Humanities desk
< February 4	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 5

Question about Stonehenge

There is something I've always wondered about Stonehenge, but no one can seem to answer it. What I'm wondering is this: what is so damn great about it? I mean, it's nice collection of rocks... must have been hard lugging those around... but still, it's just a bunch of rocks. It's not the Great Pyramid of Giza or anything. Some people say it's because it's so old, even ancient! But come on, they were building far more impressive ziggurats in Sumer half a millenium earlier. I think it's very strange that so many people worship this thing that isn't all that impressive, when down in the fertile crescent there was a whole civilization, with writing and taxes and churches and dynasties and things. So again; why is Stonehenge so damn famous? 83.250.192.118 04:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a pretty impressive effort, considering it was not the Egyptians or Sumerians who did it. Like when your kid does a fingerpainting. Edison 04:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it some sort of clock, with rock from far away, and large rocks laid on top of pillar-like rocks, which is harder to explain than ramps for pyramids? Personally, I agree though. I don't see much in Stonehenge. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Stonehenge is famous to some extent because it isn't entirely clear exactly what it was used for - not knowing why it was built adds to the allure, particularly as humankind seems driven to produce explanations and causes for everything we encounter. Our article also touches on another topic, which is the otherworldly feeling that many vistors experience (even those who, like myself, are skeptical of the mystical, etc.).

There is also a case to be made for ethnocentrism, but I'm not entirely sure that I want to go down that road...Carom 06:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that those lovely pieces built elsewhere were done through the support of enormous civilisations with impressive organisation and drive. Not only did some stone age group build Stonehenge, they've disappeared without trace. This wasn't built by afterthought, but with considerable forethought over centuries. Sci fi writers would not write such a script, because it is too strange. DDB 06:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm saying! Why is this collection of stones more interesting than the enormous civilizations with the impressive organization and drive? It doesn't make any sense! I would make the case for ethnocentrism, I think it's a slam dunk. It's deplorable, really. 83.250.192.118 12:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right - there is really nothing that great about stonehenge (I agree and don't get why it gets so much publicity - TV programs etc). There's a lot that's good or interesting about it though - looks nice on postcards etc. One of the reasons for it's fame amongst other megalithic structures is it's obvious organised structure - most other megaliths just look like stones in a field - in some cases it's difficult to tell that they were actually man made - stonehenge however is obviously man made. It's also a source of pride to british/european people - who maybe couldn't give a shit about what some jews or arabs have built in the middle of a desert - there are many reasons..it's overhyped - because it's an obvious visual symbol.87.102.8.103 11:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to make a related point about the pyramids etc - why so many books/TV programs.. There's practically a different TV program on the pyramdids every day - yet the story is always the same - big rocks, big pyramid, lot of people, primitive tools, dead guy, stars.. Once would be enough yet every TV company seems to think that they simply must make another program about the Pyramids - whilst the rest of civilisations accomplisments go completely unfilmed - why?87.102.8.103 12:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. More documentaries on ancient China, the middle-east and and the Olmec people (even though we know basically nothing about them, it's more than we know about the henge-people). 83.250.192.118 12:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an American, I was wondering what all this fuss was about. But it just occurred to me that Stonehenge might get a great deal of media and textbook attention in Britain. It does not get such attention in the United States. Most Americans have probably heard of it. It is after all one of the most ancient monuments in the world. However, it does not get the same degree of attention in the United States as the Egyptian pyramids or the Great Wall of China. The pyramids and the Great Wall are covered in our textbooks; Stonehenge generally is not. To me, Stonehenge does seem worthy of the same kind of attention that is given to other very old monuments that were engineering feats in their time and place, such as the heads of Easter Island, Macchu Picchu, and the Mayan temples. I think that this is about the degree of attention that it gets in the United States and probably in other countries outside of Britain. Marco polo 16:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avebury Henge and Village

It's mostly those people from Avebury that go around trash-talking Stonehenge :-). Seriously, the interesting part for many of us is the "why" aspect: Why were all these various, obviously-related megalithic structures built? What purposes were they used for?

