219 karma · joined July 4, 2010
That clearly Indicates the authors believe the painter and his contemporary society of modern 15th century peoples already had a culture of appreciation for the objects as pre-historic axes, that their so-called finding "pushes back the date" for this appreciation. That is literally their thesis and conclusion.
That argument is reductive. They are saying that the painting is evidence that early modern people believed axe-theory because the authors have identified the rock in the painting as an axe from axe-theory. Everything else is speculation. It is complete garbage with a motive to push archeological axe-theory for academic crumbs. It is a desperate attempt to scrape empirical evidence for imaginary archeologies.
From the paper abstract: "Identifying a fifteenth-century painting of a handaxe does not change what we know about Acheulean individuals, but it does push back the evidence for when handaxes became a prominent part of the ‘modern’ social and cultural world." Indicating they think the painter and his contemporary society had a "culture" of appreciation for the objects as axes.
Which means the rock is round and proves the authors incorrect because they overlook this obvious perspective to claim the rock is flat and axe-like to make their comparison. Their theory rests entirely on the rock in the painting being flat, which could only be true if the perspective was flat. The painter made sure we can see that is not the case.
The painter is telling us there is a narrative and a reality. They baby appears unconvinced and suspicious, as if he knows there is an alternate truth to the story. He appears to be pointing at rock. The baby is telling us he is not the subject, the rock is.
The authors claim that modern 15th century people already knew the "pre-historic" narrative about rocks being axes. They are shoe-horning this theory into the painting by claiming the painter and 15th century people already thought these rocks were ancient handaxes, and thats why it features so importantly in the mysterious painting. That seems a rather hoaxy claim to me: The archeological narrative must be correct if people already knew it to be true!
The authors state in their abstract this is their goal, to push back the evidence of such a "social history", to a time before archeologists made up the narrative about hand-axes. The authors are literally attempting to incept the archeological claim to a prior age of modern history. Is that what you mean, because that is definitely and literally the motive of this research.
Edit, also the rock in the painting is not a "biface". That part of the painting has obvious depth and perspective (shadows, walls, angles). The rock in the painting is ROUND.
The rock does not look like the flat head of any axe, nor does a "prehistoric stone tool" bear any meaning whatsoever in the context of the image. In fact the rock resembles fragments of meteorite. Perhaps all the supposed "ancient handaxes" are really from a more recent meteoric event. That would be quite a thrust against prehistorical man narratives made up by archeologists.
Oh, people really called these supposed axes "thunderstones" before the advent of modern archeology claimed they are tools of prehistoric man. Yet these "researchers" claim a painting proves that 15th century people already thought the rocks were ancient handaxes despite contrary evidence, in other words that what archeologists made up was already well know; so it must be true after all, how convenient. But that is tautological: provide a theory based on a painting and claim the painting is evidence the theory is correct.
No logical basis exists for black holes, they are a rationalization for the faulty foundation upon which they lie, a fantasy to explain condescending pseudotheory.
The defect is defending a false doctrine, accepting as truth a scientifically evident hoax.
Kant's philosophy is used to justify judicial review, where you are guilty until proven innocent, which is precisely why we are forced to recite the complete opposite. If "innocent until proven guilty" was true and in force, it would be apparent, and what is known need not be repeated interminably.
This is the lie at the root of jurisprudence, and is the conclusion of actually bad reasoning, and is forced via unjustified action we call Justice. Justice must be justified because punishments are crimes in any other context.
As a result, we cannot act with justification based on reason, but must follow strictures, aka laws. For instance, you maybe cannot defend yourself against a lunatic because it can be rationalized a million ways that self defense was not justified due to circumstances, literally circular positioning, rationalization.
Government is religion based on rational mysticism. It has nothing to do with the power of democracy, freedom, doing what is right, and self determination. It is moderation by another name, and from on high by elitists who control judiciaries.
The ideologue behind the plot, the agent or collective agency, they influence the actor via their God Complex which lacks the foundational principles. That is why ideologically driven people are fractious, without a functional spirituality that connects them and maintain virtues such as "do not kill people for no reason" or "unelected action undermines the legitimacy of our very own elected representation!"
