is tied up with ambiguous figures.

The question I struggled with was the inefficiency that can be created by such a complex rule based system. One cannot stop wondering what sort of complex structure of reasoning our genes should construct to see what we see. On the other hand, if we look at the examples Prof. Hoffman gives in the book it is not difficult to see that almost all of the examples are about two dimensional projections of the three dimensional world. As he says on p.23 a two dimensional image showing depth “has countless interpretations in three dimensions.” Should we, then, use such projections and build rules around why the eye interprets ambiguous two dimensional images the way it does? I believe this is more of a way to infuse algorithmic thinking into a process which is less complex in a more pragmatic sense.

As Prof. Hoffman reiterates, we live in a three dimensional world. Our eyes have evolved over long period of time to see the world in three dimensions. If we use the hackneyed argument from adaptationist viewpoint, any creature using vision to live on the earth should protect themselves in a three dimensional environment. Two dimensional images don’t matter much as they occur in a three dimensional background naturally as shadows and silhouettes. Thus, I believe many of the rules described in Prof. Hoffman’s book can be merged to form a simpler structure for three dimensional vision unless we wish to develop computer algorithms.

  1. Phenomenal world we live is three dimensional.
  2. Irrespective of the two dimensional nature of retinal images, our visual systems have been shaped by Nature to live in a three dimensional phenomenal world.
  3. Perception of hues, bundled here with brightness and saturation, and perspective is entrenched in such visual systems.
  4. Over millions of years, eyes have been designed by Nature to look for three dimensional shapes and their defining features.

In my opinion, as an intruder into the realms trodden by experts and academics such as Prof. Hoffman, these are the basic rules which govern our vision. Human eye has not evolved to see the world in two dimensions. All the visual constructions Prof. Hoffman included in his book to show how we create what we see are two dimensional and hence, deceptive to the eye. Thus, I propose we need to be critical as to whether the arguments in the book about Visual Intelligence hold much water in the phenomenal world.

Let us have a look at Fig. 1 below showing white squares on white and black rectangular backgrounds. If you keep looking at them for a while you can see either a tunnel ending in a well-lit space or a flat-topped pyramid. Eye is struggling to create three dimensional visuals with ambiguous two dimensional pictures. Fig. 2 shows grey boxes of two different sizes on black background. Irrespective of what is obvious as figure and ground, both boxes can be seen either as a grey box or a space with two vertical walls and a floor. Why doesn’t this happen with the “attached boxes” of Whitman Richards and Allan Jepson (p.30)? If we ignore the small box for a second we can see two walls attached to a ceiling instead of a floor. But this visual is not sustainable as the small box is not aligned to such a view. It cannot be seen as a similar space attached to a ceiling as the lines guiding the eye are not aligned for both boxes. One box is rectangular in shape while the other is more of a square shaped box.

All of this may tell us something intriguing about our vision. Given Prof. Chomsky’s views about an innate grammar we are all born with, it is not hard to imagine the existence of a visual vocabulary. We all remember that Ancient Egyptians used a language based on pictograms. Modern Chinese still uses logograms representing visual cues. In contrast to these flat-world languages, we may have a built-in visual vocabulary in 3-D which will be called in whenever we see something. As the vocabulary is in three dimensions, finding a meaning for a two dimensional image with ambiguous three dimensional undertones is always difficult. Eye may stretch itself to find meaning in the image. It may change the hue, perspective or movement to try different interpretations.

Fig 1. White square within white and black rectangular backgrounds (See the full article at Humanities Commons)

Fig 2. Grey 3-D boxes in black background(See the full article at Humanities Commons)

Some of the ideas in the book are important in the selection of meaning of such ambiguous images. As Prof. Hoffman says in p.121, our ‘visual intelligence tries to find the lowest cost solutions’. If it can be further interpreted this may mean the most energy efficient and effective solution to a visual problem. Unfortunately, some tricky images with no real existence presented to the eye can be costly and inefficient as the eye had evolved to work with our three dimensional world.

Philosophical Implications of Visual Intelligence and Frames of Reference

Now please forgive me for encroaching the philosophers’ territory. To look at the next chapters of the book, it is necessary to invoke some philosophical musings. Some of the views expressed here are not in agreement with age-old philosophical traditions and thus, are invariably arguable. Unfortunately, these heretical views are required for the following discussion. Prof Hoffman discusses the virtual reality and brain research relevant to our perceptions such as synaesthesia and phantom pain. He also looks at the phenomenal brain and relational brain. Phenomenal brain constructs what we see. But it is present only when we perceive something. On the other hand, relational brain is the one which sustains the object when we are not aware of it. Berkeley attributed this to God who constantly perceives the material world. Prof. Hoffman says he carefully chose the word “construct” to describe the visual process (p.196-7) to avoid mixing the phenomenal and relational aspects. He believes if he uses the word “recover” or “reconstruct” it can mean recovering or reconstructing the forms of objects existing externally through our vision. In my opinion, this reservation arises due to lack of reference to the representational nature of our sensory inputs.

