WEBVTT - Listener Mail: Humbaba's Seven Terrors 0:00:02.960 --> 0:00:05.280 Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of 0:00:05.360 --> 0:00:10.639 My Heart Radio. Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. 0:00:10.680 --> 0:00:14.360 Listener mail. My name is Robert Lamb and I'm Joe McCormick, 0:00:14.480 --> 0:00:17.240 and it's Monday. It's actually not Monday when we're recording this, 0:00:17.280 --> 0:00:19.440 but it's Monday for you, and we're ready to go. 0:00:19.520 --> 0:00:21.680 We got Carney the mail bought here, rob would you 0:00:21.680 --> 0:00:30.200 like to jump right in with this email from Samara? Sure? 0:00:30.240 --> 0:00:33.760 This one is an email responding to a Vault episode. 0:00:34.040 --> 0:00:36.400 So it's actually a response to an episode that published 0:00:36.440 --> 0:00:38.760 like the year prior, but it has to do with 0:00:38.800 --> 0:00:41.160 the Star Lac episode that we did. But we talked 0:00:41.159 --> 0:00:44.560 about the star Lac from Star Wars and some things 0:00:44.560 --> 0:00:47.159 in the natural world that that line up with it. 0:00:47.560 --> 0:00:50.320 So samaraw Right, Hello, Robert and Joe. I've only recently 0:00:50.360 --> 0:00:53.480 been introduced your wonderful podcast, and over the past year, 0:00:53.560 --> 0:00:56.760 the nexus at which my art, theology and science signaps 0:00:56.880 --> 0:01:00.160 is intersect has lit up like a Christmas tree. Your 0:01:00.240 --> 0:01:02.600 recent replay of the starlike episode was fabulous, but I 0:01:02.640 --> 0:01:05.119 was a little surprised you didn't deep dive into the 0:01:05.160 --> 0:01:08.680 conundrum that has confused and horrified me. Since childhood. How 0:01:08.720 --> 0:01:11.760 could a living organism with an average lifespan be kept 0:01:11.840 --> 0:01:15.080 alive long enough to endure the suffering of being slowly 0:01:15.120 --> 0:01:18.880 digested over a thousand years? I now wonder if I 0:01:18.920 --> 0:01:22.440 had taken this too literally, although a recent pandemic inspired 0:01:22.600 --> 0:01:25.679 reviewing of World War Z had me asking the same question. 0:01:25.680 --> 0:01:28.800 How could a zombie host organism remain without food for 0:01:28.880 --> 0:01:31.840 so long, or bleed out from injuries and simply not expire? 0:01:32.200 --> 0:01:35.600 Surely if the host stars or sustains oregon damage, the 0:01:35.680 --> 0:01:39.440 zombie does too. I'm aware of organisms such as tartar 0:01:39.480 --> 0:01:43.520 grades that are preternaturally resilient and long living, but I 0:01:43.560 --> 0:01:46.119 am yet to hear of mammals or any creature within 0:01:46.160 --> 0:01:49.240 the animal kingdom being held in suspended animation due to 0:01:49.280 --> 0:01:53.120 a virus. I am, however, very happy to put overthinking 0:01:53.520 --> 0:01:56.280 it to one side and enjoy all things unanswerable for 0:01:56.360 --> 0:01:59.080 the sheer entertainment value. Thanks for continuing to delve into 0:01:59.120 --> 0:02:02.080 the weirdness such robust research in a commitment to intrigue. 0:02:02.080 --> 0:02:06.240 Warmest regards tomorrow. Well, this is funny because I thought 0:02:06.280 --> 0:02:08.400 we did talk about this, but maybe we talked about 0:02:08.400 --> 0:02:12.200 it off Mike the confusion. I remember thinking when I 0:02:12.240 --> 0:02:15.360 when I was a kid, slowly digested over a thousand years. 0:02:15.400 --> 0:02:18.280 The implication is that somehow it makes you live for 0:02:18.320 --> 0:02:20.560 a thousand years. And I was like, well, what if 0:02:20.560 --> 0:02:24.680 we could harness the Sarlac technology, like whatever the Sarlac 0:02:24.760 --> 0:02:29.720 does to extend your lifespan, but without the digestion part. Yeah, 0:02:30.080 --> 0:02:32.520 I don't know. I guess the different ways of interpreting it. 0:02:32.560 --> 0:02:34.679 You could say, well, okay, it's for one thing. You 0:02:34.720 --> 0:02:36.800 could say it's a legend. It's a local legend about 0:02:36.800 --> 0:02:40.840 an organism, so it doesn't actually digestive for a thousand years, 0:02:41.400 --> 0:02:45.120 