(paghat) wrote in
news
Also field studies have shown these animals can become befuddled by
changes in landscape. Salamanders can become confused and never find
their way back to their traditional breeding ponds if they have to
cross farmland that was for years plowed south to north, but then one
year is plowed east to west, implying some visual & landmark
recognition for these local migrations. Snakes too, finding their

This sounds kind of hokey. I wouldn't think amphibians would have keen
eyesight at all. If anything I would guess they are myopic to suit their
amphibious nature. I would guess it's more likely they're following a
narrow chemical trail that if heading N-S would be not be much affected by
plowing N-S (same chemicals but on different places on the trail), but
would be dispersed willy-nilly by E-W ploughing.

singly or in small clusters. There is no reason they MUST den en
masse, & the only thing that makes their situation difficult to adapt

Actually, being cold-blooded, they would freeze to death if alone. But
like any living animals, are at least 80% water and have good heat
retention. Underground in in sheltered area, on ground with high thermal
resistivity, with friends to share heat loss, give them a good chance of
making it to the spring.

too familiar to frighten us as they should. Yet if a totally harmless
& even beneficial garter snake wiggles out in front of us, it's
instantly "omigod what the hell is that get me a sledge hammer!"

I dunno paghat, there is something aboriginally evil about snakes. What is
the essence of a snake? Primally, a snake is just a mouth connected to a
body, well adapted to a life of consumption and seemingly ill suited
towards any act of creation. You may recognize that some politicians (or
even ordinary people) bear a striking resemblance.

That said, I'd sooner whack a politician than a harmless snake.

Add to that the pure destructive meanness of omnivores for which
anything that exists, whether it can move or can't move, is fair game
for destruction, & the only reason we don't stuff it all in our mouths
after it's mashed is because the microwave oven is more than fifteen
steps away & we're already stuffed with McGreasy Burgers & pizzas,
just like that well-fed pitbull won't stick around & eat the child it
just mauled to death.

I don't think there is anything intrinsicly 'mean' about omnivores.
However, people, if you subscribe to evolutionary theory or psychology,
operate on different levels. Brutes. fearfuls and children who don't know
any better will always attempt to fight or flee. Technology, giving man
superior power, emboldens him to fight, while population pressures removes
most options to flee. Otherwise, there is the third option, clearly not
popular, and not even clearly better, so it stands; make the bed you sleep
in.

- ST

In article , Salty Thumb
wrote:

(paghat) wrote in
news
Also field studies have shown these animals can become befuddled by
changes in landscape. Salamanders can become confused and never find
their way back to their traditional breeding ponds if they have to
cross farmland that was for years plowed south to north, but then one
year is plowed east to west, implying some visual & landmark
recognition for these local migrations. Snakes too, finding their

This sounds kind of hokey. I wouldn't think amphibians would have keen
eyesight at all.

It IS remarkable, but that's the prevailing theory. I know from my own
animals that eyesight is not a problem for amphibians. For my tiger
salamanders & european fire salamanders, when I look at them, they turn
their faces to my face & look me eye to eye. When I hold up a worm or a
cricket, they rush to the front of their terrarium to take it from me,
even when seen outside he glass. They're clearly responding by site.
Whether their pond-homing instinct which can extend for several miles is
judged by sighting landmarks is unprovable, but the prevailing hypothesis,
since changes in the landscape confuse them on their journeys. And a
salamander's idea of (or response to) a landmark might be wildly different
from yours or mine.

If anything I would guess they are myopic to suit their
amphibious nature. I would guess it's more likely they're following a
narrow chemical trail that if heading N-S would be not be much affected by
plowing N-S (same chemicals but on different places on the trail), but
would be dispersed willy-nilly by E-W ploughing.

Well that at least is an alternative hypothesis beyond the idea of
landmarks. I'm not sure how it would be observably proven wrong or right,
so it's an interesting optional possibility at least, not one I've seen
expressed in any of the literature, but that a hormonal Thaang is also
going on to trigger these newt, salamander, & toad "marches" en masse to
their breeding pools is likely (though the breeding responses are
triggered by temperature & degree of wetness, & can be triggered out of
season artificially by manipulating temperature & apparent rainfall).

singly or in small clusters. There is no reason they MUST den en
masse, & the only thing that makes their situation difficult to adapt

Actually, being cold-blooded, they would freeze to death if alone. But
like any living animals, are at least 80% water and have good heat
retention. Underground in in sheltered area, on ground with high thermal
resistivity, with friends to share heat loss, give them a good chance of
making it to the spring.

