Pareidolia

Pareidolia (pronounced pair-ahy-doh-lee-uh or pair-uh-doh-lee-uh)

In psychiatry and psychology, the tendency to interpret a vague stimulus as something known to the observer, such as seeing shapes in clouds, or hearing hidden messages in music; the perception of meaning in a shape which exists by mere coincidence.

1867 (in English): From the German Pareidolie, the construct being the Ancient Greek παρα- (para-) (alongside, concurrent) + εἴδωλον (eídōlon) (image) + -ία (-ía).  The -ia suffix was from the Latin -ia and the Ancient Greek -ία (-ía) & -εια (-eia), used to form abstract nouns of feminine gender.  It was applied to the names of countries, diseases, species etc and, occasionally, collections of stuff.  In English, the word was re-introduced by UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) debunker Steven Goldstein in 22 June 1994 edition of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, a publication devoted to rational, evidence-based explanations of the para-normal, magic, flying saucers and the many crackpot notions spread by new-agers, spiritualists, conspiracy theorists and other such folk.  Pareidolia is a noun and paradolic is an adjective; the noun plural is pareidolias.  There are circumstances in which the adjectives paradolish & paradolesque might be useful but neither exists.

The German word Pareidolie was in 1866 used by German psychiatrist Dr Karl Ludwig Kahlbaum (1828–1899) in his academic paper Die Sinnesdelierien (On Delusion of the Senses and in 1867, upon re-publication in volume 13 of The Journal of Mental Science, it was translated into English as “pareidolia” and noted as synonymous with the terms “...changing hallucination, partial hallucination, and perception of secondary images.”  The use of “pareidolia” is nuanced because any object (whether constructed or natural phenomenon) which even vaguely resembles something or someone can be pareidolic but the condition of pareidolia exists only when an individual attaches some meaning to the appearance or sound.  The general term is apophenia (the tendency to perceive meaningful connections between unrelated things), coined in 1958 by German neurologist and psychiatrist (and one-time Nazi) Dr Klaus Conrad (1905-1961) as Apophänie, from the Ancient Greek verb ἀποφαίνω (apophaínō), the construct being ἀπο- (apo-) and φαίνω (phaínō) (appear).  Herr Dr Conrad’s paper was on the topic of early-stage schizophrenia and he defined Apophänie as the “…unmotivated seeing of connections [accompanied by] a specific feeling of abnormal meaningfulness.”  In this, he distinguished between Apophänie as the early stages of delusional (and self-referential) over-interpretation of actual sensory perceptions, as opposed to hallucinations which were wholly illusory.

Pareidolia is a form of apophenia where the mind will attempt to find connections in random events, thoughts or patterns where none actually exist.  Pareidolia concentrates the visual and audio aspects of the brain in constructing a perception from a vague stimulus.  Clinically, there are two forms of pareidolia: (1) the “mechanistic”, where man-made objects, by mere coincidence have a resemblance to something else and (2) the “matrixed”, where natural phenomenon such as rock formations, clouds or the surfaces of planets include shapes which can be interpreted as something human, animal or supernatural and instead of being regarded as coincidental and amusing, are treated as having some inherent meaning or being evidence of some theory otherwise unsupported by any evidence.

The vast majority of pareidolias reported resemble the human face.  It’s believed that early in human evolution, the visual system developed specialized neural mechanisms which exist rapidly to detect faces and this “broad tuning” for facial features is thought to underlie the illusory perception of faces in inanimate objects (the phenomenon classified as “face pareidolia”).  There were all sorts of reasons why evolution operated in this way (family and societal relationships, recognition of threats by other creatures with a vaguely similar facial structure) and recent research suggests the mechanisms underlying face processing (certainly during the earliest phase of visual encoding) may treat objects that resemble faces as real faces, prioritizing their detection (this phase operating as something of a “clearing house”; the “positives” further processed, the “negatives” discarded.  What is of interest in psychology is that face pareidolia has been more frequently reported amongst individuals prone to hallucinations.