though perhaps it's digestive system does take a long time. Um, 0:02:45.200 --> 0:02:46.960 but you're not gonna be alive through all of it. 0:02:47.120 --> 0:02:49.120 Or you could go in the other direction, you know, 0:02:49.200 --> 0:02:52.440 where it will feel like it takes a thousand years 0:02:52.440 --> 0:02:55.760 because it will be so painful. Again, I'm not sure 0:02:56.080 --> 0:03:00.560 whose testimony that is relying on. I mean, uh uh. 0:03:00.600 --> 0:03:02.320 I guess some people do make their way out. We 0:03:02.600 --> 0:03:06.240 know of at least one that did. But then again, 0:03:06.320 --> 0:03:10.079 it is Star Wars. It is a galaxy far far away, 0:03:10.120 --> 0:03:15.239 So perhaps there is some reason and some way that 0:03:15.280 --> 0:03:19.120 an organism is kept alive inside the you know, digestive 0:03:19.160 --> 0:03:22.680 process of this vast creature. Yeah, the star like uses 0:03:22.760 --> 0:03:24.920 the force to keep you alive for a thousand years 0:03:24.919 --> 0:03:27.880 while it digests you. Anyway, somebody follow up on that, 0:03:27.919 --> 0:03:30.720 get get one of those life extension gurus down down 0:03:30.720 --> 0:03:33.160 in there and see what's going on. Well, you know, 0:03:33.200 --> 0:03:37.280 it's what you said, is not impossible, right if if 0:03:37.760 --> 0:03:41.680 if you find um mendic glareans in all beings and 0:03:41.720 --> 0:03:45.720 it's just you know, the higher higher rates that produce uh, 0:03:45.760 --> 0:03:48.920 you know, four sensitive individuals, then I don't know, there 0:03:48.960 --> 0:03:51.400 could be something unique going on inside the star lac. 0:03:51.520 --> 0:03:53.200 You know, maybe if it swallows you and your force 0:03:53.240 --> 0:03:56.480 sensitive or maybe there's yeah, who knows, maybe there's some 0:03:56.520 --> 0:04:01.880 sort of um, you know, a process us by which uh, 0:04:01.920 --> 0:04:06.600 these tiny organisms are themselves digest in the digested in 0:04:06.600 --> 0:04:14.120 the starlac. I don't know. Okay, maybe we should go 0:04:14.120 --> 0:04:17.240 onto this next message that is also a straggler about 0:04:17.240 --> 0:04:21.520 an older episode. This was about the episode on Invented Words. 0:04:21.560 --> 0:04:24.480 This comes from Chris. Chris says, Hi, Robert and Joe, 0:04:24.600 --> 0:04:27.920 longtime listener from Australia. Here this is a bit of 0:04:27.960 --> 0:04:30.120 a throwback, but I wanted to contact you about your 0:04:30.120 --> 0:04:33.640 episode on Invented Words. In the episode, you suggested that 0:04:33.760 --> 0:04:36.760 the words selfie was merely the result of a creative 0:04:36.800 --> 0:04:39.719 Australian on the Internet. But I think there's more to 0:04:39.839 --> 0:04:43.360 it than that. In Australia, we regularly add on to 0:04:43.440 --> 0:04:45.840 the ends of words, either an E or an O. 0:04:46.600 --> 0:04:51.440 For example, tradespeople, plumbers, landscapers, et cetera are often referred 0:04:51.440 --> 0:04:54.279 to as trade e s. Taking a sick day is 0:04:54.320 --> 0:04:58.040 referred to as chucking a sick e uh, and executing 0:04:58.040 --> 0:05:00.960 a U turn while driving is refer two as doing 0:05:01.000 --> 0:05:03.520 a UEI. We have that last one, at least here 0:05:03.560 --> 0:05:07.360 in the United States. But then Chris goes on a 0:05:07.440 --> 0:05:10.920 cigarette or tea break is a smoke O, a rough 0:05:11.040 --> 0:05:15.120 or uncouth person is a darrow from derelict, and a 0:05:15.200 --> 0:05:19.560 service station or gas station is a servo. These are 0:05:19.600 --> 0:05:22.599 just a few examples among many many others. Sometimes it's 0:05:22.640 --> 0:05:25.400 most appropriate to add an O and other times an E. 0:05:25.640 --> 0:05:28.000 But I'm not a linguist, so I couldn't explain why. 0:05:28.320 --> 0:05:29.719 All I can say is that if I had to 0:05:29.720 --> 0:05:32.080 add to the end of the word self it would 0:05:32.080 --> 0:05:35.640 be with an E. So the invention of the selfie 0:05:35.680 --> 0:05:38.120 may actually just be the result of a language convention 