Since their bodies generate no heat (pythons excepted -- they do have a
little-understood body-warming mechanism & have even been observed
regulating egg temperatures with their bodies, rather like broody hens),
snakes certainly wouldn't warm each other up. The possibility of masses of
snakes cooling down more slowly might explain why old dens do become
increasingly populated until some include thousands upon thousands of
snakes. They do also shelter singly or in small numbers, however, very
effectively. Some garter snakes can even be frozen solid & thaw out in
spring perfectly all right, yet they cluster in dens by the thousands --
so their ability to survive freezing seems to have little to do with
mass-denning behavior practiced by snakes of many species that share few
other behaviors in common.

too familiar to frighten us as they should. Yet if a totally harmless
& even beneficial garter snake wiggles out in front of us, it's
instantly "omigod what the hell is that get me a sledge hammer!"

I dunno paghat, there is something aboriginally evil about snakes. What is
the essence of a snake? Primally, a snake is just a mouth connected to a
body, well adapted to a life of consumption and seemingly ill suited
towards any act of creation. You may recognize that some politicians (or
even ordinary people) bear a striking resemblance.

For some people, that response is to cats, though to me a fear of kitties
is absurd. For others, its to rats, which are so much like small puppies
in their intelligence & loving behavior, that too seems irrational to me.
I happen to have that response spiders, even knowing that in my region at
least, none of them can kill me -- logically knowing they're largely safe,
I've still never gotten over the jerk-away response when surprised by a
big spider, & dislike picking them up even on reflection. This is true for
me only of "running" brown spiders -- I find nothign at all scary about an
orb spider, which get in my hair when I accidentally walk through their
webs & give me none of the fear response I get from a hand-like spider
running out from a dark place. So fear of one style of spider makes sense
to me because I "feel" it & I suppose fear of cats makes sense to people
who feel that. I have never found snakes anything but beautiful & easy to
handle, though I've never wanted to handle rattlesnakes, & on a herp
society outing to eastern washington to investigate rattlesnake dens,
passed on the chance to handle them though they seemed calm enough, safely
manipulated, & no great danger. I didn't even have the sinking feeling of
fear I get from a big running spider, but I just felt no particular reward
in taking a chance with the rattlers either. If there is a survival value
to these seemingly random fears -- that in some people can become a
cripping phobic response to such things as shirt buttons or feet -- then
it's a value that has gone all haywire in the process of evolution & is
not because there's any real reason to fear little kitties or shirt
buttons OR snakes.

Yet there is very little snake-mythology that is entirely devoid of an
element of fear -- even Chinese serpent mythology which assumes a profound
nobility is also edged with powerful authority -- so though it makes
little sense to me, it's clear that it is indeed much more common to be
scared to death of snakes than of shirt buttons.

That said, I'd sooner whack a politician than a harmless snake.

Add to that the pure destructive meanness of omnivores for which
anything that exists, whether it can move or can't move, is fair game
for destruction, & the only reason we don't stuff it all in our mouths
after it's mashed is because the microwave oven is more than fifteen
steps away & we're already stuffed with McGreasy Burgers & pizzas,
just like that well-fed pitbull won't stick around & eat the child it
just mauled to death.

I don't think there is anything intrinsicly 'mean' about omnivores.

When you see vegetarian gorillas delicately handling & admiring small
animals in the wild with curiosity & affection but never harming them (as
captured on nature shows), then compare that to omniverous chimps wacking
the same beasties & fighting over the pieces, our own omniverous behavior
in wrecking everything we encounter in nature seems indeed an omniverous
trait. That some of us have the same delicate adoring responses to
wildlife that gorillas have, while others can't imagine going on a walk in
the woods without a rifle to kill something, suggests that it is a range
of behaviors, & in more primitive times this range likely resulted in
specialized behaviors within an extended social order, just as is true in
our more "civilized" social order that requires specific skills &
specialization to make a living.