It is more fashionable in current times to explain our mind and our reality in terms of artificial intelligence. In a physicalist world everything is mechanistic. Our brain works like a computer consisting of myriad of binary circuits. Mind is simply physical processes arising from the central nervous system. This may not be far-fetched. But it can only be a science fiction until the immense gap between a modern super computer and the brain becomes more imaginable. No artificial intelligence system has so far passed the long form of imitation game. Even if such a system will pass the test one day, it might be doing it like a person in Searle’s Chinese room.   What about virtual reality? Until we can call a robot a human or at least an early hominid, it may be far-fetched to imagine our reality in terms of virtual reality. Prof. Hoffman doesn’t want to be a part of these arguments and he does this by avoiding the relational aspects of our sensory inputs.

Should or shouldn’t we consider the relational aspect of our perceptions to describe the reality? I believe it is not quite right to say that we construct what we perceive. What we construct is only a ‘representation’. That representation is a result of our senses and our interpretation of the sensory input. If the existential frame of reference tied to the sensory input is compromised by any physical defect, the representation can become ‘particular’ for the frame of reference rather than becoming ‘universal’. Thus, the world and ‘reality’ are about sets of frames of reference. In a relativistic sense, a stationary observer will see something different to a moving observer. But the object that both see, is on its own frame of reference. Thus, all phenomenal and relational existences are relative to specific frames of reference. Reality exists in a relative sense. When I see a tree the representation of the tree I see is subject to a set of frames of reference comprising of two key types. We can use these two key types of frames, namely, existential frame of reference and relational frame of reference in space-time continuum to build a set of frames of reference. I think and thus, I am. This Cartesian view is defined within the co-ordinate system of my existential frame of reference. If I am colour blind, my interpretation of the image of the tree is of a different hue and will become a relational frame of reference that links me with the tree. If someone with normal vision sees the same tree at the same moment, that person will see the colour of tree which is ‘universally’ accepted and will become a relational frame of reference linking that observer with the tree. When none of us are watching, the tree still exists attached to the co-ordinate system determining its existential frame of reference. If the tree ‘can sense’ both of us, it may have two relational frames of reference about being observed. Thus, I believe we don’t create what we see. What we do is constructing a representation of what we see with respect to a set of frames of reference. The objects giving rise to the representations exist independent of relational frames of reference.

Existential Frames of Reference and Berkley’s God

As the above discussion spurs us to think, the world we live in is full of frames of reference. A reality of any animate or inanimate agent is the existential frame of reference attached to its system of co-ordinates. No one can deny its reality as it is independent of any relational frame of reference. Virtual reality created at the Virtual Reality Exhibit described on p.185 has no existential reality independent of the existential and relational frames of reference to the super computer and software. It is like the experience I had on the train. As soon as the computer is turned off or the software running to create the virtual world is closed, the virtual reality ceases to exist. But if the above mentioned tree is moved to a different location, it still exists and the movement traces a series of existential frames of reference in a space-time continuum. Thus, our waking state or ‘life’ in general is not like a dream as Mahayana School of Buddhists would like us to believe in their concept of Vijnapthi Matrata. A dream is more like a virtual reality that we earlier touched upon as the dream depends on the existential frame of reference of the dreamer. Thus, in my view, the reality or the objective world exists if we rein in our unconstrained philosophising. This helps us realise that we do not create what we see. We can replace Berkley’s God with existential frames of reference and experience the existence independent of our sensory inputs.

Prof. Hoffman’s book that I read with great enthusiasm was an interesting journey about ourselves. But it may not be for the travel-weary reader.

 

Darshi Arachige 5th Sept. 2017

 

Posted in Topics of General Interest | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Shroud of Turin: Where should Research Lead?

The website you are on is about the coexistence of Science and Religion. The topic of this post is about an object where Science has met Religion or rather Religiosity. The Shroud of Turin has been a very controversial object of veneration. Many devout Christians believe the Shroud to be the authentic cloth which covered the body of Jesus after the crucifixion. Some vehemently reject the Shroud as a Medieval fakery. In spite of the critics, the Shroud stands as a rallying point for the faithful. Without being sure that the Shroud is a fakery from all possible angles, shrugging it off as a fakery after some evidence to support is neither scientific nor reasonable. The paper accessible via the link below is an appeal for a sensible way forward.

ARACHIGE, Darshi. Revisiting the Analysis of 1988 Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, [S.l.], v. 4, n. 13, july 2017. Available at: <http://scholarpublishing.org/index.php/ASSRJ/article/view/3418/1932>. Date accessed: 13 july 2017. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.413.3418

This paper looks at the well known analysis of 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud from a new statistical perspective using standard statistical methodologies. The main feature of this paper are embracing of the so-called statistical outliers and considering them as useful information. The major conclusion is that despite the contrary views, the 1988 determinations stand as the most likely given the sampling method used. Thus, research effort should not be wasted on proving that the cause for recent radiocarbon dates was due to the fact that the sample tested in 1988 was contaminated. Research now should be directed at the Shroud as a whole. The paper used the software package R extensively.

