A method of ensuring further sight by means of capitistation
When, in order to see further, one elevates oneself, there are three metrics by which to measure the increase in sight:
- How far one can now see, considered by itself.
- How far one can now see, compared to how far one could see before the elevation.
- How far one can now see, compared to how far that on which one stands can see (should one stand on a sighted entity).
It will easily be seen that any method of increasing the penetration of one's sight by standing will increase 1 and 2. However, the most popular current method, that of humerostation, can fail to increase 3—and, in so far as 3 is the metric most people consider important, this flaw is fatal.
Consider the common expression, "if I have seen further, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". This is meant, of course, to compare oneself to one's ordinary abilities (that is, 1) and to one's peers of lesser status (that is, 2), but primarily in so stating one is explaining how one has managed to do better than those who came before, that is to say, the giants. "I am no giant", one says, "but nevertheless I have managed to see further than those giants".
But in fact more is said than just that! If one wishes to see further by this method, the giants cannot be too giant. The distance from my shoulders to eye level is about 8.5 inches, or 11.8% of my total height, and my eyes are about 68 inches high. Now, consider a giant, with my proportions, who stands 49 feet tall. The distance from his shoulders to his eyes would be about 69.4 inches—in other words, even if I stood on his shoulders, he would still see further than I would. The situation would worsen if the giant got taller (preserving proportions). Thus humerostation is not a fully-general solution to the problem of far sight! I propose, therefore, that we scrap it altogether and replace it with the practice of standing on heads, which should suffice until such time as people begin growing eye stalks.
Comments
on 2006-02-19 11:57:20.0, A White Bear commented:
Once we get into the realm of giants of truly Brobdingnagian proportions, I think we'll also find there's the problem of scale. Not only do our eyes not rise fully above the giant's from shoulder-level, but also our eyes would be considerably smaller than his. While certainly even a great giant may see his own feet, the tiny me on his shoulder can barely peer down to his elbow.
No, I bet Newton didn't think of his predecessors as quite that much larger than himself. As Charles Perrault wrote, "Je vois les anciens, sans plier les genous; / Ils sont grands, il est vrai, mais hommes comme nous." It's much more Temple's perspective to say those giants were so big that we can't even reach their shoulders.
and, further, on 2006-02-19 0:03:42.0, Matt commented:
The alternative, of course, is to select severely myopic giants.
and, further, on 2006-02-19 0:15:59.0, ben wolfson commented:
hommes comme νους
and, further, on 2006-02-19 19:58:12.0, Standpipe Bridgeplate commented:
If you can, try to choose your giant from among those upon especially firm ground, taking care to avoid any who, under your added weight, would likely sink down into the earth beneath them, such as one standing in a bog. Unless it's really just a fen nominal.
and, further, on 2006-02-19 19:59:53.0, ben wolfson commented:
And you find my syntax tortuous.
and, further, on 2006-02-19 20:10:06.0, Standpipe Bridgeplate commented:
Eh? Just that one garden-pathological case.
and, further, on 2006-02-19 20:12:09.0, A White Bear commented:
Standpipe, that's exactly the case of those who choose Locke as their giant. Sure, he looks tall and sturdy from a distance, but get on top of him and it's Bog City.
and, further, on 2006-02-19 20:15:39.0, ben wolfson commented:
You're right. The other time I was thinking of, you actually found it torturous.
and, further, on 2006-02-19 20:29:01.0, Standpipe Bridgeplate commented:
Oh, that. I hope you'll forgive me. That was before I knew what a tortue was.
and, further, on 2006-02-20 12:17:39.0, rone commented:
Oh yeah?
and, further, on 2006-02-23 6:08:13.0, slolernr commented:
The coinage "humerostation" discomfits me. I think that unless you have an unorthodox method of shoulder standing, you're very unlikely to be resting your weight on the giant's humeri. The supraspinati, perhaps; in turn then on the scapula. Or possibly on the acromial process.
and, further, on 2006-02-23 6:09:35.0, ben wolfson commented:
This just goes to show how much real scientific thought on this matter has been lacking until now.
and, further, on 2006-02-23 6:14:14.0, slolernr commented:
I demand a study, collecting and observing the stance and posture of self-identified shoulder-standers, also a control group of non-shoulder-standers requested to, for the purposes of the study and in the interests of science, stand on shoulders.
Then we'd know where the rubber hits the shoulder.
Assuming rubber-soled shoes, of course.
and, further, on 2006-02-24 19:59:30.0, Matt Weiner commented:
Speaking of increasing 2 by standing is meaningless -- for 2 concerns the increase itself.
and, further, on 2006-02-24 20:00:55.0, ben wolfson commented:
One can increase the increase by standing on something yet higher.