Most animals are attentive mainly of what they can eat, or what can eat
them, & ignore everything else. As omnivores there's not much that fails
to capture our attention, whether a little mushroom that doesn't move or
an antelope that runs like hell -- even a bear that might try to eat us we
have to eat it first. Grab it, mash it, shove it in your mouth before
someone else shoves it in theirs, no matter what it is. Bugs! Yum!

However, people, if you subscribe to evolutionary theory or psychology,
operate on different levels. Brutes. fearfuls and children who don't know
any better will always attempt to fight or flee. Technology, giving man
superior power, emboldens him to fight, while population pressures removes
most options to flee.

Territorial restrictions for many human populations occurred even in low
population areas, wherever it was not necessary to travel distances to
find food or to follow wild herds or feed domestic herds. People stay put
if they can; "specialists" transport goods between the settled
communities. Here in the coastal Northwest & along the Columbia river,
tribes were often restricted in their wanderings with very well defined
territories, food being so plentiful nothing encouraged nomadism or a need
to cross territories of other tribes (with a very few special exceptions
of the Klikitat inland festival of all tribes, or the "casino" tribe at
the mouth of the Columbia that invited all other tribes to visit duruing
the salmon runs (& did not themselves capture salmon because they ran the
gambling concessions instead, so that some of the visiting fishermen went
home with none of the fish they'd caught).

Technology is an explanitory advantage only if one regards the cleverness
in chasing buffalos off a cliff a "technological," or digging a hole too
big for a mammoth to get out of, the shovel being the extent of that
technology. But as toolmaking or tool using has turned out not to be
exclusive to humans, I'm not sure technology is the overriding factor.
That we've taken it vastly farther than other species of tool-users seems
to be to our DISadvantage, unless supplanting all of nature with concrete
really does have some long-term advantage for our species as we warm up
the planet, melt the polar caps, toxify our immediate environment, drive
all other species to extinction, eradicate all forests, & by means of
rapid travel introduce new terrible diseases into our populations with
increasing regularity. I've a sneaking suspicion that when technology has
run its course, we'll have killed ourselves.

-paggers

Otherwise, there is the third option, clearly not
popular, and not even clearly better, so it stands; make the bed you sleep
in.

- ST

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , Salty Thumb
wrote:

(paghat) wrote in
news
Also field studies have shown these animals can become befuddled by
changes in landscape. Salamanders can become confused and never find
their way back to their traditional breeding ponds if they have to
cross farmland that was for years plowed south to north, but then one
year is plowed east to west, implying some visual & landmark
recognition for these local migrations. Snakes too, finding their

This sounds kind of hokey. I wouldn't think amphibians would have keen
eyesight at all.

It IS remarkable, but that's the prevailing theory. I know from my own
animals that eyesight is not a problem for amphibians. For my tiger
salamanders & european fire salamanders, when I look at them, they turn
their faces to my face & look me eye to eye. When I hold up a worm or a
cricket, they rush to the front of their terrarium to take it from me,
even when seen outside he glass. They're clearly responding by site.
Whether their pond-homing instinct which can extend for several miles is
judged by sighting landmarks is unprovable, but the prevailing hypothesis,
since changes in the landscape confuse them on their journeys. And a
salamander's idea of (or response to) a landmark might be wildly different
from yours or mine.

If anything I would guess they are myopic to suit their
amphibious nature. I would guess it's more likely they're following a
narrow chemical trail that if heading N-S would be not be much affected
by
plowing N-S (same chemicals but on different places on the trail), but
would be dispersed willy-nilly by E-W ploughing.

Well that at least is an alternative hypothesis beyond the idea of
landmarks. I'm not sure how it would be observably proven wrong or right,
so it's an interesting optional possibility at least, not one I've seen
expressed in any of the literature, but that a hormonal Thaang is also
going on to trigger these newt, salamander, & toad "marches" en masse to
their breeding pools is likely (though the breeding responses are
triggered by temperature & degree of wetness, & can be triggered out of
season artificially by manipulating temperature & apparent rainfall).

singly or in small clusters. There is no reason they MUST den en
masse, & the only thing that makes their situation difficult to adapt

Actually, being cold-blooded, they would freeze to death if alone. But
like any living animals, are at least 80% water and have good heat
retention. Underground in in sheltered area, on ground with high
thermal
resistivity, with friends to share heat loss, give them a good chance of
making it to the spring.