Global warming is the ideology of ecoterrorism, but we don't see multitudes in arms, and we don't see their representatives and generals, we only see the limited agents, a parade of the unelect.
We don't see continuous campaigns, we see odd events. We see publicity, never discretion. Violent or not, it is always a performance. And rather than serving their side, terrorist are usually pawns of their own enemy. That is the true art of terrorism.
If the ideologue had real power, a military and industry and political strength, they have no reason to influence and orchestrate acts by zealotry. Power works with diplomacy, and bad diplomats are fast replaced with better ones. War is the ultimate in diplomacy.
Terrorism is always convoluted schemes that do not achieve real ends such as changing policy or destroying the enemy. That is because the motive is ulterior to the action, and not powerful enough to do great damage; the reaction has to be the source of damage. The zealot has no idea about the real motive; they have only good intentions toward the deos.
If the actor discovered the motive was not truly their own cause, that wouldn't serve. If they do not, the reward is rarely enough to perform false work, and they do not preserver long. Such is the case with mass protesting, which is low grade terrorism, intellectually violent if not physically. If the protest was true in force, they would just sweep away the antagonist.
Rationality is the mirror of mystification. With rationalism you can endlessly circle the argument in defense of thy mystical beliefs.
Your mystified understanding of terrorism is that psychological profiles are sufficient. This subverts due process.
Nothing about rationality guarantees a positive outcome, and is typically a trick that leads to no conclusion. That is the very opposite intent of logical conclusion by way of reasoning.
Irrationality is simply circling the other direction, actually nothing and no different, but the word is used to create a false dichotomy so you can call somebody crazy by another name, and keep the argument and process couched in mystification.
It is literally in the name: the ratio is tangential to the circle.
Terrorism is a method of rulership over publics, not a tactic of war. Unless you consider the rule of terrorist ideology to be one of "at war with those under rule", but that is different model of thinking. Either way, terrorism comes down to low grade rule by mean and vicious people, the kind you would hope never to elect. Indeed, one might conclude as I have that terrorism is rule by the unelect.
Terrorism is not a tactic of warfare, it is violent coercion. Even that much is obvious, for it coerces people to become defensive, scared, etc. Civilians are not the target of military for war. Never have been. Only pawns can be used to enact terrorism, for no individual has anything to gain by the act.
No military strategy has ever used nor teaches terrorist methodologies. The response by the USA shows precisely why it is foolish, for it gains nothing to the attacker: no territory gained, only an enemy provoked.
The accused actors had nothing to gain unless they were pawns for reward, but then that would mean they did not plan it, nor conceive of it from the base notion of coercion toward a benefit. Nor did the accused actors have a motive. The narrative already becomes convoluted beyond this point, so I pull out my Swiss Occum Razor and shave it back. That is when I realize how deep the ideological methodology of terror-ism must be.
Terrorism is not the act of rogues and individuals, but this is what you are wanted to believe. Terrorism is the plan and rule of those found at the conclusion of logical procedure. Who benefited, what motives, following clues...
"Did they ever think to try this suspicious idea, Yes."
"Did anything as such ever occur? Don't be proposetheorist!"
If you do not go by conscience, but use your own observation and feeling, you must will thyself not to fall for the wrong moral nor to value the wrong ethic. One learns and grows more without conscience.
Conscience depends on the source of which you trust and believe. If you are the source, that is not conscience but regular sciens, also called sentience. If your sentience is true to nature you have no need of conscience, also called sapiens.
What evidence do we have that Bruegel was not painting reality as seen? Based on what report and observation does this journalist assume the details they give to you? Soon they will tell you the white whale from Moby Dick was not real, but a phantasy, no such creatures ever existed. This essay is deliberately avoiding Breugel's religious works and feeding you pasteurized scholastic to flavor his psychological profile for you to phancy. Yet they will tell you his actual pastorals "are a study of man in nature", in other words real historical document.
They are telling you fairy tales while you look at real pictures, and then present to you, as phact, a CGI of Earth in space and CGI of a hairy ball of fire and CGI of a planet with rings around it. Bruegel's paintings are more real than quantum physical representations, but you believe time travel and aliens are more real than history as displayed in psychical images.