Posted in Religion in General | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Correcting an Incorrect Reference

In several previous articles and posts published on this website and elsewhere on the internet, this writer  referred to the book “Cave Art” by Jean Clottes with incorrect year of publication.

The correct reference should be:

Clottes, J (2008) Cave Art Phaidon

Sincere apologies for any concerns caused by this.

-Admin

Posted in Topics of General Interest | Leave a comment

Has the Oldest Enigma of Humanity been really solved?

A review of The Oldest Enigma of Humanity: The Key to the Mystery of the Paleolithic Cave Paintings, Bertrand David and Jean-Jacques Lefrère   (Translated by M G Lynch), Arcade Publishing, New York, 2014

I bought the book by Bertrand David and Jean-Jacques Lefrère with keen interest to see how the mystery around Paleolithic Cave Paintings has been solved. The book is small and easy to read. First few chapters of the book are about Mr David’s entry to the subject. I skipped parts of these chapters to get to the content I was eager to read. I found myself to be little disappointed with the way the key idea of the book was argued for. Their idea was simple yet needed supportive evidence. Early people used figurines of animals to cast shadows on the cave walls with the help of the ‘flickering’ flames of lamps. It is known that there is an abundance of animal figurines from the Paleolithic Period. Not only figurines but also the lamps were discovered in these Paleolithic Caves. The authour himself acknowledges the difficulty of producing a traceable image using the suggested technique. “Yet no matter how many times I tried, I never managed to arrive at a helpful rule of thumb that would make it possible to consistently obtain a clear shadow, or even discernible one for that matter”p79.

If making a shadow is such a vexing task, how could the early man do it in a deep dark cave? If the lamps were burning for a long time inside the cave they should have definitely blackened the cave roof. But one can argue that they used a method that was similar to what I used to do as a child to collect the soot from oil lamps. They might have placed a shiny side of a dry bark over the lamp to collect the soot, which they in turn used to draw in black.

The authours claim that when they came up with their idea, they didn’t know about Mr Matt Gatton’s work, which shows some similarities to theirs. According to them, Mr Matt Gatton imagined that camera obscura effect might have created a ‘negative’ image of an animal on a ‘plaquette’ that Paleolithic painters used for creating its ‘positive’ image on the cave wall (p. 111). Mr Matt Gatton in a series of papers (Gatton, M (2010) Pleistocene Coalition News Vol 2 (3) May-June p4-5, Vol 2(4) July-Aug p6-7 and Vol 2(5) Sep-Oct p8-9) explained how an appropriate size of hole on the tent of Paleolithic people could act as a camera obscura (“Paleo-Camera”), which could cast inside the tent an inverted image of an animal lurking outside. This inverted image can be traced on to a surface like a paver stone some examples of which were found in the caves. The image was small and had to be transferred onto the walls of caves via a process of projection somewhat similar to Mr David’s. However, Mr David observes that these drawings on free-standing surfaces are markedly different to the cave paintings in composition. Jean Clottes in his book on cave art agrees and says, in the least in respect of one cave, “the artists who made them [sandstone plaquettes found in Les Trois-Freres] were therefore not the same ones who had access to that cave walls.” (p244 of Cave Art, Phaidon).

Furthermore, Mr Gatton’s idea seems to be somewhat convoluted for the creation of a cave art. Why do someone go through such a process when Mr David’s process is simpler. Animals are always moving and it is very difficult to imagine that they would stay quite until an artist traces the image on to some surface. Mr Gatton and Dr Leah Carreon (Gatton, M and Carreon, L (2012) Pleistocene Coalition News Vol 4 (4) July-August p1-3) uses probabilistic arguments to prove that these ancestors of ours might have seen camera obscura effect at least one per cent of the time in a day (a range of 1-8% per day). The existence of the said effect doesn’t mean a lot because observing camera obscura effect doesn’t prove that these artists used it to create the prehistoric images. On the other hand, I also believe their conclusions are confusing, to say the least. On the basis of the assumptions and deductions used to derive their probabilities they can only draw conclusions about the year not the day. Their sample space for estimating various probabilities about factors such as the weather and dwelling’s exposure to sunlight consists of the year. Thus, one should wonder how  they can interpret their final probability as chances per day. In this light, even the probability of observing a camera obscura effect should be far lower than what Mr Gatton and Dr Carreon believe, i.e. between one to eight times in a 100 year period. In the final analysis, the said probabilities don’t add much value anyway. One imaginative individual with the bright idea was very probably all that was required. The rest could be taken care of by the diffusion of innovation. Even though none of the points in the above discussion prove that Mr David’s approach is better, it makes it equally important contender. In favour of Mr David’s method, we can say that the artist didn’t have to go through the extra step of using the camera obscura effect to create a mobile art. The only trouble with Mr David’s method is adjusting the light to get the image displayed on the wall.