Since their bodies generate no heat (pythons excepted -- they do have a
little-understood body-warming mechanism & have even been observed
regulating egg temperatures with their bodies, rather like broody hens),
snakes certainly wouldn't warm each other up. The possibility of masses of
snakes cooling down more slowly might explain why old dens do become
increasingly populated until some include thousands upon thousands of
snakes. They do also shelter singly or in small numbers, however, very
effectively. Some garter snakes can even be frozen solid & thaw out in
spring perfectly all right, yet they cluster in dens by the thousands --
so their ability to survive freezing seems to have little to do with
mass-denning behavior practiced by snakes of many species that share few
other behaviors in common.

too familiar to frighten us as they should. Yet if a totally harmless
& even beneficial garter snake wiggles out in front of us, it's
instantly "omigod what the hell is that get me a sledge hammer!"

I dunno paghat, there is something aboriginally evil about snakes. What
is
the essence of a snake? Primally, a snake is just a mouth connected to
a
body, well adapted to a life of consumption and seemingly ill suited
towards any act of creation. You may recognize that some politicians
(or
even ordinary people) bear a striking resemblance.

For some people, that response is to cats, though to me a fear of kitties
is absurd. For others, its to rats, which are so much like small puppies
in their intelligence & loving behavior, that too seems irrational to me.
I happen to have that response spiders, even knowing that in my region at
least, none of them can kill me -- logically knowing they're largely safe,
I've still never gotten over the jerk-away response when surprised by a
big spider, & dislike picking them up even on reflection. This is true for
me only of "running" brown spiders -- I find nothign at all scary about an
orb spider, which get in my hair when I accidentally walk through their
webs & give me none of the fear response I get from a hand-like spider
running out from a dark place. So fear of one style of spider makes sense
to me because I "feel" it & I suppose fear of cats makes sense to people
who feel that. I have never found snakes anything but beautiful & easy to
handle, though I've never wanted to handle rattlesnakes, & on a herp
society outing to eastern washington to investigate rattlesnake dens,
passed on the chance to handle them though they seemed calm enough, safely
manipulated, & no great danger. I didn't even have the sinking feeling of
fear I get from a big running spider, but I just felt no particular reward
in taking a chance with the rattlers either. If there is a survival value
to these seemingly random fears -- that in some people can become a
cripping phobic response to such things as shirt buttons or feet -- then
it's a value that has gone all haywire in the process of evolution & is
not because there's any real reason to fear little kitties or shirt
buttons OR snakes.

Yet there is very little snake-mythology that is entirely devoid of an
element of fear -- even Chinese serpent mythology which assumes a profound
nobility is also edged with powerful authority -- so though it makes
little sense to me, it's clear that it is indeed much more common to be
scared to death of snakes than of shirt buttons.

That said, I'd sooner whack a politician than a harmless snake.

Add to that the pure destructive meanness of omnivores for which
anything that exists, whether it can move or can't move, is fair game
for destruction, & the only reason we don't stuff it all in our mouths
after it's mashed is because the microwave oven is more than fifteen
steps away & we're already stuffed with McGreasy Burgers & pizzas,
just like that well-fed pitbull won't stick around & eat the child it
just mauled to death.

I don't think there is anything intrinsicly 'mean' about omnivores.

When you see vegetarian gorillas delicately handling & admiring small
animals in the wild with curiosity & affection but never harming them (as
captured on nature shows), then compare that to omniverous chimps wacking
the same beasties & fighting over the pieces, our own omniverous behavior
in wrecking everything we encounter in nature seems indeed an omniverous
trait. That some of us have the same delicate adoring responses to
wildlife that gorillas have, while others can't imagine going on a walk in
the woods without a rifle to kill something, suggests that it is a range
of behaviors, & in more primitive times this range likely resulted in
specialized behaviors within an extended social order, just as is true in
our more "civilized" social order that requires specific skills &
specialization to make a living.