0:05:38.560 --> 0:05:42.320 of spoken Australian English. Many thanks for all your great work, 0:05:42.720 --> 0:05:46.680 Chris PS. I'm currently working on a study of invertebrate 0:05:46.720 --> 0:05:50.880 and vegetation recovery after bush fire. It means lots of 0:05:50.920 --> 0:05:53.960 time spent on a microscope counting ants and sorting them 0:05:53.960 --> 0:05:57.880 into subfamilies. Uh. And I think he's referring to you here, Rob, 0:05:57.960 --> 0:06:01.159 your son may enjoy the sub family A mer MESSI 0:06:01.240 --> 0:06:04.280 an E I hope I said that right. It's M 0:06:04.440 --> 0:06:08.680 y R M E C I I in a big 0:06:08.720 --> 0:06:13.119 bloody mandibles. You can't go wrong, Chris. Oh yeah, that's 0:06:13.200 --> 0:06:16.120 right up his alley, superindo hands right now now, I 0:06:16.160 --> 0:06:18.599 thought we this is yet another one where I have 0:06:18.680 --> 0:06:22.400 a memory of us talking about this feature of Australian English, 0:06:22.520 --> 0:06:24.600 like the adding an e to the end of an 0:06:24.600 --> 0:06:26.240 e sound to the end of things. I think it's 0:06:26.320 --> 0:06:29.359 usually spelled with an I E. Chris did spell it 0:06:29.440 --> 0:06:32.280 that way in the email. Uh did this not come 0:06:32.360 --> 0:06:36.240 up in the episode? I don't remember. I remember I 0:06:36.320 --> 0:06:38.960 vaguely remember us doing this episode, and I remember there 0:06:38.960 --> 0:06:41.160 being some source or sources we were looking at that 0:06:41.240 --> 0:06:45.160 were doing that had examined the history of selfie and 0:06:45.160 --> 0:06:46.880 tried to find some sort of an answer for it, 0:06:46.960 --> 0:06:50.240 and and yeah it was somehow traced to Australia. But yeah, 0:06:50.279 --> 0:06:52.120 it's been a while since I listened to that one. 0:06:52.400 --> 0:06:55.839 I do remember thinking that the earliest written example of 0:06:55.880 --> 0:06:59.040 it anybody could find was an Internet comment, like a 0:06:59.040 --> 0:07:02.359 forum post is always an embarrassing origin for a word, 0:07:03.680 --> 0:07:05.440 but then again it makes sense that it would be 0:07:05.440 --> 0:07:10.280 be connected to this, just the the Australian usage um. 0:07:10.320 --> 0:07:12.360 This also reminds me of um. And this is not 0:07:12.440 --> 0:07:15.480 something that I think was a comment commentary on any 0:07:15.560 --> 0:07:21.240 actual uh, you know, linguistic or slang tendency, but just 0:07:21.320 --> 0:07:24.520 for the the style of writing the skit. Uh, there's 0:07:24.520 --> 0:07:27.480 the Key and Peel skit about action movies where the 0:07:27.600 --> 0:07:31.600 two chauffeurs talking about Liam Neeson movies and they refer 0:07:31.680 --> 0:07:33.960 to him as Liam Neeson's And I saw a bit 0:07:34.000 --> 0:07:35.520 with Key and People where they were talking about like 0:07:35.560 --> 0:07:39.160 the rule for writing the sketch for subsequent sketches was 0:07:39.520 --> 0:07:42.480 that you have an actor's name ends in an S, 0:07:42.640 --> 0:07:45.480 you take the S off and if it doesn't end 0:07:45.480 --> 0:07:47.520 in an S, you add the s. So thus you 0:07:47.600 --> 0:07:52.360 get like uh, Bruce Willie, Bruce Willie and Liam Neeson's, etcetera. 0:07:52.680 --> 0:07:54.920 It's funny how in reality we don't usually need to 0:07:54.920 --> 0:07:57.760 have the rules for language conventions like that spelled out. 0:07:57.800 --> 0:08:00.559 We just get it intuitively, you know, like he's talking 0:08:00.560 --> 0:08:02.520 about you just know it either ends in the E 0:08:02.680 --> 0:08:05.440 sound or the O sound. But you couldn't explain why. Yeah, 0:08:05.560 --> 0:08:08.880 generally these things just emerged that they're not constructed so much. 0:08:09.280 --> 0:08:11.720 Oh wait a minute, I know the earliest example that 0:08:11.760 --> 0:08:13.760 the broader world became aware of. Right, it's got to 0:08:13.800 --> 0:08:16.480 be throw a shrimp on the barbie. Barbie means barbecue, 0:08:16.760 --> 0:08:24.480 that's right. Yeah, all right, here's another one. This one 0:08:24.560 --> 0:08:27.080 comes to us from Jonathan on the subject of halos. 