Vintage Scandinavian Rya Rug
$LAYYYTER
hello vonnie
No title available

Origami Around

tannertan36
No title available
sheepfilms

oozey mess
đȘŒ
The Stonewall Inn
Today's Document
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
Noah Kahan

Game Changer & Make Some Noise
No title available
Phantogram Three

romaâ
h
Mike Driver

@theartofmadeline
seen from Indonesia
seen from Mexico
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Norway
seen from Canada

seen from Germany

seen from TĂŒrkiye

seen from TĂŒrkiye

seen from Russia

seen from United States

seen from France
seen from Ukraine
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Philippines

seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
@wildywindymoors
Vintage Scandinavian Rya Rug
âI love borders. August is the border between summer and autumn; it is the most beautiful month I know. Twilight is the border between day and night, and the shore is the border between sea and land. The border is longing; when both have fallen in love but still havenât said anything. The border is to be on the way. It is the way that is the most important thing.â
â Tove Jansson, âMoominvalley in NovemberâÂ
Eclipse Table Lamp, from 1960s Brazil.
the odyssey (2026)
âAugust is dust here. Drought stuns the road, but juice gathers in the berries.â
â Robert Hass, âPicking Blackberries with a Friend Who Has Been Reading Jacques Lacan,â in Praise
Clotilde Olyff (Belgian, b. 1962, based Brussels, Belgium) - Stone Alphabet, 1994. She collected these over a 14-year period from the banks of rivers and oceans.
Pride and crime and war and punishment and sense and peace and prejudice and sensibility
"Where it can, the sun endlessly
examines things."
----William Stafford
They werenât lying when they said that as an adult you have to fight for your life to practice your hobbies
They also werenât lying when they said that when you fail to do so your soul shrivels up inside your body and dies
Correcting the Historical Bias Against Domestic Materials
Archaeology has traditionally had a fundamental bias against fabric. Fabrics are after all highly perishable, withering away within months or years, and only rarely leaving traces behind for those coming millennia later to find. Archaeologistsâpredominantly maleâgave ancient ages names like âIronâ and âBronze,â rather than âPotteryâ or âFlax.â This implies that metal objects were the principal features of these times, when they are simply often the most visible and long-lasting remnants. Technologies using perishable materials, such as wood and textiles, may well have been more pivotal in the daily lives of the people who lived through them, but evidence of their existence has, for the most part, been absorbed back into the earth.
There are exceptions, of course, and traces can and do survive, usually thanks to an unusual climate: freezing, damp anaerobic conditions or extremely dry ones. The climate in Egypt, for example, is ideal for preserving all manner of usually perishable things and we subsequently know far more about ancient Egyptian textiles than those from most other regions. As archaeology has matured and diversified, scholars have increasingly looked forâand foundâevidence of fine, complex textiles stretching farther back than anyone would have guessed. Their beauty and the skill needed to make them suggest a very different image of our earliest forebears than the club-wielding, simpleminded thugs of popular imagination.
âThe first cultural device was probably a recipient⊠. Many theorizers feel that the earliest cultural inventions must have been a container to hold gathered products and some kind of sling or net carrier. So says Elizabeth Fisher in Womenâs Creation (McGraw-Hill, 1975). But no, this cannot be. Where is that wonderful, big, long, hard thing, a bone, I believe, that the Ape Man first bashed somebody with in the movie and then, grunting with ecstasy at having achieved the first proper murder, flung up into the sky, and whirling there it became a space ship thrusting its way into the cosmos to fertilize it and produce at the end of the movie a lovely fetus, a boy of course, drifting around the Milky Way without (oddly enough) any womb, any matrix at all? I donât know. I don ât even care. Iâm not telling that story. Weâve heard it, weâve all heard all about all the sticks and spears and swords, the things to bash and poke and hit with, the long, hard things, but we have not heard about the thing to put things in, the container for the thing contained. That is a new story. That is news. And yet old. Beforeâonce you think about it, surely long beforeâthe weapon, a late, luxurious, superfluous tool; long before the useful knife and ax; right along with the indispensable whacker, grinder, and diggerâfor whatâs the use of digging up a lot of potatoes if you have nothing to lug the ones you canât eat home inâwith or before the tool that forces energy outward, we made the tool that brings energy home. It makes sense to me. I am an adherent of what Fisher calls the Carrier Bag Theory of human evolution. This theory not only explains large areas of theoretical obscurity and avoids large areas of theoretical nonsense (inhabited largely by tigers, foxes, and other highly territorial mammals); it also grounds me, personally, in human culture in a way I never felt grounded before. So long as culture was explained