There are some other counter-arguments to the reasoning provided in support of Mr David’s method of creating cave paintings. One such argument is about the relative difficulty of the method in contrast to some easier ones. The early ancestors could have drawn these images on an animal hide in daylight, cut the shapes using their stone implements and used those cutouts to draw the outlines of animals inside the caves. If they had some supernatural theme associated with this practice, it would have been very easy for them to find time to perform the above task. As we know the areas where there was light, were usually avoided by these early painters. They could have done the drawing on an animal hide at the area near the opening of the cave and the finished product might have been carried inside to trace it on to the wall. Perhaps, few people held these cutouts on to the wall and others drew the outline. The painters did not need any extra light at all. Like reading Braille writing, a cutout can be easily traced even if there’s very faint light or no light at all. Let us assume that the pubescent girls lived inside these caves as a ritual practice in Paleolithic period (Reflections on Palaeolithic Cave Art, Girls at Puberty and the Origin of Religion, published in Social Science Research Network – SSRN). They had been secluded and had nothing much to do. They had all the time to draw an image on a hide, cut it out and use it to trace an image inside the cave as a collective activity.

The second argument is concerned with the ease of testing Mr David’s hypothesis. It is easy to reverse-engineer the process and work out what the distances involved and the size of the figurines required to come up with the images on the wall had to be. Did they have enough space inside the caves to do all the manoeuvres needed to get the images right? Such a process will be almost like a definitive proof of the feasibility of Mr Davis’ hypothesis and doesn’t involve all the work discussed in the book as a proof of concept. It seems strange that the authors of the book didn’t use the above scenario to build a strong case for their hypothesis.

Thus, the Oldest Enigma of Humanity sadly is yet to be solved.

Posted in Topics of Anthropological Interest | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Imagined Orders, Chains of Memories and Biographical Existence: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harrari, Harvill Secker, London 2014

(The following review is also available on-http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3JKA0SXRYPNWY/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_pdp?ie=UTF8)

When people talk about fiction they describe extremely readable fiction as ‘unputdownable’. Dr Harari’s book, though being a non-fiction, is such a unputdownable book. As he says in the acknowledgement, it may be the result of the influence of Diego Olstein who wanted Dr Harari to write a story. Whatever the cause was or whoever the owner of the guiding hand was, reading ‘A Brief History of Humankind’ was a pure pleasure. It was a treasure trove of factual information presented in an absolutely absorbing manner.

 

Imagined Order

The chapter titled ‘Building Pyramids‘ is one of the most thought provoking chapters in the book. Dr Hararis’ discussion about the imagined order is something I read with great enthusiasm. As he says myths are stronger than anyone could have imagined. As humans we build myths around us; myths about some features marking a territory on the land, myths about heroes who saved the country or the nation and so on. These myths about country, nation, religion and law etcetera are so strong we consider them as causes worthy of even sacrificing our dear lives. The power of imagined order is derived from its inter-subjectivity. Not only an individual believe in the existence of these institutions but also his or her friends and relatives equally believe. Thus, the myths become reality.

I entertain a very similar viewpoint over a long time. Early Indian philosophers of Mahayana Tradition called the world around us ‘Maya’ which is subjective reality or an illusion. They compare it to a dream. At the end of the dream, we are left with a pile of memories, which used to be so real in the dream. I believe each one of us lives in three domains. The essence of Human life is just a chain of memories[1]. Memories are the only factor which runs through the time a person lives. As Heraclitus would say, our physical bodies are in a constant flux. From a person’s point of view, every moment she lives, is a subjective memory. Through these retained memories, the person sees her existence as reality. This is also true in a Cartesian sense. Then, the same person lives in others’ retained memories. These are our objective memories. Thus, objective memories are always an externality. The third aspect is memories about our memories. Here we lose the boundary between objectivity and subjectivity. I may consider an episode from my own dream as a memory. Someone looks at a familiar photograph or recall an incident from the past. That causes a memory of a memory. Dr. Harari’s description of the imagined order is an extension of these memories. We hold the memories about the myths so dear. People around us also do the same. Then, we compare notes through their retained memories and fall in line with the myth. Memories about these memories play havoc in our minds blurring the boundary between reality and myth.

Inverted Pyramid of Memories

Due to these memories, a person lives his or her own life in three different domains. We may call the domain centred on subjective memories autobiographical existence. Then the person lives in other people’s memories or objective memories, which demarcate his or her biographical existence. The third domain is about memories of memories and builds the historical existence. I believe these three domains about our existence build the social order Dr Harari calls “imagined order”. Like genes, in Dr Richard Dawkins’ terms, for our memories the bodies are just vehicles. That is why we inadvertently see history is just the extended existence. Why did I write about the social structures and the structures we build on personal level? What is the relevance? This simply shows that one’s life is an inverted pyramid of memories, which is so fragile and deserves no genuine right to wage war or suppress others on the grounds of the imagined realities. This is not an invitation to a world without war but to a world more introspect and circumspect.

Dr Harai also makes this point very clear in the chapter about Empires – Imperial Visions. He tells us that societies are more complex than what they seem to be. Many a time Empire builders plundered the riches of the subjugated people and laid the land to waste. But then trough the ashes of the old people and culture, another group of people and social structures emerge. Dr Harari provides many examples from the history. But his contribution lies in his argument about reciprocity between the victors and the vanquished. The new orders, which emerge absorb many aspects from both parties. Then after a while the newly emerged societies like the Modern Indians who still adore the remnants of the British Raj, immerse in the new imagined order. New imagined order is not about the forgotten memories. It is all about the retained memories reinforced by the daily experiences. As Dr Harari justifiably points out the modern Indian Nationalists who point fingers towards the havoc caused by the British Occupation, have forgotten that some of the things hold so dear by them are simply the remnants of the old raj. Their fight is about some mixed-up retained memories.