Most animals are attentive mainly of what they can eat, or what can eat
them, & ignore everything else. As omnivores there's not much that fails
to capture our attention, whether a little mushroom that doesn't move or
an antelope that runs like hell -- even a bear that might try to eat us we
have to eat it first. Grab it, mash it, shove it in your mouth before
someone else shoves it in theirs, no matter what it is. Bugs! Yum!

However, people, if you subscribe to evolutionary theory or psychology,
operate on different levels. Brutes. fearfuls and children who don't
know
any better will always attempt to fight or flee. Technology, giving man
superior power, emboldens him to fight, while population pressures
removes
most options to flee.

Territorial restrictions for many human populations occurred even in low
population areas, wherever it was not necessary to travel distances to
find food or to follow wild herds or feed domestic herds. People stay put
if they can; "specialists" transport goods between the settled
communities. Here in the coastal Northwest & along the Columbia river,
tribes were often restricted in their wanderings with very well defined
territories, food being so plentiful nothing encouraged nomadism or a need
to cross territories of other tribes (with a very few special exceptions
of the Klikitat inland festival of all tribes, or the "casino" tribe at
the mouth of the Columbia that invited all other tribes to visit duruing
the salmon runs (& did not themselves capture salmon because they ran the
gambling concessions instead, so that some of the visiting fishermen went
home with none of the fish they'd caught).

Technology is an explanitory advantage only if one regards the cleverness
in chasing buffalos off a cliff a "technological," or digging a hole too
big for a mammoth to get out of, the shovel being the extent of that
technology. But as toolmaking or tool using has turned out not to be
exclusive to humans, I'm not sure technology is the overriding factor.
That we've taken it vastly farther than other species of tool-users seems
to be to our DISadvantage, unless supplanting all of nature with concrete
really does have some long-term advantage for our species as we warm up
the planet, melt the polar caps, toxify our immediate environment, drive
all other species to extinction, eradicate all forests, & by means of
rapid travel introduce new terrible diseases into our populations with
increasing regularity. I've a sneaking suspicion that when technology has
run its course, we'll have killed ourselves.

-paggers

Otherwise, there is the third option, clearly not
popular, and not even clearly better, so it stands; make the bed you
sleep
in.

- ST

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

I personally am not afraid of any animal, reptile, insect, or whatever with
the exception of the two legged kind. I do have a healthy respect for
anything which might bite me and do damage or make me ill, so I watch what I
pick up or walk through.

Shell

(paghat) wrote in
news
landscape confuse them on their journeys. And a salamander's idea of
(or response to) a landmark might be wildly different from yours or
mine.

That's true.

Since their bodies generate no heat (pythons excepted -- they do have
a little-understood body-warming mechanism & have even been observed
regulating egg temperatures with their bodies, rather like broody
hens), snakes certainly wouldn't warm each other up. The possibility
of masses of snakes cooling down more slowly might explain why old
dens do become increasingly populated until some include thousands
upon thousands of snakes. They do also shelter singly or in small

My thinking is that while they won't generate any heat, they will
gradually lose some of the heat they brought with them. However, with a
bunch of snakes at the same temperature, the heat transfer will be slow.

numbers, however, very effectively. Some garter snakes can even be
frozen solid & thaw out in spring perfectly all right, yet they
cluster in dens by the thousands -- so their ability to survive
freezing seems to have little to do with mass-denning behavior
practiced by snakes of many species that share few other behaviors in
common.

I heard about that, didn't remember until you mentioned, though. I
dunno, they may come out of it alive, but I imagine it can't be too good
for them. At any rate I still think the survival chances are better en
masse. I mean (if you're the snake) who knows when it'll be warm enough
to thaw out. You'd be like, oh shit here's a badger thinking 'snake
popsicle' play dead play dead. Wait, I can't move.

For some people, that response is to cats, though to me a fear of
kitties is absurd. For others, its to rats, which are so much like
small puppies in their intelligence & loving behavior, that too seems
irrational to me. I happen to have that response spiders, even knowing

I guess I have the same type of aversion towards insects. I'm not really
scared of them, but I'll be damned if I'll let one touch me. The only
insects I'll willingly touch are mosquitoes and only to crush them. I'll
also attempt to flick houseflies to hell with my fingernail if I can
sneak up on one. Other pests I'll have to use gloves or some other
indirect method.