Atlant 17:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always blamed gypysies or bored farmers - if I find one on my land - I'll blow it up.87.102.8.103 17:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from Irish Traveller "...suggests that Travellers habitually defraud their neighbours, demanding high prices for substandard day labor" - would that form the basis of an explanation?87.102.8.103 17:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although less well known beyond the British Isles, Stonehenge does seem to be part of the "canon" of wondrous ancient ruins. Why? Because it is an impressive feat of engineering for the culture that probably left it: small communities without writing, unlike the great empires of antiquity. Because it is visually striking and easy to recognize. Because of the astronomical information it contains--solstice alignments, at minimum. An astronomer, Gerald Hawkins, proposed a theory that it was evidence of sophisticated astronomical knowledge, and that it was a solar eclipse calculator among other things. His theory has been challenged, but it received alot of attention, not least because he used a computer to analyze possible alignments. At the time he wrote (1960s), doing anything with a computer was a real novelty to the general public. Katherine Tredwell 02:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used to be very impressed with it until I saw that a guy named Wally Wallington can do the same thing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFROMx0 65.94.5.169 22:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rate of Ink Usage in Quill Pens

This is an art question, not a humanities question, but it seemed to fit better here than Miscellaneous.

When writing with a quill pen, how much ink (by volume) is consumed per unit written? (page, line, word, any useful measure.) Wikipedia pages on pens and ink give a lot of good information, but I couldn't find this. Gnfnrf 05:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find I write about five hundred a4 size papers for each pen I use .. just an approximation. I estimate 10ml of ink per pen. These are ball point (naturally). Quill's probably use more ink because they are useful for art, as well as writing ;) DDB 06:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, quill pens use more ink. But how much more? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Gnfnrf 22:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I searched a bit but found nothing conclusive for quills. Several variables that also affect the rate of ink consumption are the width of the quill, the paper's absorptive qualities, the writer's touch (stronger or softer), and the ink's viscosity (which also depends on the temperature). ---Sluzzelin 22:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disimbursement of loans in India

--Tshireen 06:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to figure out whether I am an Australian citizen or British. I was born in 1959? or 1961 in Madang on Karkar Island. It was known then as New Guinea and I believe under the British New Guine? a subject of british colony. Now Papua New Guinea. Since PNG Independence my parents remained as British Subjects until there their death. Does that mean that are British citizens. If so am I also a British citizen.

You would be best to contact the British High Commission, Kiroki Street, Port Moresby for an answer to that question. Go with Birth Certificates, Passports for yourself and your late parents. --Trieste 13:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British laws are quite complex on the issue. British subject and British citizen are not the same legal category. And where you were born on New Guinea makes a difference for eligiblity for Australian citizenship - see Australian nationality law#Papua New Guinea. If Madang was in the Territory of Papua, there is considerable difficulty as the issues regarding Australian citizenship are legally unsettled. Rmhermen 16:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yakshi concept ,Kerala,India

Sir,

I am journalist. Now I want to write about the origin of Yakshi concept in Kerala.It is a myth but investigating the origin is an interesting subject.If you can give me maximum details. my e-mail:(email address removed) faithfully sunil —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.17.221.175 (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've removed your email address. Questions are not answered by email - please see the guidelines at the top of this page. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 17:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difference

Sir, Can you please tell me Difference between Mirzae and Ahmedi according to our Islam Religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.160.8 (talk • contribs)

This isn't a computing question, so we won't be able to help you here on the Computing Reference Desk, but the Ahmedi and Mirza articles may be of some help. Wikipedia in Arabic may also have some details. --h2g2bob 14:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this from Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#difference 87.102.8.103 15:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage engagement in non-Western cultures?