Science and Mathematics

But I regret Dr Harari’s total commitment to the infallibility of Science and Mathematics. However precise these endeavours are they are not infallible. The defence is that science is a learning process based on our acceptance of ignorance. That is very true. But the downside is that science is fast becoming a dogma. We are scared of religion as it prescribes what reality is or should be. We question when a human being from long ago tried to convince that there is a creator God. But no one question us when the physicists insist that the universe resulted from a singularity-destroying Big Bang. Perhaps, as Dr Harari claims, the difference arises from the fact that, we can see no mathematics in the Bible or the Quran. Thus, the religion has no basis to exist. Here, I do not intend to justify religion. But I wonder mathematics is a sufficient and necessary condition to justify a point of view. Wright brothers simply built an aeroplane to prove that man can fly.

I always believe that the languages of Science, namely, Logic and Mathematics, are human inventions and thus, may prove fallible at times. This is not due to the method itself but mainly due to the priories and assumptions on which the method builds on. Thus, there is some likelihood that these too may not be means to absolute truth. On the other hand, there are people who come up with theories with no mathematical arguments. Take Darwin for an example. Apart from Theory of Evolution, he argued that the man had to arise in Africa due to the presence of many big Apes there. As far as modern ideas go, he is right. Another example comes from another biologist. As Prof John Maynard Smith says in ‘Did Darwin get it right?‘, in proposing Selfish Gene Hypothesis, Prof Richard Dawkins didn’t use any mathematics. On the other hand, a very mathematical arguments are not always right. As Prof Roger Penrose points out in the chapter on ‘The quantum particle‘ of ‘The Road to Reality‘ great physicist Schrodinger himself was worried that his equations couldn’t describe the quantum jumps or the state change between particles and waves. Even in case of Statistics, we only see a way of formalising our views of nature. Probability is just an explanation of reality. We only see one realisation of an ensemble of possibilities. We cannot explain why an unbiased coin flip resulted in a Head rather than a Tail at specific point in space and time. We can only talk about the long run outcome. Thus, Mathematics and Logic only can provide a basis to understand the natural world. As we all know, E=mc2 doesn’t tell the universe how the matter and energy should behave. It is just an explanation for the observed behaviour of the matter and energy. But this explanation, for Humankind, opened up a new universe of possibilities.

Thus, in my view, science is just a formalised process to systematically acquire knowledge and mathematics is a universal language to articulate and formalise our views about such knowledge. As Professor Penrose points out with regard to quantum mechanics, the mathematical formalism tells us nothing about an actual quantum reality of the world. Most of us agree that it is wrong and unethical to spread unconfirmed views about the universe and our existence for personal or collective gain; be it religion or science. It is also wrong to subjugate alternative views simply because they do not fall into the accepted fold of ideologies. My view is that it is wrong to subjugate ideas not aligning with my own perspectives by forming schools of thought to exert power and influence. Dr Harari touches upon this point when he talks about research funding. If the ideas are wrong prove them to be so using logic and with same respect and let them die a natural death. Let the science be lit by the spark from the clash of ideas rather than be overshadowed by a gloomy mist of powerful voices and strong prejudices.

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in understanding who we are and what we have become as a species.

[1] Buddhists would prefer a train of thoughts to a chain of memories. This fleeting existence is momentarily true. But, in retrospect, we only retain our memories about our thoughts. Please also note my comparison of Maya to a dream in this instance is not entirely accurate. Mahayanists rather view life as a dream.  

Posted in Topics of General Interest | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Short Note on Paradoxes Associated with Venus Figurines

Summary

 In this note few common paradoxes about the Paleolithic figurines and Cave paintings will be discussed and the reconciliation of these seeming paradoxes within the seclusion-of-girls-at-puberty framework will also be explored.

Current version of the file is available at: Humanities Common

 Introduction

There are some well-known paradoxes surrounding Prehistoric Venus figurines and the cave paintings from the Paleolithic period. A well-known contradiction is about the obesity embodied in the figurines and the actual body shapes of the women who lived in those prehistoric times. Another contradiction is about the inconsistencies between fertility and obesity. Third paradox is about the sites around the dwellings where these figurines were uncovered. Another interesting fact pointed out by the anthropologists is that the Cave artists painted animals that they usually wouldn’t hunt or wish to increase[1]. Are these contradictions insurmountable? This doesn’t seem to be the case when looked at these contradictions in the light of puberty rituals for girls.