0:08:27.120 --> 0:08:29.680 Joan rob I was wondering if you ever came across 0:08:29.760 --> 0:08:32.640 this theory in your research of halos. I once read 0:08:32.640 --> 0:08:35.440 a suggestion that the concept originated in ancient times, when 0:08:35.520 --> 0:08:38.760 round plates were placed over the heads of statuary of 0:08:38.800 --> 0:08:42.600 important persons to protect them from being defiled by bird droppings. 0:08:43.440 --> 0:08:46.320 I love the possibility that such an ethereal symbol would 0:08:46.360 --> 0:08:50.240 have such a base origin. Uh, Jonathan. Our next piece 0:08:50.280 --> 0:08:53.200 of listener mail addresses this very idea, so hang tight, 0:08:54.360 --> 0:08:57.560 and they continue quickly regarding ours. I was reminded of 0:08:57.600 --> 0:09:00.640 an essay by Aldus Huxley where he asserts, at quote, 0:09:00.640 --> 0:09:05.520 brilliantly illuminated by peternatural light, inwardly glowing images of bright 0:09:05.600 --> 0:09:09.240 and purple color exist in the mind at large. Of course, 0:09:09.280 --> 0:09:12.320 that's a whole tangent, but it adds a slightly different 0:09:12.400 --> 0:09:14.880 view of why we may be so attracted by anything 0:09:14.920 --> 0:09:19.920 that seems to glow of itself best, Jonathan, Jonathan, I 0:09:20.160 --> 0:09:23.280 looked up the link you sent about about this essay 0:09:23.320 --> 0:09:26.640 by Huxley, So this actually comes from a summary and 0:09:26.640 --> 0:09:29.880 a review of Huxley by Paul Zucker, and I found 0:09:30.080 --> 0:09:33.000 the original, and so, yeah, he's talking about this book 0:09:33.040 --> 0:09:36.640 of Huxley's where Huxley is doing sort of a scientific 0:09:36.800 --> 0:09:39.920 read on art criticism that involves, of course, a lot 0:09:39.960 --> 0:09:45.120 of ideas about mysticism and psychedelic experiences and stuff like that. Um. 0:09:45.160 --> 0:09:47.760 But I also came across this interesting paragraph of of 0:09:47.840 --> 0:09:52.600 Zucker summarizing Huxley's ideas quote, the problem is actually whether 0:09:52.720 --> 0:09:56.719 men began to prize Jim's to grind pebbles because they 0:09:56.800 --> 0:10:00.400 wanted to reflect the other world as far as possible 0:10:00.440 --> 0:10:04.440 in their work, or described that other world in terms 0:10:04.480 --> 0:10:08.800 of jewels, etcetera, because they had experienced their beautifying effects 0:10:08.800 --> 0:10:13.160 in daily life. Is the transporting power of fireworks, of 0:10:13.160 --> 0:10:17.680 an illumination of all kinds of other glamorous spectacles and 0:10:17.760 --> 0:10:21.640 pageantries based on the feeling of an attenuated echo of 0:10:21.679 --> 0:10:25.720 the visionary world? Or does it merely represent a satisfaction 0:10:25.800 --> 0:10:30.160 of a visual sense? Huxley firmly believes in the first explanation. 0:10:30.600 --> 0:10:33.120 So they're in interrogating the idea of whether, like a 0:10:33.320 --> 0:10:36.840 glimmers of light and shiny objects, whether that is a 0:10:36.880 --> 0:10:39.800 sort of natural part of just what the brain does 0:10:39.880 --> 0:10:44.280 when it's having a mystical or psychedelic or visionary experience inwardly. 0:10:44.679 --> 0:10:47.000 And then do we seek out you know, gold and 0:10:47.080 --> 0:10:50.800 rubies because that recreates for our eyes the experiences that 0:10:50.840 --> 0:10:53.280 we have in our minds when we see visions, you know, 0:10:53.400 --> 0:10:56.360 just what emerges naturally from the neurons firing in the 0:10:56.440 --> 0:10:59.040 right way. Or is it that we have visions like 0:10:59.080 --> 0:11:01.600 that because we know that gold and jewels and the 0:11:01.640 --> 0:11:04.480 sun glint in that way in the real world. Yeah, 0:11:04.520 --> 0:11:06.439 that's a great contemplation. I mean, I guess one is 0:11:06.480 --> 0:11:08.400 tempted to take the middle ground and say that these 0:11:08.559 --> 0:11:11.280 these two things feed into each other, or at least 0:11:11.280 --> 0:11:19.480 that's my take. Okay. Anyway, this next message comes from 0:11:19.520 --> 0:11:21.400 Scott and it picks up on the first thing that 0:11:21.520 --> 0:11:25.200 Jonathan mentioned. Hi, Rob and Joe, longtime listener here with 0:11:25.240 --> 0:11:28.400 either a potential insight or at least an amusing digression 0:11:28.440 --> 0:11:31.280 on Halo's after listening to your part one episode there on. 0:11:32.040 --> 0:11:35.280 When I first went to the Parthenon Museum in Athens 0:11:35.280 --> 0:11:38.520 a few years ago, I read about how vertical holes 0:11:38.600 --> 0:11:41.080 in the back of the neck of many statues of 0:11:41.120 --> 0:11:46.880 divine beings supported a meniscus plural meniskoy, a crescent shaped 0:11:46.960 --> 0:11:50.720 metal piece hovering over the statue which functioned to keep 0:11:50.800 --> 0:11:53.400 birds from sitting on the head and pooping on it, 0:11:53.600 --> 0:11:57.280 at least according to a reference in the Birds by Aristophanes. 0:11:57.880 --> 0:12:02.040 And that's an ancient Greek satirical lay. Uh. There were 0:12:02.040 --> 0:12:05.439 indeed many such holes in statues on display, but apparently 0:12:05.559 --> 0:12:10.520 no surviving miniskoy, perhaps because later generations stole and melted 0:12:10.520 --> 0:12:14.280 down the metal for some other purpose. This fact startled 0:12:14.280 --> 0:12:17.720 me because it seemed there was an obvious connection with halos. 0:12:18.120 --> 0:12:21.680 What if Greek statues originally had miniskoy in order to 0:12:21.679 --> 0:12:25.120 protect their heads from bird poop, but this functional design 0:12:25.200 --> 0:12:28.959 gradually began to be associated with divinity, only later to 0:12:29.200 --> 0:12:32.559 enter painting and other forms. Of course, halos or other 0:12:32.640 --> 0:12:35.800 kinds of glows exist in iconographies of other cultures and 0:12:35.840 --> 0:12:40.040 perhaps predated miniskoy, but it is still possible that miniskoy 0:12:40.160 --> 0:12:44.040 influenced the history of halos and other artwork. There's controversy 0:12:44.080 --> 0:12:48.200 about miniskoy. At least one modern scholar doubts they even existed, 0:12:48.320 --> 0:12:51.640 and perhaps Aristophanes was making some kind of joke we 0:12:51.679 --> 0:12:55.959 can no longer quite understand, and Scott supplies a link here. Uh. 0:12:56.000 --> 0:12:59.520 It's also possible that miniskoy were intended to be supernatural 0:12:59.600 --> 0:13:03.000 halo and Aristophanes was joking about their function when he 0:13:03.080 --> 0:13:05.920 knew full well they weren't there to keep birds off 0:13:05.920 --> 0:13:09.760 the heads, or perhaps this was only a secondary, fortuitous function. 0:13:10.320 --> 0:13:12.600 But I remained surprised that, at least as far as 0:13:12.600 --> 0:13:15.160 I can tell, there is little or no discussion in 0:13:15.200 --> 0:13:19.559 the scholarly literature about the relationship between miniskoy and halos. 0:13:19.600 --> 0:13:22.320 Perhaps you can either find some and enlighten me, or 0:13:22.400 --> 0:13:25.080 by pointing to this gap in art history, encourage some 0:13:25.160 --> 0:13:30.400 of your listeners with the relevant skills to explore this connection. Scott, Well, Scott, 0:13:30.440 --> 0:13:32.600 this is a great email. Yeah, and a really great idea. 0:13:32.679 --> 0:13:34.960 We I did not come across this in my HALO 0:13:35.040 --> 0:13:39.240 research and uh and this is really interesting. It ra 0:13:39.240 --> 0:13:41.160 also raises a great question about, like, you know, the 0:13:41.320 --> 0:13:45.719 interpretation of comedy and satire from the past and from 0:13:45.760 --> 0:13:49.960 other cultures. You know, um, not that will necessarily be 0:13:50.000 --> 0:13:51.800 the case in the future. I guess there's just so 0:13:51.880 --> 0:13:54.440 much more material to go on. But but you know, 0:13:54.480 --> 0:13:56.200 if we were to play that game of saying, what 0:13:56.360 --> 0:14:00.520 if the future aliens or future civilizations were look back 0:14:00.520 --> 0:14:03.000 and they only had this one bit of stand up 0:14:03.000 --> 0:14:05.040 comedy to go on, or what if they had only 0:14:05.400 --> 0:14:08.200 thirty minutes of Monty Python sketches to go on in 0:14:08.280 --> 0:14:10.920 order to try and understand what what life and the 0:14:11.400 --> 0:14:14.400 twentieth century was like? You know, how would they begin 0:14:14.480 --> 0:14:17.559 to tease that apart? Because take take, for instance, say 0:14:17.559 --> 0:14:20.000 the Ministry of Funny Walks. You know, that is an 0:14:20.040 --> 0:14:24.640 outrageous example of it's an outrageous skit that is not 0:14:24.680 --> 0:14:29.480 representing anything that literally exists existed in the world, but 0:14:29.760 --> 0:14:34.400 it is a ridiculous satire of of some of the 0:14:34.520 --> 0:14:37.160 things that we do engage in, you know, both in 0:14:37.280 --> 0:14:41.080 terms of of you know, governmental offices and so forth, 0:14:41.120 --> 0:14:44.000 and then also you know ridiculous uh, you know, marching 0:14:44.040 --> 0:14:46.680 steps that are that are common in you know, various 0:14:47.240 --> 0:14:50.240 armed forces displays and so forth. Well, so there's another 0:14:50.280 --> 0:14:54.080 big issue with comedy. Uh, that's difficult to interpret across 0:14:54.160 --> 0:14:57.560 time because you can lose perspective across time as to 0:14:57.720 --> 0:15:00.800 what about it is supposed to be funny, even if 0:15:00.880 --> 0:15:04.040 you know it's supposed to be funny. I'm thinking, for example, 0:15:04.040 --> 0:15:06.840 of the Monty Python sketch about the dead parrot. Now, 0:15:07.160 --> 0:15:10.840 that's funny to us just because it is an absurd situation, 0:15:10.880 --> 0:15:12.880 and a lot of Monty Python skits are like that. 0:15:13.040 --> 0:15:16.560 They're not satirizing any particular thing that happens in the 0:15:16.600 --> 0:15:19.640 real world. It's just absurd. But you can imagine a 0:15:19.680 --> 0:15:22.720 future historian looking at that skit and saying, like, was 0:15:22.800 --> 0:15:25.520 this a problem in the twentieth century where there are 0:15:25.560 --> 0:15:28.320 many pet shops in Britain that we're selling people, dead 0:15:28.360 --> 0:15:30.920 pets and this is a this is a joke about 0:15:30.960 --> 0:15:34.040 how common this is? Yeah, or you know, I think 0:15:34.080 --> 0:15:36.920 we've talked about this before, um, you know, growing up 0:15:36.920 --> 0:15:39.000 watching Mystery Science Theater three thousand. I don't know if 0:15:39.000 --> 0:15:41.280 I've had this. I think we've had this conversation where 0:15:41.280 --> 0:15:43.360 there are jokes on MST three K that I've been 0:15:43.440 --> 0:15:48.000 laughing about my entire life, and I still don't necessarily 0:15:48.040 --> 0:15:50.160 know what they are about. In all cases, you know, 0:15:50.200 --> 0:15:53.040 there might be a reference to some sort of television 0:15:53.080 --> 0:15:56.160 show that the creators were familiar with because it was 0:15:56.200 --> 0:15:59.640 on TV, you know, when they were growing up. And uh, 0:15:59.680 --> 0:16:01.920 and so I don't specifically know the reference, but I 0:16:02.320 --> 0:16:04.680 know that it is funny, and I interpreted it is funny. 0:16:04.840 --> 0:16:06.960 This is something. Yeah, I can't remember what episode this 0:16:07.040 --> 0:16:08.960 came up in, but are This is still one of 0:16:08.960 --> 0:16:11.880 the most interesting things about humor to me, that something 0:16:11.920 --> 0:16:14.080 can be funny even if you don't get the joke. 0:16:14.440 --> 0:16:16.600 This was especially common I remember a lot when I 0:16:16.640 --> 0:16:19.280 was a kid, but it still happens sometimes, Like they 0:16:19.280 --> 0:16:22.600 say an actor in a movie looks like somebody, and 0:16:22.640 --> 0:16:24.840 then it's funny when you hear it, Like it makes 0:16:24.880 --> 0:16:26.720 you laugh, but you actually don't know who that other 0:16:26.760 --> 0:16:38.880 person is. Just something about the delivery was funny. Yeah, 0:16:39.000 --> 0:16:40.720 all right, let's move on to another one. This one 0:16:40.760 --> 0:16:44.480 comes to us from Joe Another Joe Uh. They write, 0:16:44.880 --> 0:16:47.480 thanks for the interesting