Yet there is very little snake-mythology that is entirely devoid of an
element of fear -- even Chinese serpent mythology which assumes a
profound nobility is also edged with powerful authority -- so though
it makes little sense to me, it's clear that it is indeed much more
common to be scared to death of snakes than of shirt buttons.

I'm not that familar with Chinese serpent mythology, only "Legend of The
White Snake", but the rest seems to cast snakes unfavorably. There's
also some Greek myths favorable to snakes, not sure I remember then
correctly, but one is Aesculapius (the physician) getting the "gift of
tongues" by having snakes lick his ears. There's also the episode in
the Iliad where Lacoon (?) and his kids (?) get eaten by giant serpents
at the altar. Good if you're a Greek, not so good if you're a Trojan.

When you see vegetarian gorillas delicately handling & admiring small
animals in the wild with curiosity & affection but never harming them
(as captured on nature shows), then compare that to omniverous chimps
wacking the same beasties & fighting over the pieces, our own
omniverous behavior in wrecking everything we encounter in nature
seems indeed an omniverous trait. That some of us have the same

hmm, I've seen some of the shows you might be talking about, especially
with Jane Goddall and some of her chimpanzee studies. But I keep
thinking about bonobos (but I don't know if they are omnivorous, but
being nearly identical to chimps I would say so). The shows I've seen
make bonobos out to be the hippies of the animals world. Additionally,
pandas are omnivorous, and while they can go mental on you, seem to be
content to sit around. Still more, adolescent elephants, clearly
herbivorous, have been known to kill rhinoceroes for no good reason
(Cynthia Moss). When they brought in some older elephants to serve as
role models, the rhino killing stopped. There are some other examples of
elephants going on rampage, but those acts seem more retributive than
wanton.

Technology is an explanitory advantage only if one regards the
cleverness in chasing buffalos off a cliff a "technological," or
digging a hole too big for a mammoth to get out of, the shovel being
the extent of that technology. But as toolmaking or tool using has
turned out not to be exclusive to humans, I'm not sure technology is
the overriding factor. That we've taken it vastly farther than other
species of tool-users seems to be to our DISadvantage, unless
supplanting all of nature with concrete really does have some
long-term advantage for our species as we warm up the planet, melt the
polar caps, toxify our immediate environment, drive all other species
to extinction, eradicate all forests, & by means of rapid travel
introduce new terrible diseases into our populations with increasing
regularity. I've a sneaking suspicion that when technology has run its
course, we'll have killed ourselves.

Well that's the rub. Technology gives people power to do things that
they could not every possible hope to accomplish by themselves. But
eventually when Mephistophles comes to Faust for payment, things will
have come full circle.

- ST

In article , Salty Thumb
wrote:

(paghat) wrote in
news
Yet there is very little snake-mythology that is entirely devoid of an
element of fear -- even Chinese serpent mythology which assumes a
profound nobility is also edged with powerful authority -- so though
it makes little sense to me, it's clear that it is indeed much more
common to be scared to death of snakes than of shirt buttons.

I'm not that familar with Chinese serpent mythology, only "Legend of The
White Snake", but the rest seems to cast snakes unfavorably. There's
also some Greek myths favorable to snakes, not sure I remember then
correctly, but one is Aesculapius (the physician) getting the "gift of
tongues" by having snakes lick his ears. There's also the episode in
the Iliad where Lacoon (?) and his kids (?) get eaten by giant serpents
at the altar. Good if you're a Greek, not so good if you're a Trojan.