Fat Figurines and Slender People

 The figurines depict women who are obese. But in reality, as many scholars believe, “women were fat more in male fantasy than in reality”[2]. The estimate is that less than 25% of women at most were obese[3]. Similarly, it is believed that the women in prehistoric times were relatively slender as they had very active life[4]. It is also said that deducing that the prehistoric women were obese by looking at the figurines is like working out the shape of the modern women through the works of Picasso[5],[6]. Then why do we have the Paleolithic Venuses representing obese females? How can we explain away this paradox? One very plausible answer is offered by the seclusion of girls at puberty. As a practice of initiation, the females at puberty were secluded. For an example, via long-term isolation, eating and inactivity, they could have put on weight. One can argue that these figurines were made just as work of art and had no other meaning. But why, then, should these artists and artisans mainly show obese women without face and feet? Convergence of all figurines to the above form is very likely to share a deeper meaning.

The fatness of women represented by the figurines is very widely discussed and many authours are quick to point out that the fatness represents fertility. But this poses another contradiction. As Arachige (2009) pointed out previously, the fertility can be adversely affected by fatness and this was known to historic societies at least as evidenced by the historical reference to the fact[7]. In modern medical research, it is known that increasing obesity reduces the fertility[8]. According to these authours, the obesity and the insulin resistance that usually occurs with the onset of excessive fat are associated with various issues such as menstrual dysfunction, anovulation and miscarriages[9].

Another interesting paradox is about the locations these figurines were uncovered. According to scholars these figurines were not discovered inside Paleolithic caves. They were found outside the caves and shelter walls[10]. Were they representing the ones living inside the caves?

Arachige [14] proposed that the secluding girls at puberty could be associated with the caves. Thus, if the above proposal holds some water, the Venus figurines might be representing the secluded females, perhaps, the special ones among them. May be that they are the women with true shamanic powers or like a Goddess associated with the practice of seclusion. This is not a totally ludicrous idea. Note that the analysis of burnt material from the lamps found from the Puits at Lascaux, showed Juniper charcoal and resinous conifer suggesting the early use of perfume burning[11]. This is a significant comment from an archaeologist of renown. Does this indicate the possibility of prolonged stay inside the caves where odour had to be minimized? However, we know that in the caves the people did not engage in daily activities such as cooking and eating[12]. Is this an insurmountable contradiction faced by the idea linking the girls at puberty and Prehistoric Cave Paintings? It is not easy to conclude whether it is or it isn’t. However, it is obvious that the paintings might have taken hours of work. There is evidence that the artists used lamps. The opinion that the artists used scaffolding, at least, at Lascaux is hinting at a long-term stay inside the caves[13]. It may also be possible that the numbers inside the caves never had been large and thus, the middens were not formed. There is also the possibility that the daily refuse was collected and taken outside due to hygienic reasons arising from the long-term use of the caves. Burning perfume is a good reminder about their understanding of the acceptable odours, which also indicates their sophistication. There is no reason to believe that even these prehistoric people enjoyed smell of putrid food, especially if the place had some religious underpinning. On the other hand, we don’t know whether food was consumed outside among the rest of the group even though the prolonged stays were allowed inside the caves.

However, in the light of the material discussed in Arachige[14], the above paradoxes should not be insurmountable to ignore the possibility that the secluded girls at puberty used the caves.

Animal Paintings and Animals for Food

Many scholars wonder why the animals painted by the Paleolithic people and the remains of animals they might have hunted differ[15]. Why should they wish to even increase the population of dangerous animals including felines, which they might not have usually eaten, using sympathetic magic of painting them[16]? Is there really a big contradiction here? From a mere logical perspective, there is no cause for concern. Big cats, horse, bison and mammoth are big animals. If we consider the climate in these prehistoric times, we know Europe was in the last ice age roughly between 10,000 years and 100,000 years ago. It is deduced using various methods such as ice core data and pollen studies, that the fluctuations of the temperature during the ice age were prevalent. However, near the last Glacial Maximum in Eurasia, people usually lived below the latitude 60 North. The ancestors of modern humans who had to survive temperatures colder than the present occupied area near the Pyrenees Mountains in Europe. The northern Europe suddenly became subject to what is called Bolling warming around 14,500 years ago. However, it is only around 10,000 year ago, the benign climate took hold in Europe[17]. Cold climate could have made the caves cold. If the speculation about seclusion of girls inside these caves of some merit, then these cave inhabitants might have been suffering from cold climate harsher than ours. For these girls, heaven would have been one filled with animals whose fur coats and animal fat could provide warmth to their cold-stricken bodies. As we know these Paleolithic people also used animal hides to build their tents. In general, in a cold climate the people might have been more concerned about the warmth as much as the food. This can easily explain why we find big animals whose depiction is more common in those prehistoric caves. The hides last longer and hence the number of animals killed and the quantity of remains left behind had to be smaller. Even though modern humans didn’t leave many records to suggest that they hunted big animals as much as Neanderthals did, they also might have loved the larger hides for less stitching they had to do. In this light, Abbé Henri Breuil’s suggestion of sympathetic magic lives on.