This tactic is modern and used religiously, it is no different than character deformation. If you care more about the man than the work, you can write off the result any which way. Now you are set loose to believe a person would only say or do as such because they are "crazy" or have a phony syndrome; in reality they give you the syndrome.
The proof of this is simple. If you see beauty, nobody can tell that what you feel is actually the very image and form of the opposite. The thing itself resonates with you, and thus the beauty must be in you also, as if you are the very instrument which measures beauty. If I tell you the character of the person, I am attempting to resonate those personal traits inside yourself, and thus if I say the character was psycho, and achieve that trait in you, your perception of the genuine article becomes psychotic, and you no evidence the person in question was any which way.
Beauty does not allow for that, for nobody can tell you otherwise. Not all things are beautiful, but that does not make them unreal. Your sense of beauty is the barometer of sanity, but importantly it is the basis of true relational science, for beauty tells us that we should not be deceived by unreal observations which can only be given to us; your observation is the only real one you can trust.
Now, you might ask "But then should we not question the observations of Bruegel?" Yes, that is precisely it, base your judgement on original observations and correlate those with as many findings as you can, rather than lazily accepting reformed observations by psychotic hackwits attempting to dictate what is real and not.
2: More than one point in space makes a coordinate system, and more than one point is a prerequisite of relativity. (Source?) Plus, within the questionable physics models which allow for singularities, the notional difference between a coordinate system and a point is conspicuously broken in order to explain other things. But that's how we get vague terms like spacetime, descriptions for weird parts of the model.
3: I did prove it, and you can reproduce it yourself by going to the nearest mountain range and yodel. In other words, I don't need math proofs from within abstruse models to prove my point, so my argument is more sound scientifically. I proved "relativity" is nothing more than understanding the difference in change over space, which is a very obvious/observable thing, perhaps the most basic of all material existence, comporting to the idea that no two things can be one, or "occupy the same space".
Time measures change over space, a thing you witness firsthand when your yodel returns in echo from the mountain. If space did not change from point A to point B, there would be no distance, no coordinate system, and our yodel would not echo from anywhere. Without change over space there is no time, so that tells you which one is primary. The measurement of the echo, taken in time units, aka intervals, gives useful information. It does not however indicate anything of some model's out-of-bounds parameters, like what if the mountain had infinite gravity?
The measure of an echo could not prove a black hole, even by the very definition of a black hole, for an echo would not return (infinite inches of time til return). Ergo no measurement can prove a black hole. Only a model taken to mathematical infinity "proves" a black hole, and that is not real science, it's just math. Math proofs and scientific falsity are not the same side of a single coin. The observation yields math, not the other way around, or else I could say look here in my notebook, it's a real black hole!
That we pretend the relative speed of light is constant, and this proves black holes and big bangs, that is pseudo science taking a model beyond it's working boundaries, where it's calculation have no meaning; to wit, this is a physical analogue in optical aberration, where the rim of the lens is asymptotic refraction to the point of unreliable measurement (not a singularity, unless of course you model it as such, in the abstract).
The real question is why so much energy is used staring at model aberration. The "Uncertainty paradox" has everyone believe the model is real, and even ask the question "at what point does the model become real". The model is never real, and never becomes real, it stays a model forever. Whether the cat is dead or not is simply a measurement where, if you mistake the paradox for theory, you don't realize the probability of dead or alive given decay is nothing more than a measurement taken ex post facto, and not proof that the real world accord to the model.
As I have just proven, Einstein's relativity is really a confabulation of what is obvious, resulting in people getting lost in that model universe. It is only useful for taking measurements within that model, everything else is worshiping light, the speed of.
> In general, connections are not used with the same intensity... so assigning equal value to them is not justified. This is the basic objection to Metcalfe’s Law...
In my architectonic opinion, the perfect network comprises all nodes operating equally. Ergo the ideal is indeed Metcalfe's law, but architecture and design can be costly, which is simple the inefficient use of resources. These being very precise machines, anything less than 99.999% is amateur, ergo the law obtains.