as originating from and elaborating upon the use of long, hard objects for sticking, bashing, and killing, I never thought that I had, or wanted, any particular share in it. (âWhat Freud mistook for her lack of civilization is womanâs lack of loyalty to civilization,â Lillian Smith observed.) The society, the civilization they were talking about, these theoreticians, was evidently theirs; they owned it, they liked it; they were human, fully human, bashing, sticking, thrusting, killing. Wanting to be human too, I sought for evidence that I was; but if thatâs what it took, to make a weapon and kill with it, then evidently I was either extremely defective as a human being, or not human at all⊠. If it is a human thing to do to put something you want, because itâs useful, edible, or beautiful, into a bag, or a basket, or a bit of rolled bark or leaf, or a net woven of your own hair, or what have you, and then take it home with you, home being another, larger kind of pouch or bag, a container for people, and then later on you take it out and eat it or share it or store it up for winter in a solider container or put it in the medicine bundle or the shrine or the museum, the holy place, the area that contains what is sacred, and then next day you probably do much the same againâif to do that is human, if thatâs what it takes, then I am a human being after all. Fully, freely, gladly, for the first time.â
âUrsula K. Le Guin, "The Carrier Bag Theory of Fictionâ (1986)
Itâs crazy how there is so much bias in how we see the past and the "advancementâ of civilizations purely based on how well the remnants preserve in the climates they were in.
A civilization that built structures out of stone is assumed greater than a civilization that built structures out of wood or some biodegradable material
This makes me think of Rivercane (Arundinaria spp. our native bamboo which was almost wiped out in colonization similar to what happened to the Bison) and how it was used universally by the peoples of the Southeastern USA for every tool, structure, furniture etc imaginable: bedframes, waterproof mats for roofs, backpacks, sieves, shields, torches, sharp splits for quick-and-dirty butchering knivesâŠ
when the spanish first came here randomly roaming and murdering people all over the place they reported that the country was so populated that you could be in one town and see the smoke of the campfires of other towns on the horizons.
now bamboo by weight is stronger than steel, and Rivercane is one of the stronger species of bamboo. Bamboo-working in southeastern USA pre-colonization was crazy advanced. And you could use a split of Rivercane as a butchering knife in a pinch, and you could also use sharpened pieces as arrows without a stone projectile point at all. So there were all these useful objects and tools and constructions that were able to simply biodegrade away.
So people nowadays often assume there was hardly anybody here before white people showed up just because they donât see all the constructions and temples and stuff.
Whatâs even crazier is you DO see the constructions all around you, literally the town I live in was built on top of an Indigenous town and many roads around it and leading to it were Indigenous roads.
(And there were quite a few stone constructions, but colonizers have been running wild all over the place so long that theyâve been knocked down and you literally couldnât identify the ruins unless you thought âhey wait these stones donât belong here, they had to be quarried and brought hereâ And in a lot of cases the locations of such ruins are not popularly discussed because looting and desecration of Indigenous sites is such a huge problem if anybody knows.)
(itâs so crazy actually in the history of Kentucky specifically like historical writers in the 1800âs had this theory that indigenous people had replaced this ancient civilization of white people that built all the stone stuff and made all the pottery and things. but now that the remnants are no longer as visible, the most popular falsehood is that NO ONE lived in Kentucky and it was just âhunting grounds.â which is not true. its like people want to believe anything except that indigenous people were and are indigenous to this place)
i spent a few months working with shakespeareâs globe in london, which is a reconstruction of a theatre built in 1599, which itself is a reconstruction of a theatre built in 1576. obviously this was before they had the ability to put microphones on actors, so one of the big questions scholars had was âhow did people hear the play?â turns out, as ppl discovered when they rebuilt the globe, the circular shape of the walls (combined with the springy oak-and-plaster they were made of) create a huge amplifying effect on all sounds emanating from the stage, meaningâeven todayâeveryone can hear just fine. and i was like. why are you surprised by this. why are people shocked that humans of the past actually Knew What They Were Doing. why are people amazed that machu picchu is architecturally genius or surprised that the iliad is devastatingly powerful or stunned that ppl were solving sinusoidal trigonometric equations possibly as early as 350 CE. history is not one long linear march leading up to Today, The Zenith Of Everything & just bc somethings newer doesnt make it better & i am not smarter than the guy who wrote gilgamesh. actually this post is about people who were introduced to star trek by the flashy new stuff and then watched the original series and were, for some reason, shocked that so much of it was âactually goodâ