Our article on engagement is very Western-centric. Does anybody have any information to add to it from other traditions, religions or cultures?--Sonjaaa 17:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betrothal--Wetman 18:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arranged marriage Clarityfiend 00:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Child marriage, cousin marriage (although the article itself is also highly Western and doesn't mention engagement.) Rmhermen 16:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blockage

hi. im jesse king. i'd like to know how long i will be blocked on this sight from editing articles? just out of curiousty?Jk31213 19:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask at the Wikipedia Help desk rather than the Reference desk. But I do not see that you are blocked. Why would you think that you are? You had a vandalism warning last June, but no current block. Edit away. Edison 00:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the Wikipedia:Blocking policy page for more info. - Akamad 01:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you were blocked, you wouldn't have been able to ask this question. Please direct questions about Wikipedia to the help desk. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myths

I'm having a lot of trouble thinking of 'original source' or as close as possible of different mythologies (i.e. The Prose Edda, Metamorphoses, etc.) What are some? 64.198.112.210 20:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having trouble figuring out what your question is. Perhaps you should try rephrasing it more clearly. Loomis 01:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find the closest possible things to primary sources for different world mythologies. Examples would be the Prose and Poetic Eddas, Ovid's Metamorphoses, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, The Mabinogion...and there I fail at thinking of more. I need to make this list bigger. 71.220.127.97 03:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homer's Iliad & Odyssey? --The Dark Side 03:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost any ancient text would fit the bill. Think of the text related to the culture. Gilgamesh? Zoroastrianism must have something. Ireland has Cúchulainn. I'm sure China and India have stuff, eg Baghavad Gita. Australian Aborigines famously talk of the dreamtime.

However, first stories are as easy to locate as first cities. They predate writing. DDB 05:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible contains many "myths" common to other cultures such as that of Noah and the great flood. Yet "myths", by their very nature, tend to have no commonly agreed upon origin. Whether the Bible account is the "primary source" is anybody's guess. Loomis 13:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how about this: I would like the names of books that contain as true as possible translations of ancient texts of myths, rather than 'retellings'. 64.198.112.210 15:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the you're probably going to need a Time Machine. Before the Printing press all literature was copied by hand, allowing for accumulated errors, and often the outright changing of important story elements (for example, Judaeo-Christian versions of earlier myths would always 'correct' the number of gods referenced in the story), it has only been since relatively recently that the idea of respecting the original author's intentions have come about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.80.32.8 (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

OK, you guys don't seem to get this. I know I'm not going to get originals. I want the oldest possible source, except I don;t read any ancient languages, so I want close translations of ancient/old texts. I know it can be done; I have copies of some. I mentioned a few above. 64.198.112.210 17:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you'd like reliable translations of Ovid's Metamorphoses, the Prose Edda, and other old sources for myths. For Greek myths, here's a book review of a book that at least contains pointers to the earliest original sources for Greek myths. You'd find it useful once you got the hang of following the references to those sources in translation. Homer is our very oldest source; to get as close as possible to the Greek, read Richmond Lattimore's translation of the Iliad and Odyssey. The Loeb Classical Library contains virtually all the Greek and Latin authors on whom our knowledge of Greco-Roman mythology depends, usually in fairly literal translations. So that's getting pretty close. For the Prose Edda, there is a full translation published in 1987 by Anthony Faulkes (ISBN 0460876163). For a pretty good translation into English poetry of Ovid's Metamorphoses, try Melville's polished version in the Oxford World Classics (ISBN 019283472X), or Martin's for something more colloquial and Ameriacn (ISBN 039332642X). (If you want everything in plain & literal prose, again, go for the Loebs.) Wareh 18:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest surviving mythology is probably the Sumerian, for which the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature is a good online source. I think the Inanna/Dumuzid poems are particularly interesting. For Greek myths the oldest source is probably Hesiod's Theogony and the so-called Homeric Hymns. For Hindu myths, try the Vedas. sacred-texts.com is a large collection of mythological and legendary texts that you may find useful and interesting. --Nicknack009 20:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Boccaccio's "Genealogia deorum gentilium"

