Mission

For having recently "met", you know me too well already! As to GEB, it had only recently been published when I was studying epistemology. I started on it, but became distracted. Perhaps it is time to revisit it? Thanks for reminding me of it! It's an easy book to get distracted from. Sometimes I think the author got distracted and decided to wander off on some tangent or another for the heck of it. (You can get it extremely cheaply on Amazon used. I love Amazon used.) We really must meet some day. Then we can drink heartily (preferably single malt scotch... almost anything but JD straight) and finally have that discussion on religion that you appear to be itching to engage in. (No, not here. I can put out some flame wars and I can't put out others. That one's most likely an "other.")

Hey, I do skill and motivational trainings for fun. (Why yes...I'd love to fly to California or Florida.)

Oh, and one other interesting quote - to explain Woodall's involvement with the creation of BRN surgeon's chests. “The year 1626 was noteworthy both for medical reform and Woodall’s pocket; firstly the Privy Council decided to pay the Barber-Surgeons Company fixed allowances to furnish medical chests for both the army and the navy, and secondly the company requested Woodall to supervise their provision, in addition to his long-standing commitment to the East India Company chests. As a result he wrote, ‘myselfe had the whole ordering, making and appointing of His Highnesse Military provisions for Surgery, both for his Land and Sea-service,’ (Epistle-Congratulatory, 1639) inducing him to extend the appeal of this later edition to military, naval as well as merchant marine surgeons (Frontispiece). Despite dismissal as surgeon-general to the East India Company in 1635 for economy reasons, he retained a monopoly of supplying the Company’s medical chests until 1643, the year of his death at about 73 years of age, presumably in London. There is no evidence of a prolonged illness although when 69 he maintained that poor sight and impaired memory prevented him from writing additional matter for The Surgeons Mate.” (Kirkup/Woodall, p. xv) This is, of course, about 50 years before GAoP, so even it may not be accurate to period. However, Woodall has one of the few references to the making up of the Surgeon's Chest other than obscure government naval notes, so I don't have much else to go on.

Interesting points raised with some great links. Keep 'em coming, I was not aware of some of those sites! There are many things I do know about the surgeon's chest that I did not state in the original lengthy post that might be worth noting now. First, as I understand it, the practice of medicine began undergoing sweeping changes starting around the early 1740s. Note that things during this period changed much more slowly than they do today. It seems from my reading that these changes continued slowly for about the next 100 - 150 years. (Yep, you read that right.) However, as a result, items found from the Napoleonic period are not necessarily going to be representative of what would have been around during the GAoP. _____ Second, for surgeons of the East India and BRN, the surgeon's chests were standardized by the organizations who made them. “Early in 1703 the Society [of Apothecaries] approached Navy Office with a view to obtaining the monopoly of all naval medical supplies other than the surgical chests provided from Surgeon’s Hall. If this were approved, economies could be effected, better control over quality and quantity exercised and supplies ensured.” (John Keevil, Medicine and the Navy 1200-1900: Volume II – 1640-1714 p. 272) They may have varied by lot and year, but I would at least expect the design would be fairly consistent during the GAoP. (This is guesswork on my part, however. As I said, according to Keevil, we have no example of an actual original surgeon's chest from this period.) However, Woodall purportedly redesigned the Surgeon's chest and then detailed most of the instruments that were to go into it in his book, The surgion's mate which would have been around during period according to most accounts. “[Woodall] addressed the problem of poorly stocked ships by redesigning the surgeons’ chests and implementing a system of checking each chest and sealing it before it was brought onboard.” (Glen Hazelwood, , “John Woodall: From Barber-Surgeon to Surgeon-General,” Proceedings of the 12th Annual History of Medicine Days, March 2003, p. 120) Now, as to what a surgeon might have if he were not entering into the BRN or the East India Company, it would be impossible to say. However, most surgeons who went to sea did so because they were young, poor and inexperienced. The chests were very expensive to purchase outright, so they likely would not have been able to do so. Still, it could be argued that a ship owner might purchase a custom-made surgeon's chest that would differ from those given by the BRN or the East India Company. _____ Third, Woodall suggests that everything was kept in the same chest. “The Surgeon’s Chest Even the smallest ship must have carried a massive wooden iron-bound chest to contain Woodall’s long list of items. Presumably the salvatory of six to eight ointments, the plaster box with its basic first-aid kit and the barber’s case were kept apart. The latter was the mate’s responsibility who, in addition to equipment for trimming and shaving, was provided with an ear-picker, paring knives for corn cutting and some dental implements. It is unlikely the chest would accommodate medical, pharmaceutical and nursing paraphernalia such as cupping glasses, blood porringers, dishes, pots, funnels, mortars, pestells and two sets of scales, one to weigh ounces and one grains; nor splints, bandages, lanterns, tinder-boxes, ink, quills and the brass pail in the close-stool!” (John Kirkup, prologue to The Surgions Mate by John Woodall, p. xvii) (Say, I just noticed something... What does he mean by iron bound?) And, for reference and my own re-education, another description from his intro (Kirkup is my favorite author on GAoP medicine.) “The account of ‘Medicines Physicall and Chirurgicall’ (p. 40, from The surgion's mate) discusses some 270 items of vegetable, animal and mineral origin; according to the folding plan inserted in the 1639 edition, each medicine is placed specifically in the upper, middle or lower part of the chest, although Woodall left the middle part ‘to the Surgeons experimentall ordering and view.’ The plan divided the upper and lower parts into 170 named compartments and thus the middle had to accommodate at least 100 items. The editor [Kirkup] has failed to trace, either a naval chest of the period or, a contemporary illustration closer in time than the 1588 military chest of William Clowes. Unlike the latter chest, one can conclude the East India Company’s chests consisted of four layers, the topmost within the cover of the lid containing instruments whilst the remainder are given over to pharmacy.” (Kirkup/Woodall, p. xviii) And I could go on (and on an on) with references, but for the time being I'll spare everyone. _____ So from this I got a wood chest (apparently iron bound?) with four layers and 170 little compartments for the medicaments. I still wonder what sort of hardware. I am not inclined to accept that Clowes' chest holds the key to that one. What was common on middling chests during the GAoP?