Our ancestors might have started drawing long before the cave paintings started to appear. The little kids at the beach today draw with a stick with no guidance from adults. Rudimentary drawing might have come naturally to us as a species. Later, this natural talent might have developed into a sophisticated skill. Like pottery, this could have been the domain of women who would stay back at the dwellings and looked after the children. The Paleolithic people might have used tree barks, animal skins, soft soil or sandy surfaces to draw. This is especially true if the cave art had some ritualistic meaning. Due to awe of the unknown, these ancestors of ours might have only allowed proficient artists to draw on the walls. Drawing might have come naturally. The only shift that took place with the emergence of cave art was very likely the use of cave walls along with the other surfaces.

As seclusion took hold due to some cultural shift, the secluded women had so much free time on their hands. They might have started drawing animals as a pastime or ritualistic chore. The definitive reason may never be known. As I suggested in a previous post[18] these girls might have drawn the outline of animals on hides and then prepared the cut-outs during the daytime at the entrance to the caves or at night time in the light of lamps burning animal fat at the entrance area where there are signs of more habitation. Then the finished product might have been taken inside the cave to trace the outlines. Note the fact that some of the handprints are based on tracing the outlines. Thus, this is not an unknown technique to these prehistoric artists.

As we know from the evidence left, about 12,000 years ago, cave art disappeared. One possible reason is the disappearance of the cultural need to seclude girls in caves. Another reason may be the arrival of warmer climate in which the attraction of big animals as providers of warmth became less important. It is unlikely that secluding girls disappeared straight away. But warming climate might have accelerated the gap emerging between seclusion and drawing animals on cave walls.

Conclusion

Even if the modern scholars haven’t acknowledged the possibility of the connection between the Venus figurines, cave paintings and the ritual of secluding pubescent girls, the latter rituals seem to explain away the contradictions as discussed in this note.

 Cite this note as:

Arachige, D (2015) A Short Note on Paradoxes Associated with Venus Figurines, www.thelureofnoma.com

 References

[1] p47, Lewis-Williams, D. (2002) The Mind in the Cave, Thames and Hudson

[2] p343. Guthrie, R. D (2005) The Nature of Paleolithic Art, The University of Chicago Press.

[3] ibid

[4] Trinkaus, E (2005) The Adiposity paradox in the middle Danubian Gravettian, Anthropologie, XLIII/2-3.p263-271

[5] p111. Aczel, A. D (2009) The Cave and The Cathedral, John Wiley and Sons Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey

[6] Leori-Gourhan, A (1967) Treasures of Prehistoric Art, Abrams, New York

[7] For relevant references, see Arachige, D (2009) Paleolithic Venuses and The Puberty Rites, www.thelureofnoma.com

[8] Mitchell M, Armstrong D.T, Robker R.L, Norman R.J (2005) Adipokines: implications for female fertility and obesity. Reproduction; 130: 583–597

[9] See above.

[10]. p240. Pike-Tay, A (2001) Perigordian, in Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Vol. 4, Europe, ed by P.N. Peregrine and M. Ember, Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers, New York

[11] p43. Scarre, C (1998) Exploring Prehistoric Europe, Oxford University Press

[12] p240. Pike-Tay, A. (2001)

[13] p43. Scarre, C 1998, Exploring Prehistoric Europe, Oxford University Press

[14] Arachige, D (2015) Reflections on Palaeolithic Cave Art, Girls at Puberty and the origin of Religion, www.thelureofnoma.com

[15] p23 Clottes, J (2008) Cave Art Phaidon

[16] p47, Lewis-Williams, D. (2002) The Mind in the Cave, Thames and Hudson

[17] Chapter 2 and 3, Burroughs, W. J, Climate Change in Prehistory, Cambridge University Press, 2005. Chapter 5, Hoffecker, J.F, A Prehistory of the North, Rutgers University Press, 2005. In Dordogne region were some of the well-known caves are located, people had lived even during the Last Glacial Maximum around 29000 years ago

[18] Has the Oldest Enigma of Humanity been really solved?, www.thelureofnoma.com, published on 30-05-2016 (Also available at: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3I08ZW5H3LJ64/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1628723211)

(This blog post was first published on 02 Dec 2015. Minor language edits were done on 11 Apr 2019)

Posted in Seclusion of Girls at Puberty | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Constructal Law, Feedback Mechanism in Evolution and the Challenge of Selfish Genes – An Opinion

I stepped into a little bookstore to buy a book to read on the train.  The choices were very limited. After tossing a few eye-catching titles up in my mind I finally decided to buy one of them. That book was “Design in Nature” by Adrian Bejan and J. Peder Zane and published by Doubleday, 2012. Undoubtedly, it proved to be one of the most thought provoking books I ever bought. It was about the concept of Constructal Law formulated by Prof. Bejan and colleagues about the limited design choices available in Nature. It took some reading before I could understand what the Constructal Law is all  about. In essence, it tells us that Nature follows the path of energy efficiency and thus, limits the choices available for flow systems. For an example, a fast flow needs a longer path than a slow flow requiring a short distance. Big streams are wide and deep while the small ones are narrow and shallow. Larger athletes swim and run faster. According to the authours, flight of the birds, the running of an athlete and the floating of a swimmer are guided by the same set of rules. Despite broadness of its definition or not having a proper definition for that matter, the Constructal Law encapsulates a very intuitive truth about our daily experiences. Various people using different concepts in the past such as the path of least resistance or maximizing energy efficiency attempted to explain limitation in design choices in Nature. The authours brought all the past explanations under one term Constructal Law.