I see in the Wikipedia article on Giovanni Boccaccio information on this in relationship to meeting Petrarch in 1351: Although unsuccessful, the discussions between the two were instrumental in Boccaccio writing Genealogia deorum gentilium — the first edition was completed in 1360 and this would remain one of the key reference works on classical mythology for over 400 years. Translated into English? Is there a list of mythology names this involves someplace? Did Petrarch and Boccaccio work on this together then? Did these two work together on other works also? Did Giovanni Boccaccio work with Petrarch on Petrarch's epic poem Africa about the Second Punic War and Scipio Africanus?--Doug ^talk 21:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can get a sense of the work, especially the names it mentions, by consulting the original, even if you don't know Latin. It's available online here (PDF) and (HTML) and probably easiest to search via here. As far as I know, all that's been Englished is Boccaccio on poetry: being the preface and the fourteenth and fifteenth books of Boccaccio’s Genealogia deorum gentilium in an English version with introductory essay and commentary by Charles G. Osgood (Princeton Univ. Press 1930, reprinted in the Library of Liberal Arts, Bobbs-Merrill, 1956). Wareh 01:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for those leads, I will follow up on that. --Doug ^talk 11:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I found procommunist resources about the establishment of East Germany??

Where can I found procommunist resources about the establishment of East Germany?? Partiuclary I'm looking for information about grasroot campaings and the redistribution of Juker lands. --Jacobin1949 22:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you want current resources or contemporary to the establishment? 惑乱分からん 22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to find, but aside from histories published in German in the GDR, there is the illustrated English-language Difficult years bear fruit, published in East Germany. If you read German, there are many more possibilities. Marco polo 23:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you read Russian, I'm sure you'd find much more. Loomis 23:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to identify a painter

Hi, good Wikipedians

I'm trying to remember the name of a painter, who I'm pretty sure is a man. I think he was mostly active around the 1950's. Unfortunately I don't know the titles of any of his paintings, but I'm hoping if I describe a few someone might be able to point me in the right direction.

His style is realistic, but slightly caricatured, the faces, expressions and poses somewhat stretched or exaggerated

I think one of his most famous paintings is Thanksgiving themed, with a whole family gathered around and somebody bringing a turkey to the table

Another one, from just after the Jim Crow laws were overturned depicts a black girl walking to school looking very proud, and a egg smashed on a wall behind her.

The other one I remember has a girl with a black eye and a kind of dopey grin sitting outside a principle's office at school.

As I recall a lot of his images featured children and/or family settings.

Sorry if this isn't much to go on, but any help would be appreciated. Much thanks :) --Cryptess 22:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must be thinking of Norman Rockwell. ---Sluzzelin 22:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! Thats him. Many thanks ^_^ --Cryptess 22:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

superbowl 41 2007 pregame show

Apparently, the pregame show featured the "Elements of Life Orchestra" featuring vocalist "Anane." Does anyone know the name of the actual song/composition that was performed? dr.ef.tymac 00:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals and The Law

Is vandalising of Wikipedia covered by the UK computer misuse act and analogous laws of other countries?

Incidentally, if someone punches me in the face, and I don't want to press charges, they can get away with it whereas if someone murders me, if I'm not mistaken, they are charged regardless of my wishes - is there a name for the distiniction of two offences in the respect of whether or not the victim may decide whether or not the offender should be subject to justice? --Seans Potato Business 03:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your second question, you are referring to the difference between the civil and criminal sides of the law. If you want to "press charges" against someone for punching you in the face, you are bringing a civil action against that person. Under the criminal law, the government brings charges against the offender. As you noted, usually this is for a crime of serious public concern (murder being a good example). However, I believe the state could still press criminal charges against the person who punched you in the face, regardless if you wanted to press charges on your own, if it really wanted. However, limited resources mean that lesser crimes such as this are rarely prosecuted. GreatManTheory 12:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what GreatManTheory was referring to with the civil/criminal distinction, but the term "press charges" has an interpretation that has nothing to do with any kind of civil/criminal distinction. The interpretation you seem to be referring to in your question has more to do with whether you want to *help* the government to pursue criminal charges against someone, which is a factor they may consider when deciding to whether to prosecute. Another factor is the seriousness of the criminal charges (Battery vs. Homicide in the example you gave). Even in cases of Homicide, the government may opt not to prosecute (for example in a plea bargain). In some jurisdictions, an action against you may constitute a both Crime and a Tort, which is where the "civil/criminal" distinction may arise, but this has nothing to do with the definition of "press charges" that you seem to be asking about. DISCLAIMER dr.ef.tymac 15:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is my understanding that the criminal/civil distinction is very appliable in the present situation. If the government wants to bring a criminal charge for battery, homicide, or any other crime, it does so on behalf of the people (as in the community), and not on behalf of the victim. Thus, whether the victim wants to see the person punished or not is not legally binding, although I'm sure it is a factor in the decision making. Of course, the willing help of the victim is helpful in obtaining information, but it is not required. The goverment can always force the victim to testify if necessary. However, if the person wants to bring a tort action against someone for battery, he would file a civil action against the offender. In this case, it is the individual bringing the case, and not the government and so the individual himself makes the final and only decision on whether to proceed with the case. And yes, "press charges" can mean either a civil or a criminal suit, but I didn't see that as the crux of the question. GreatManTheory 19:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lint on the television