The majority of really ancient snake mythology seems to shift around the
idea of the serpent as an emissary of a cthonic goddess, later in
antiquity sometimes also of a god, & this cthonic divine serpent has rule
over all diseases. This means serpents cause diseases, but also that they
cure diseases. Many Semitic goddesses were depicted wrapped in a serpent,
& the Greek maenads kept them as pets & "wore" them in their hair as
symbols of terror & of Cybele. The naga divinities (cobras) of India cause
& cure diseases, in service of such goddesses as Sitala or Kali. The
bronze serpent-idol of Moses did the same; it was worshipped for a long
while, into the time of kings even within the Temple, being a
personfication both of poison & of the antidote. Asclepios's serpent is of
that kind & Mose's rod-serpent & Asclepios's caduceus probably have a
common origin; Christians have said this serpent was a precursor to Jesus
on the cross, but I have to admit I've never entirely got that one; I bet
the association of Jesus as Serpent came about because Jesus as a deity
resembles Attis the adopted son of Cybele (& son of the virgin nymph Nana,
impregnated by an almond), Cybele having been one of the greatest of the
mothers of snakes in antiquity.

In China the royal lineage was represented by a five-direction dragon
which is mainly a long snake-body with tiny legs & whiskery goat-head, &
most of its mythology is positive, but in an awesome way intended to
frighten & instil subserviance to the royal family. A similar serpent was
tamed by Kwannon (who as Benten in Japan is commonly depicted as riding on
this serpent). It ofen represented storm & chaos in the sea or in the
heavens, but was a powerful ally when it submitted to a divine power. Some
"legged" serpents are presumed to predate Eden when the legs were lost
because the serpent was so sneaky & had finally to go upon his belly. The
serpent Tiamat represented chaos, & is still around in Greek myth when
Zeus wrestles with it; in the book of Job, God tames this very Leviathon &
puts her on a thread for little girls to play with. Innana possessed a
serpent that lived in the roots of the haloopa tree, probably the same
tree that had the Golden Apples of the Sun guarded by a great serpent in
its roots, & again the same as the serpent/labyrinth that represented Gaea
as source of all life & source of all death.

-paghat the ratgirl


Technology is an explanitory advantage only if one regards the
cleverness in chasing buffalos off a cliff a "technological," or
digging a hole too big for a mammoth to get out of, the shovel being
the extent of that technology. But as toolmaking or tool using has
turned out not to be exclusive to humans, I'm not sure technology is
the overriding factor. That we've taken it vastly farther than other
species of tool-users seems to be to our DISadvantage, unless
supplanting all of nature with concrete really does have some
long-term advantage for our species as we warm up the planet, melt the
polar caps, toxify our immediate environment, drive all other species
to extinction, eradicate all forests, & by means of rapid travel
introduce new terrible diseases into our populations with increasing
regularity. I've a sneaking suspicion that when technology has run its
course, we'll have killed ourselves.

Well that's the rub. Technology gives people power to do things that
they could not every possible hope to accomplish by themselves. But
eventually when Mephistophles comes to Faust for payment, things will
have come full circle.

- ST

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

"Salty Thumb" wrote in message
...
(paghat) wrote in
news

snip


I guess I have the same type of aversion towards insects. I'm not really
scared of them, but I'll be damned if I'll let one touch me. The only
insects I'll willingly touch are mosquitoes and only to crush them. I'll
also attempt to flick houseflies to hell with my fingernail if I can
sneak up on one. Other pests I'll have to use gloves or some other
indirect method.


I got a really neat handheld bug zapper that works great on flies and
mosquitos. Doesn't work too good on wasps though just makes em mad.

Shell

I got a really neat handheld bug zapper that works great on flies and
mosquitos. Doesn't work too good on wasps though just makes em mad.

Shell

If it looks like a short handled badmitton raquet try new batteries ,
mine fries yellow jackets at once.

Cool, I will definitely change the batteries. I'm allergic to bees
and wasps and several other stingers. I've been seeing a lot of wasps
lately so there must be a nest near by. I got one for everyone in the
family

Shell

On 11 Sep 2003 06:49:11 -0700, (Beecrofter) wrote:


I got a really neat handheld bug zapper that works great on flies and
mosquitos. Doesn't work too good on wasps though just makes em mad.

Shell

If it looks like a short handled badmitton raquet try new batteries ,
mine fries yellow jackets at once.

I got a really neat handheld bug zapper that works great on flies and
mosquitos. Doesn't work too good on wasps though just makes em mad.

I have one, and a friend who comes over loves to use it.

It was rather entertaining when he swung at a mosquito and managed to smash his
glass full of wine....