In many ways, the Constructal Law as stated by the authours can be construed as the Nature’s attempt to balance opposing forces to ensure the most energy efficient path. In case of fast flowing water on the surface, there is a match between the flow and the resistance of the soil. The result is branching off of the original flow. We can call this the path of least resistance. This is not very different from the hierarchies the authours talk about. Social hierarchies represent the dynamic structure imposed by the Nature. One chief needs many subordinates under him or her. Then these subordinates need more people under them for efficient functioning. Large research groups occur in large universities and individual researchers based at small universities would find a balance by moving towards the large groupings (p220).

Unfortunately, I felt that in some situations, the authours tried too hard to fit too many systems into their worldview. For an example, they looked at tree canopies in terms of water uptake by the tree (p.142). This led to their conclusion that the branches of a tree are arranged in a spiral in order to maximize the flow of water. But we can equally argue that it was the maximization of the absorption of sunlight that was far more important to the tree. Sunlight is only available during the day and thus, maximum utilization of it should be logically far more important to the plant than the maximizing water flow which still can happen when there is a humidity potential. Thus, it may not be a matter of flux but a Nature’s way of maximizing energy efficiency.

Even if the Constructal Law exerts its influence on the evolutionary choices, the contingencies Stephen Jay Gould talks about in “Wonderful Life” still applies; the path of the evolution might have taken a different twist despite the fact that the choices are limited by the Constructal Law (p.77). As an example, evolution didn’t have to produce humans. It could have had a different ending depending on alternative set of chances and the evolutionary path chosen.

However, there are few important implications of Constructal Law, which change the way we look at the theory of evolution. According to the authours, all flow systems, over time, should evolve into designs that facilitate their movement (p124). The evolution is about modification in design that has a predictable direction (p102). Thus, at least at an intuitive level, the design constraints imposed by the Nature should have accelerated the evolutionary process. But according to current theory of evolution, the natural selection had to try possibilities the Nature wouldn’t allow. A blind process wouldn’t know until it tried what is allowed and what isn’t. Thus, based on usual arguments, all possible phenotypic expressions of alleles can arise and only the suitable designs can survive. Unfortunately, given the design constraints, this is a very energy-inefficient process. Thus, Constructal Law hints at the possibility of linking a feedback mechanism into Modern Synthesis. As Constructal Law shows, the Nature is trying to do the maximum with the least effort. Nature, in other words, looks for the energy efficient path[1]. Thus, to prevent unnecessary trials and costly errors, Nature has the option of using feedback to confine the selection to a small set of choices. The challenge for us is to find the mechanism underlying such a feedback loop. In higher mammals at least, a feedback loop through conscious selection can happen.

However, the possibility of such a mechanism seems to challenge the selfish- gene hypothesis. The feedback is very unlikely to be conducive to the cause of a gene desperately trying to maximize its chances of survival. The feedback should be about the organism or the vehicle, not the gene or the replicator. As an example, let us use a thought experiment. If an organism is short, all the other features within that organism should work in tandem to provide the overall energy efficiency. But it still has all the genes that produce its taller siblings. Thus, by some conscious process, let us assume that, the shorter mates are preferred by shorter organisms and the gene frequencies drift towards shorter version. So this conscious process of mate selection can be true for many animal species, at least for them, natural selection is not really natural. For an example, human brain development, according to various anthropologists, was impacted by autocatalytic process of mate selection[2]. Thus, the whole organism with its genes working in tandem will be selected. Thus the unit of selection is not one replicator but a collection of replicators working in tandem; rather the vehicle[3] . Design, in short, is a feature of the entire organism not the gene itself as the design by definition in this case applies to the organism or a part thereof. If the design is mal-adapted to the environment, then the organism should go extinct. Thus, the genes also perish. They perish not because they didn’t try to maximise the inclusive fitness via replication but they failed to produce the suitable design for the vehicle by working in tandem. Given the very high possibility of existence of a law limiting the possible choices in flow systems, the organismic view of evolution has the upper hand. Even though Prof. Bejan and colleagues are trying to show none of the views on evolution, apart from the predictability of design choices, shall feel the impact of design constraints, it is somewhat unlikely that they can succeed. But, on the otherhand, why shouldn’t they challenge the modern views on evolution as science only can progress through establishing facts and Laws rather than fighting over theories?

I highly recommend “Design in Nature” by Bejan and Zane for anyone who is interested in reading something stimulating.

[1] This reminds me about my own view of evolution based on energy efficiency. (Appendix , The lure of NOMA, On the elegance of religion, Ocean Publishing, 2009)

[2] See the article on this web site about cranial capacity data

[3] If you are so adamant, you still can argue that it is the gene not the vehicle.

 

(Also available on-http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3JKA0SXRYPNWY/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_pdp?ie=UTF8)

Posted in Topics of General Interest | Tagged , , | Leave a comment