podcast on Halo's. I love seeing 0:16:47.480 --> 0:16:49.520 the evolution of Halo's and art and the way they 0:16:49.600 --> 0:16:52.400 demonstrate the advancement in the understanding of light and how 0:16:52.400 --> 0:16:55.600 to depict it. Your discussion of halos and movies focused 0:16:55.600 --> 0:16:58.800 on more serious angel depictions, but I had a faint 0:16:58.840 --> 0:17:02.240 since memory of Halo is in lighter fair. I started 0:17:02.240 --> 0:17:05.359 by looking at the recent and magnificent good omens, but 0:17:05.480 --> 0:17:10.160 these business like angels lack true halos, although as Zerra 0:17:10.240 --> 0:17:13.439 Fail is occasionally shot to have an apparent halo for 0:17:13.520 --> 0:17:16.760 comedic effects so like lighting effects, and often wears white 0:17:16.800 --> 0:17:20.639 hats with a golden band. The angel Uriel also has 0:17:20.680 --> 0:17:22.879 a gold motif on his face, but it's not really 0:17:22.880 --> 0:17:25.680 a halo. And they're the and they're the only angel 0:17:25.760 --> 0:17:29.560 so decorated. Oh yeah, and I so um. Joe attached 0:17:29.600 --> 0:17:31.520 a few pictures for us to look at, and in 0:17:31.600 --> 0:17:34.040 the case of this character as Zero Fail, I haven't 0:17:34.080 --> 0:17:36.120 seen this show, so I don't know who these characters are, 0:17:36.160 --> 0:17:39.520 but Yeah shows that this character is often backlit and 0:17:39.640 --> 0:17:42.719 he has some like wispy white sideburns so that they 0:17:42.840 --> 0:17:45.399 very much catch the glow of the lighting from behind. 0:17:45.920 --> 0:17:48.280 This is the character played by Michael Sheen, the the 0:17:48.280 --> 0:17:51.280 always excellent Michael Sheen. I think I watched the first 0:17:51.320 --> 0:17:53.119 episode of this and it is quite good, but for 0:17:53.160 --> 0:17:56.040 some reason I didn't keep going with it. It's too 0:17:56.119 --> 0:18:00.239 much to watch. I mean, I generally love anything uh 0:18:00.520 --> 0:18:04.840 Terry Pratchett, any anything that his his creativity was involved in. 0:18:05.960 --> 0:18:10.000 Oh anyway that Joe continues here. Then I remembered the 0:18:10.080 --> 0:18:14.200 charming I dated film Angels in the Outfield, which that 0:18:14.320 --> 0:18:16.400 is good because my mind did not immediately go here. 0:18:17.760 --> 0:18:22.480 Joe rights the film has pure archetype angels robes, sandals, wings, 0:18:22.720 --> 0:18:26.159 and shimmering golden hoops about their heads. So there you 0:18:26.240 --> 0:18:30.200 have it, Halos in cinema. Joe included a link here 0:18:30.400 --> 0:18:32.720 for to a video. It's the scene in Angels in 0:18:32.720 --> 0:18:34.440 the Outfield. I haven't seen this movie since I was 0:18:34.480 --> 0:18:36.800 a kid, but I remember it very vividly. I think 0:18:36.920 --> 0:18:39.480 as a kid, Joseph Gordon loved in it. Am I wrong? 0:18:39.520 --> 0:18:43.200 About that. I think so. Yeah, there's a scene where 0:18:43.240 --> 0:18:46.399 one of the characters like catches a flyball. The plot 0:18:46.400 --> 0:18:48.240 of Angels in the Outfield is that there is a 0:18:48.280 --> 0:18:52.200 professional baseball team that's extremely bad, and a kid makes 0:18:52.240 --> 0:18:54.840 a wish to Heaven that they'll I guess that they 0:18:54.840 --> 0:18:57.720 could win win, or that they win the World Series 0:18:57.800 --> 0:19:00.359 or something like that, and then the angels down and 0:19:00.359 --> 0:19:03.159 they're like, yep, we will answer your prayers, which seems 0:19:03.160 --> 0:19:07.360 just utter abuse of supernatural powers. Oh wait, I don't 0:19:07.359 --> 0:19:09.440 think I you know when they when I read the title, 0:19:09.480 --> 0:19:12.720 I was confusing this with the what was it? Uh, 0:19:13.080 --> 0:19:15.160 if you build it, they will come movie. Oh you're 0:19:15.160 --> 0:19:17.600 thinking a Field of Dreams, Field of Dreams? Yeah, I 0:19:17.640 --> 0:19:19.280 had I had the too confused. I was thinking this 0:19:19.359 --> 0:19:21.320 must be the same film, but it's not. I thought 0:19:21.320 --> 0:19:23.119 you were maybe