Have you ever read Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas R. Hofstadter? It's an intensely intellectual and bizarre book...so you might find it interesting.

I am still pondering my period(ish) medicine sea chest for holding all my potions and instruments and I thought those of you with experience in other sea-going chests might be able to help me out. Note that there are no known extant medicine chests from anywhere even near period. The best we have is a drawing from William Clowes which was first printed in one of his books in 1588. You can see it below. There are a number of problems with using this particular chest as a template for a sea surgeon's medicine chest IMO. First is the date, which is about 100 years before period. For the time being, we'll leave that aside. Second is the size. Of course, it is almost impossible to say the size since there is no scale. I have seen a photo of one that was built by someone using this sketch as a model. (This picture is from this site.) I would guesstimate that this is no bigger than 2' or 2.5' square, and possibly smaller. What is wrong with this sizing is that it would not fit one of the key instruments that Woodall implies was stored in the chest - the large bone saw. According to Alex Peck Medical and Surgical Antiques, who sold a saw almost exactly like the one Woodall depicts in his book The surgions mate, the saw would have been about 25" long. Such an instrument would not fit in the box Clowes has shown. The third problem I note is the design of the drawers. In the reproduction, you'll notice that the drawers are shown filled with bottles. However Woodall -who not only wrote the book on stocking Surgeon's Chests, he did so for the East India Company for several decades as well as for the British Royal Navy for several years - explains that the Saw and most of the other capital surgical instruments went into the chest. So these drawers appear to me to be impractically designed to house the sort of materials that the primary source we have on the topic says they housed. It is my considered opinion that this chest was for land-based surgeons, which is sort of supported by the doodlings Clowes has shown of men walking around in the background along with buildings. Land-based surgeons would have more ability to store multiple chests and boxes and would be able to purchase those things which they might need if they did not have them. Sea surgeons must take everything they need with them. This much for Clowes chest. My thought is that a surgeon's chest would be long and somewhat like a seaman's chest, except with drawers. Woodall explains that some drawers contained some instruments (although this is not well explained by any stretch of the imagination). I conjecture that it would be like a machinist's chest: ...although perhaps without the front as it is shown. (The front is shown folded into the very bottom of the above chest. It can be partially pulled out to serve as a shelf for the machinist as well as being removed and placed into a slot along the bottom of the chest to enclose all the drawers.) On the other hand, Clowes' chest sort of looks like it might have a front like that, so I could be wrong. What are the cognoscienti's thoughts? I have some notes relating to the surgeon's chest that I may bring up in another post, but for now I'm interested in ideas on type of wood, approximate size and appropriate hardware. Since these surgeon's chests were created by the Apothecaries for the Navy, I wouldn't think they would be of the fine quality of a captain's desk. But because they were for surgeons (warrant officers - and necessary ones at that), I wouldn't think they would be of the rough timbers of a lowly seaman's chest. I would expect the hardware would be of the common sort, but not the base sort. Any ideas?

See, that tells us all kinds of interesting things about you Capn Bob! Plus you paint the picture well. (Sometimes I wish I could be idealistic, young and stupid like I was in college. Although I'll admit we never came up with anything like that.) From my college days (This is a pic in Old Main at Wayne State University. A bunch of engineering students and myself used to hang out in a disused stage on the top floor of the building, drink Jack Daniels (which is awful stuff to drink straight) and talk about life, the universe and everything. One day we found a chest of costumes...)

You took Jon fishing, but not me?! (I thought we were going to try fishing with a seine...)

Do tell! (Learning interesting stories about the people who post is one of the neat things about this thread.)