(paghat) wrote in
news
The majority of really ancient snake mythology seems to shift around
the idea of the serpent as an emissary of a cthonic goddess, later in
antiquity sometimes also of a god, & this cthonic divine serpent has
rule over all diseases. This means serpents cause diseases, but also
that they cure diseases. Many Semitic goddesses were depicted wrapped
in a serpent, & the Greek maenads kept them as pets & "wore" them in
their hair as symbols of terror & of Cybele. The naga divinities
(cobras) of India cause & cure diseases, in service of such goddesses
as Sitala or Kali. The bronze serpent-idol of Moses did the same; it
was worshipped for a long while, into the time of kings even within
the Temple, being a personfication both of poison & of the antidote.
Asclepios's serpent is of that kind & Mose's rod-serpent & Asclepios's
caduceus probably have a common origin; Christians have said this
serpent was a precursor to Jesus on the cross, but I have to admit
I've never entirely got that one; I bet the association of Jesus as
Serpent came about because Jesus as a deity resembles Attis the
adopted son of Cybele (& son of the virgin nymph Nana, impregnated by
an almond), Cybele having been one of the greatest of the mothers of
snakes in antiquity.

It's easy enough to imagine how this came about, if you take 'snake'
semantically to be 'limbless creature'. After all, maggots and various
worms are easily associated with death and the idea of 'returning things
to the earth'. A genuine ophidian, being the pinnacle of limblessness,
despite not really having the same death associations of worms and
maggots, would make a suitable herald or emissary for any chthonic diety.

Perhaps the notion of the snake as a healer can be explained by the use
of venom medicinally. If you take that and the notion of sin as disease,
then the cross-Jesus:caduceus-snake analogy fits well, at least
superficially. (I've read some pendants arguing about the true nature of
a caduceus, but I don't really recall the arguemnts; here I mean the
physician's symbol, a winged staff interwined with two serpents).

In China the royal lineage was represented by a five-direction dragon
which is mainly a long snake-body with tiny legs & whiskery goat-head,
& most of its mythology is positive, but in an awesome way intended to
frighten & instil subserviance to the royal family. A similar serpent

The traditional Chinese royal symbols are the dragon ('long-2' in
Mandarin) for males and phoenix ('feng-4') for females. The Chinese
dragon may superficially resemble a snake, but the written character for
dragon is absolutely distinct from the character for 'snake' ('she-2')
[the character for 'snake' contains the morpheme/radical for 'limbless
wriggly creature' (now referred to as "insect") while the character for
'dragon' occurs as it's own morpheme (still "dragon")] and the associated
semantics should be as old as the writing system. There's no confusing
the two, unless something got lost in translation. It's not the same as
in English, where although both 'snake' and 'dragon' can occur as
distinct ideas, both can use 'serpent' synonymously. There is no such
metonymy in the Chinese.

was tamed by Kwannon (who as Benten in Japan is commonly depicted as
riding on this serpent). It ofen represented storm & chaos in the sea
or in the heavens, but was a powerful ally when it submitted to a
divine power. Some "legged" serpents are presumed to predate Eden when
the legs were lost because the serpent was so sneaky & had finally to
go upon his belly. The serpent Tiamat represented chaos, & is still
around in Greek myth when Zeus wrestles with it; in the book of Job,
God tames this very Leviathon & puts her on a thread for little girls

I guess here is where the Western idea of 'snake' as agent of death and
by extension 'dragon/uber-snake' (primordial snake that has not lost it's
legs) as agent of destruction differs from the Chinese idea. Chinese
dragons are masters of destruction, but also agents of creation, e.g.
controlling the rain, bringing forth life when adequate, but flooding and
destruction when too much. Normal "Chinese" snakes, (being regarded
highly but also listed as one of the "five noxious creatures") have
nothing to do with that (and don't normally have supernatural status).

to play with. Innana possessed a serpent that lived in the roots of
the haloopa tree, probably the same tree that had the Golden Apples of
the Sun guarded by a great serpent in its roots, & again the same as
the serpent/labyrinth that represented Gaea as source of all life &
source of all death.

There's also the Norse Midgard serpent being only the final source of
death. I always thought he lived in the "World Tree" gnawing at it, but
apparently Odin just chucked him into the ocean and dispensed with the
tree.

- S