I've tried googling it but I have had no luck. I distinctly remember a "shocking moment" in which the president at the time, Lyndon Johnson, picked a piece of lint off Lady Bird's dress on national television. I remember that it embarrassed her greatly and that she told the story for decades afterward (probably how I heard about it). Can anyone give more insight into it and tell me if it's of use to cite in the trivia section of their articles? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lint picking pales in comparison to showing reporters his surgical scar or licking his dog up by the ears. I would not even mention lint picking. Edison 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"licking his dog up by the ears"? Surely that's grounds for impeachment.137.138.46.155 14:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culture and the internet

what might be the ramifications of the hypertext on culture? The hypertext transforms a text, which no longer has a set meaning, but how can we look upon a text as a unit when it is led into different directions by "links". There are no authors any more(in the sense that nothing new or amazing can come from an online publication), only writers and users, most of whom do not write very well. What is the future for culture when it is being degraded as it is? Also, does anyone know of any idea of where we are headed with the hypertext? What's next? Thank you for any comments on this you might have, it would be greatly appreciated. Henry Adams —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.124.63 (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I disagree with your comments that "there are no authors any more" and that "nothing new or amazing can come from an online publication". I have come across many things new and amazing online, and there are many authorial voices. Bloggers, especially those with a broad following, are an example of this. I am also not sure that culture is being "degraded". It is true that the internet allows many to publish without meeting the quality standards typically required by print publishing. But there are also people online who do meet those standards. I think that what we have instead with the internet is a migration of conversational culture into a (sometimes poorly) written format and forum. While the quality of the discourse is often not up to the level that might have been found in an edited and printed magazine, there is a compensating advantage in that a much greater number of people are able to participate actively as producers and not just consumers of content. This has allowed a degree and volume of exchange and cross-fertilization that did not exist in the days before the internet and that, in my opinion, has enriched global culture. Marco polo 14:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, plus I would put fourth that MTV, or reality television are far more damaging and degrading to culture than the internet could ever be. Cyraan 16:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response- very helpful. Please consider that the author I was thinking about was the person who writes a set text, and that text is left to be as it was- hence, he has an identity that cannot be changed, apart from by the individual reader at the time of reading(who might add his own interpretations, personally). With the internet, however, the author writes a piece and it is taken apart by anyone who wants to add to it, links that move away from the original text, and other online pieces. Because of this the author's identity is changed by the other authors online. The hypertext does not allow the text to remain static for long enough for the readers own interpretation. Clearly, the significance of this on culture (and difference between individual cultures)is effected on the global scene. Any thoughts? Henry Adam

Your analysis seems to rely on a shaky and debatable premise: the notion that "fixed" text is somehow the historical antecedent to "hypertext," and that the encroachment of the latter is somehow influencing the definition of "authorship," which depends on the "fixity" of print media. This premise shaky because: 1) traditional print media already has many examples where the definition of 'authorship' is not trivial or obvious (see e.g., Bible, Work_for_hire); 2) print media are subject to revision, republication, redaction, sometimes even *requiring* frequent and unpredictable change (see e.g., West American Digest System); 3) some philosophers and scholars would debate there even *is* such a thing as the "fixity" that you imply in your premise (see e.g., Deconstruction, Operationalization). Just some thoughts, I hope this question was not a substitute for doing homework ;) dr.ef.tymac 15:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Henry, the same complaints were made in the early part of the age of print, in the rise of popular culture in the 19th century, and over and over again in the 20th century. Certainly in my youth, I heard the same complaints about TV and commercial arts. If you take "meaning" to mean "reference", then texts have never had set meanings. If you take "meaning" in the Derridean sense of internal structures of opposition, then texts have always had an indeterminate number of meanings open to exploration. Consider the constant process of discovering and rediscovering different meanings in the works of Shakespeare - a process that has been unquestionably fruitful and productive, and has gone on for several centuries. This undermines any claim that a lack of set meanings is something new. I don't see how hypertext is ever going to change any of that.