Ok, I'll take a certain amount of indirect abuse as my due for stating my views (which I originally thought were in sympathy with Ransom's original post, but a re-read suggests they are not quite), but implying that I grew up is throwing the gauntlet. Pistols at dawn on the beach! (Right after I check and see what has been posted in my Random Rabbits thread.)

Well this is the thread for being a petty annoyance. (I like to think I'm quite good at it, too.)

No, otters are the otters of the universe. A Correction Cats walk on little cat feet and fogs walk on little fog feet, Carl. -Richard Brautigan While technically true, it's a metaphor. (You'd think from this that I would like poetry, wouldn't you? You'd be wrong.) And everyone is an easy mark when Stynky is, er, 'buying.'

Messing around with avatars is fun. Besides, change is good. (It's also inevitable, so why not be a participant in the process?) I nearly always pick avatars that represent me in some way. Although I must confess, one of the reasons I created a signature banner was so that people who have met me at events know who I am. Before I attended PiP in '07, I thought banners were a waste of bandwidth. However, they allow you to explain much about your character in a way that the avatars don't. (Especially back when we were restricted to 64 x 64 avatars. Teeeeeny.) You'll note I hardly ever change my banner. I change the quotes all the time, but not the banner. (And, for the record, I am starting month 4 of an (at least) 6 month diet of avoiding alcohol. So you can't even blame the rum. ) "We are game-playing, fun-having creatures, we are the otters of the universe." -Richard Bach

In its worst form, I have always thought the need for ghosts, tarot, horrorscopes, aliens and whatnot was a way to give part of the control of our lives over to something external and try and absolve ourselves from responsibility. (In other words, it's a psychological crutch IMO.) In its least damaging form, it's a (mostly) harmless game we play with ourselves. Personally, I love being in control of my destiny. Even when things happen that I can't control, I can at least control my reaction to those inevitable things the occur outside my control. (Which doesn't happen to include ghosts, tarot, horrorscopes, aliens and whatnot - as you might have guessed. ) "Do you believe in UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis?" "Ah, if there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say."

Josh! Dude! Happy birthday and all that. (Now let me give you a little birthday advice: Stay the heck away from Stynky in the future! The man is a bad influence. Trust me, I know from repeated past and no doubt future personal experience.)

And yet somehow you're still sane? Why can't I be? Are you guys honeymooning at PiP?

There are some people who say that this is the upper brain functioning getting in the way of the lower brain functioning.

Google Image Search is your friend.

Wait...you're the Captain? OHO! (I knew it. Oh, Captain, my Captain...) Congrats you two. Photographers in love...it brings a tear to my eye. At least he doesn't have to worry about getting his family to the event!

Sit 'im with Stynky for a-bout an hour.

Yeah, that's why I stuck that in there. (Morgan, you should post here more often so's everyone who hasn't had the privilege of meeting you in person can share in your winning, sunny personality!)

Congrats Morgan! Many Morgans Mugging

OOooooooh..... Well that explain allot! One of my books suggests that instinctive responses never get farther than the spinal chord. If I remember it rightly, they were talking specifically about why you draw your hand back so quickly from a hot stove burner. Sort of like a computer network, the sensation is routed right from the point of contact to the spinal chord and back to the muscles required to move your arm without ever hitting the brain. It does get to the brain after that, though. The brain, as near as can be discerned at this point in time, is composed of several levels, some of which are quite 'old' in the development of humanity. Many of these we share with many animals that have some higher functions.

I could not help reading this thread..Are those not windows in that little shower?????????? It is twice as useful then! It can also be used as a fundraiser. We went on a week long canoe trip with some girls who were mostly game, but they brought this stupid padded toilet seat with them for setting on the makeshift facilities. About three days into the week which included several portages along with setting up and tearing down camp each day, they wished they had never brought it. Alas, it proved to be their albatross because we couldn't leave anything behind as we were in pristine lands and that was the rule. (I wonder if I can find any pics of them with their arm through that stupid thing while they were portaging the canoe? I seem to remember it being powder blue...) It seems to me you could just rough it for a few days if you have to go to this event. It's only four days and you really acclimate yourself to not showering after two. Honest. (Women too. I have documented proof.)

Ransom is on to it. First there is the instinctual response that any animal has when something occurs (a loud noise, for example. BTW, we are only naturally afraid of two things based on research with newborns - loud noises and falling. Every other fear is essentially learned according to this research. But I digress...) After the "startling" occurs, we think about how to respond - not the sort of drawn out thinking that happens when you're trying to decide what model of car to buy, but rapid, split second processing that is essentially sub- or unconscious - and the emotion is generated according to this theory. No less than William James framed the question of how emotion comes about in terms of the mental processes that produce emotions when we are startled by a bear. The startling is an instinctual, not a cognitive process. (Research suggests many such instinctual responses occur either without the assistance of the brain or at the lower levels of it which we share with animals.)