Marsha P Johnson with Snoopy
due to the circumstances, fell into a hole of reading through the archives of a blog that got deleted ~8 years ago
Reminds me of research on how âgaze aversionâ (e.g. avoiding eye contact) helps people think by removing the cognitive and emotional load of face processing, etc., so teachers who get caught up in forcing students to make eye contact are missing the point. Likewise abstract doodling while listening helps improve recall. Speech is so bad for conveying information, people need all the help they can get when forced into speech-based learning scenarios, really.
the writer has a bone to pick with lectures & orally-delivered information: they don't like 'em. i don't disagree from personal experience but i don't know enough to agree in the general case. maybe other people do learn well from lectures.
the gaze aversion link led to me to this paper on gaze aversion in adults with and without autism, williams syndrome by the same researcher.
[...] in phase 2 participants were required to maintain eye contact with the experimenter at all times. Looking at faces decreased task accuracy for individuals who were developing typically. Critically, the same pattern was seen in WS and ASD, whereby task performance decreased when participants were required to hold face gaze. The results show that looking at faces interferes with task performance in all groups.
to listen to some people talk about it, you'd think that only autistic people suffer do worse from being made to maintain eye contact. ... actually, given the rest of the wording in the paper, you might be able to say that NT people don't suffer from it, they just suck more when made to maintain eye contact, whereas the autists suffer. but i think more research is required.
this is only one paper and i haven't bothered to look into replicability or reliability or literally anything else about it. perhaps the author has been kicked out of the profession for making shit up. perhaps they are a pioneer. idk. i bring it up only as 'some authoritative-looking people have this position, so it's probably not completely without basis'.
....
perhaps one issue with lectures is that the audience can't fidget without causing a problem. (i can't sit still to watch movies but can watch them for hours with a treadmill)
---
less thought out position: i think people as a whole are bad at teaching.
i tried to look up why the fuck every curry i cook at home sucks, and instead i got a bunch of people talking about how it's impossible to learn to cook it if you haven't grown up there copying your parents' (=your mother's) cooking. that which can be destroyed by women's liberation should be.
went to a certain woodblock studio once. as i recall, the owner talked admiring about how the traditional way to learn to do the prints was to 'steal' the techniques from the person working next to you; very little direct instruction, but pick it up from noticing. it takes years and years to get good.
this works okay -- i mean, i suspect a large part of it was hazing, so i hesitate to say it worked well -- if you don't have better options, but what happens when there's no one able to take years and years to get good?
transmitting information is hard! it's really, really hard! i can't blame the people writing it down (or lecturing, or otherwise) for stopping at 'good enough'.
but like....
Have you ever had a book like thisâone youâd readâcome up in conversation, only to discover that youâd absorbed what amounts to a few sentences? Iâll be honest: it happens to me regularly. Often things go well at first. Iâll feel I can sketch the basic claims, paint the surface; but when someone asks a basic probing question, the edifice instantly collapses. Sometimes itâs a memory issue: I simply canât recall the relevant details. But just as often, as I grasp about, Iâll realize I had never really understood the idea in question, though Iâd certainly thought I understood when I read the book. Indeed, Iâll realize that I had barely noticed how little Iâd absorbed until that very moment.
though given how many (nonfiction) books suck (=get the facts wrong, make logical jumps that are unjustified, etc), perhaps it's for the best we don't remember much
Itâs easy to attend a lecture and feel that you understand, only to discover over that nightâs problem set that you understood very little. Memory feels partly to blame: you might sense that you knew certain details at one time, but youâve forgotten. Yet we canât pin this all on memory. When you pull on certain strings from the lecture, you might discover that you had never really understood, though youâd certainly thought you understood during the lecture.
partner had a beloved professor in university who had a particular reality-warping field; it was so easy to come away from the lectures on a very hard topic believing one had understood everything! everything!
âMedieval peasants couldnât handle my Spotify playlistâ but could YOU handle a medieval bard relaying the epic of Beowulf over the course of an hour? Humble yourself.
(via @sinni-ok-sessi )
Ummmm NOT losing these tags, this is so fucking funny @astronicht
Go little scop go!