And there most certainly are authors. Postmodern authorship is perhaps more explicitly about repurposing other works than in the past - it is maybe more aware of its self-referentiality than in past ages. I like to use Quentin Tarantino's films as examples, but it's a pervasive phenomenon across not only the arts, but practically all text production. Blogs are almost a trivial example. But greater self-awareness is really about all that's changed. It's not as if the fact of repurposing and self-referentiality have changed, merely our awareness of it. Shakespeare's plots and characters were old when he stole them, and any theory of culture that dismisses the Bard for unoriginality or denies him genuine authorship is boldly going nowhere.

As for the "degradation of culture" - that's been a line used against novelty in media since... I don't know, isn't there some kind of bitching about the degradation of culture somewhere in Plato? Egads, if there's been a time in the history of man when there haven't been complaints about the degradation of culture I'm hard pressed to think of when it might have been. Most writers suck. Most writers have always sucked. If you think authors of the past were better than those today, it's because the sucky authors of the past are forgotten, not because they didn't exist. Access to writen media is more democratic these days, so more people are able to become authors. But limited access to media in the past didn't mean that only the best authors had access to it; more often, it kept the most original works from gaining distribution in favour of mediocrity. At least the present offers more works a chance at distribution.

If I were to put my finger on some real change that hypertextuality is bringing to text production, I would look at the way it undermines social cognition by segmenting informational ecologies and restoring a type of communitarianism that people in the 19th and 20th centuries worked very hard to abolish. And, remakably, it is able to do so without ever challenging the hierarchial and undemocratic structure of western culture and media. Blogs, and other micromedia like the Washington Times, mean that any news story you read is spun a dozen or a hundred different ways into radically incompatible different texts, and then redistributed among people who use them to reinforce existing cognitive structures within their communities. A New York Times article on how the war in Iraq is going badly becomes an indictment of the President in one community, while in another community it's just more proof of how the "liberal media" is losing the war. The importance of texts published in the Times is never questioned, but their significance is impossible to ascertain. The same applies not only to news, but to popular culture. Is South Park about liberal values or conservative ones? Has the show ever taken a discernable stance on anything? Or The Simpsons? Or The Sopranos? It depends on whose blogs you read.

I would suggest that the future of culture is therefore the construction of still more limited, hierarchial, undemocratic and information-poor mass media, along with a vast system of writers and rewriters, constantly reconstructing and repurposing its output, until people who try to become well-informed about issues are even less well informed than those who make no effort at all. Ultimately, it means the restoration of a culture of bad information reinforcing bad social structures, just as existed before the liberal revolutions of the 19th century. The reduction in international correspondents in the major media, the increasing use of wire articles and pre-packaged news texts from outside sources, the consolidation of the media in the west - these are all phenomena that would fit such a theory because they turn major media outlets into little more than big budget bloggers, commenting and rewriting rather than seeing and reporting.

Of course, it may not turn out that way. There is some evidence of a contrary trend as well. The most popular shows on American TV are - for the first time in my life, if not the first time ever - routinely the best, most original and most intelligent shows on TV. Even film is slowly improving. Those media are every bit as hyperlinked as the web - The Sopranos is as hyperlinked as any blog, just chock full of references to Mafia and cop films and other media. People do seem capable of recognizing sources of creativity and information. This change hasn't yet reached the news media, or print at all much. But it may yet be coming. --Diderot 15:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diderot, merci de vos points, ils clarifient beaucoup pour moi. Mais que tout cette parole au sujet d'originalité ? La culture contemporaine s'amuse avec le repitition et l'intertextuality- mais où ce fil nous ? Combien de couches doivent là être avant que ce tout devienne inaccessible et unoriginal. Et vous êtes un traducteur ? L'Internet peut vous mettre hors des affaires avec ses fonctions immédiates de traduction ! Quelle, en effet, est une bonne traduction ? Henry Adams