saying you were you were confusing it 0:19:23.160 --> 0:19:26.560 with air Bud. That'd be a good crossover. What if 0:19:26.560 --> 0:19:29.800 it's air Bud is a dog is a dog, but 0:19:29.880 --> 0:19:31.880 all dog go to heaven when they die. He comes 0:19:31.920 --> 0:19:35.240 back as an angel, an angel dog and help. I mean, 0:19:35.280 --> 0:19:37.160 these can all films can just be made into one, 0:19:37.320 --> 0:19:39.800 and they're probably probably be better for it. I was 0:19:39.840 --> 0:19:42.240 trying to think who plays the angels and angels in 0:19:42.280 --> 0:19:45.080 the outfield? I was thinking, can I mentally cast this movie, 0:19:45.119 --> 0:19:47.560 like I remember one is Christopher Lloyd? But beyond that, 0:19:47.880 --> 0:19:50.600 could I round out the cast of extra angels from 0:19:50.640 --> 0:19:53.639 my imagination alone without looking it up? I was thinking, 0:19:53.920 --> 0:19:57.040 was John Lovett's in there? Was there John Lovett's Seraphim? 0:19:57.040 --> 0:20:01.199 That seems right? Um, see, yeah, I'm looking at the 0:20:01.200 --> 0:20:05.960 cast now, and um it's confusing because there's the team 0:20:06.040 --> 0:20:08.320 is the angels as well, so it's hard to just 0:20:08.440 --> 0:20:12.520 really spot angels really quickly. Was Tony Danza an angel? 0:20:13.200 --> 0:20:15.480 He's the angel's picture, so I guess he's like a 0:20:15.520 --> 0:20:19.400 real I don't know if he's an actual heavenly Yeah. 0:20:19.800 --> 0:20:22.520 The only the only one that I'm noticing here that 0:20:22.640 --> 0:20:25.879 is definitely an angels, as I guess, Christopher Lloyd. He 0:20:25.920 --> 0:20:27.840 doesn't turn anyone into a pillar of salt in this 0:20:28.000 --> 0:20:33.880 or anything. Christopher Lloyd as the Angel of death. Oh wait, wait, 0:20:33.920 --> 0:20:36.760 there's more though that. There's more on this email from Joe. 0:20:37.040 --> 0:20:40.119 They continue. I also appreciated the story of whom Babo 0:20:40.160 --> 0:20:42.800 you shared in one episode. Your discussion of the Seven 0:20:42.920 --> 0:20:44.959 r has reminded me of a modern story that may 0:20:45.000 --> 0:20:49.080 have borrowed this archetype Marvels Thanos and his Infinity Stones 0:20:49.200 --> 0:20:52.840 powers which, when possessed, render invulnerability an enemy of the 0:20:52.880 --> 0:20:55.920 forces of good, until the hero seizes them by trickery 0:20:56.160 --> 0:20:59.000 and they are once again scattered across the cosmos. Also 0:20:59.040 --> 0:21:02.560 worth mentioning the freak see with which Ariola's are part 0:21:02.600 --> 0:21:05.800 of the design of superheroes are modern mythic figures. Thanks, 0:21:05.800 --> 0:21:09.600 as always for enlightening and engaging content, Joe, I have 0:21:09.640 --> 0:21:12.480 not seen the movies that have Thanos in them, But Rob, 0:21:12.480 --> 0:21:15.240 what do you know about Infinity Stones? Oh? Um, yeah, 0:21:15.280 --> 0:21:17.400 I mean I've I've seen those two movies, and yeah, 0:21:17.440 --> 0:21:22.200 Thanos Uh, Danos has a certain uh you know, ancient 0:21:22.280 --> 0:21:25.840 Sumerian um aura to him. I would say, yeah, and 0:21:25.880 --> 0:21:27.920 in a sense, yeah, I think I think there's a 0:21:27.960 --> 0:21:30.080 strong comparison to be made there. It wouldn't He wouldn't 0:21:30.080 --> 0:21:33.120 shock me if that was an intentional comparison, at least 0:21:33.119 --> 0:21:36.439 on the part of the the original architects of this 0:21:36.600 --> 0:21:39.239 character in the comic books. Oh interesting, So is there 0:21:39.280 --> 0:21:42.720 a moment where like like like Iron Man and Black 0:21:42.760 --> 0:21:45.119 Panther and they all have to go into the cedar 0:21:45.160 --> 0:21:48.359 forest or is it just did well yet? Now that 0:21:48.359 --> 0:21:50.760 you mentioned the showdown, the initial showdown with him, I 0:21:50.760 --> 0:21:53.359 think does take place in a forest. Um, we're on 0:21:53.359 --> 0:21:54.760 the edge of a forest, you know what. I think 0:21:54.760 --> 0:21:58.840 it takes place in um Waconda right now, So if 0:21:58.880 --> 0:22:01.119