Yes, thanks Diderot for the excellent discussion, and thanks Henry Adams for your question. Could you please keep discussions on this page in English though? It helps maintain the continuity of the "text" and also makes it possible to search and find your question in the future if anyone else has the same or similar questions later. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 17:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and while I am (or at least was) a professional translator, I'm a much better writer in English than in French, so I'm going to stick to answering your questions in that language - not to mention that it makes the conversation more accessible. And I'm a specialist in machine and computer aided translation doing a doctorate in computational linguistics, so I know a lot about that subject, and no, there is no chance the Internet will put an end to the business of translators.

Yes, contemporary culture amuses itself with repetition and intertextuality, and at so many layers of remove, the original substance is often at quite a great distance from the media consumed. However, this stems from a very different source than hypertextuality or any new media. Media is - and always has been - a consumable product. The public has never been content with a handful of great, unchanging classics that are recirculated over and over again. As far back as the classical Greeks, we see the emergence of not especially original plots and characters, used over and over again. People want and will pay a great deal for new cultural texts even where there's precious little originality in them. The arts as an industry have always responded to this demand. Repetition and intertextuality are the backbone of the business of the arts - a multibillion dollar industry that brings more colour into people's lives every day than all the religions of the world combined. One of the functions of text production - one of its most legitimate and necessary functions - is bringing that kind of colour and feeling into people's lives.

Even if we were to do as the Marxists always suggested and abolish capitalism and with it abolish the text as a commodity, this need still would exist every bit as much in a post-capitalist society as the need for food and shelter. Demand for texts as consumable products far, far exceeds the capacity for original production. A social order must exist to meet that excess. Hypertextuality has changed none of that. Indeed, one of its most interesting properties is that it places in the people's own hands the means for text production. Postmodern text production is, in a very limited sense, a kind of Marxist economy of abundance. There is no monopoly on the means of production, and the result is enormous surpluses beyond the capacity to consume. That is one of the great changes of the age, but as I highlighted, it has a downside that should be obvious to any economist: inflation, the collapse of value, and an informational and cultural version of Gresham's law where bad texts chase away the good, and a reduction of people's text consumption to a few "junk foods" like Fox News.

But if you step away from the idea of originality and see text production as meeting social needs, the importance of hypertextuality fades away. Repetition, intertextuality, commentary on commentary on commentary - all of this is designed to meet demands and none of it represents much of a difference from the past.

As for what constitutes a good translation... a lot of ink and occasionally a bit of blood has been spilled over that topic. I am inclined personally to a sort of Marxist conception of practice as being at the root of meaning. A text is communicative when it produces the intended effect, and learning to do that in one's native language is challenge enough. A translation is the same. The only question is whose intention is should guide the judgment. This was always a burning question for Bible translators - that answer for them was God, but God's intent was always hard to agree about - and a lot of modern translation theory takes its cues from the Bible translators. In a strict sense, since I hold to a somewhat modified version of Derrida's theory of meaning (which he always attributed to Saussure) I would judge a translation on the basis of its maintenance of the original structure of oppositions within the text. Under realistic circumstances, however, this can be a poor guide for a lot of reasons that I haven't the space to go into. --Diderot 19:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romans

What Roman presented a treatise that philosophically pointed to the existence of God monotheistically? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gowillitay (talk • contribs) 13:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Augustine of Hippo? Or do you mean Roman as in "born in Rome"? Should be plenty of examples. Pfly 16:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucretius seemed pretty monotheistic. Lisiate 23:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC) - Actually scratch that the article implies he's more of an atheist. Lisiate 23:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Italian or Roman? Thomas Aquinas was Italian and came up with some of the most pertinent arguments for the existence of a monotheistic God.

Any sort of era we're looking at here? There have been a lot of Romans! Is this, for instance, BCE? Russia Moore 00:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 February 5

Contents