That the phenomenon of face pareidolia manifests with such frequency as the identification of the human face in various structures prompted some to ponder the evidence from behavioral studies of diminished orientation towards faces as well as the presence of face perception impairments in autism spectrum disorder (ASD); the research in this aspect of the condition has been criticized but the design of the experimental approach was challenging, interest was taken in the possibility of a relationship between the two.  In ASD research, face-like object stimuli which had been shown to evoke pareidolia in TD (typically developing according defined criteria in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5, 2013)) individuals were used to test the effect of a global face-like configuration on orientation and perceptual processes in young children with ASD and age-matched TD controls.  That had demonstrated TD children were more likely to look first towards upright face-like objects than children with ASD, suggesting a global face-like configuration elicit a stronger orientation bias in TD children as compared to children with ASD.  However, once focused on the stimuli, both groups spent more time exploring the upright face-like object, suggesting both perceived it as a face.  The conclusion was the result was in agreement with earlier work in the field of abnormal social orienting in ASD.  The conclusion was something like the usual “more research required”.

Detecting faces in non-face stimuli may have a strong adaptive value given that from an evolutionary point of view, the cost of erroneously detecting a face in non-face stimuli might be less than failing to detect another’s face in the environment.  Pareidolia may thus be just another spectrum condition in that the perception of pareidolic faces or other shapes in a variety of surfaces or spaces may vary little between people, the difference being more the individual’s reaction and the reporting of the event(s).

Sometimes a cloud is just a cloud (left) but when Lindsay Lohan wanted something to encapsulate the spirit of her Instagram post requesting privacy to “solve personal matters” after a tiff with her then with fiancé, she choose a pareidolic cloud in the shape of a “heart” (complete with silver lining, centre).  Before their tiff, Donald Trump's (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) fixer and personal counsel Michael Cohen (b 1966) would receive messages (right) from God in the shape of clouds, assuring him Mr Trump was the Almighty's choice as the "people's messenger".

Automatism

Automatism (pronounced aw-tom-uh-tiz-um)

(1) A condition in which one is consciously or unconsciously, but involuntarily, compelled to the performance of certain acts; also called telergy.

(2) In philosophy, the doctrine that all activities of animals (or of humans and animals), are entirely controlled by physical or physiological causes in which consciousness takes no part; the doctrine that animals are automata, operating according to mechanical laws.

(3) In certain common-law jurisdictions, a defense available to the accused in certain, limited circumstances (the threshold is high because it can be an absolute defense).

(4) In clinical physiology. the involuntary functioning of an organic process, especially muscular, without apparent neural stimulation.

(5) In psychology, the performance of an act or actions without the performer's awareness or conscious volition.

(6) In early-mid twentieth-century art, a method of producing pictorial art, as paintings and collages, associated chiefly with the dadaists and surrealists, in which the artist strives to allow the impulses of the unconscious to guide the hand in matters of line, color and structure without the interference of conscious choice.

1803: From the Ancient Greek automatismós (a happening of itself), the construct being automat(on) + -ism.  Automaton (αὐτόματον) (autómaton) as the neuter form of αὐτόματος (autómatos) (self moving, self willed).  The –ism suffix is ultimately either from the Ancient Greek -ισμός (-ismós), a suffix that forms abstract nouns of action, state, condition, doctrine; from stem of verbs in -ίζειν (-ízein) (whence the English -ize), or from the related suffix Ancient Greek -ισμα (-isma), which more specifically expressed a finished act or thing done.  The preferred plural form is automatisms.  The use in 1803 referenced "the doctrine that animals below man are devoid of consciousness; it was extended in 1856 to to humans in the sense of "automatic or involuntary action".  In psychology, automaticism (an action performed subconsciously, without any apparent direction from the mind) is synonymous with the legal construction of automatism.  Automatism, automatist & automaton are nouns and automatistic is an adjective; the noun plural is automatisms (automatons sometimes used in courts).  

At law

Sane automatism is an infrequently used defense in law, rare because the standard of proof required is so high.  If successful, it’s an absolute defense for almost any crime, including murder, even in circumstances where both sides accept a defendant is proved beyond any doubt to have done the deed.  Best thought of as the sleepwalker’s defense, the sane automaton escapes liability because (1) they were sane at the time of the offence and therefore can’t be committed to incarceration by reason of insanity and (2) were wholly unaware of the acts committed in the commission of the offence and can’t be convicted because the law demands, for a criminal prosecution to succeed, the mind must be as guilty as the hand.  This is based on the Roman legal doctrine actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty).  In English common law, the rule meant there must be actus reus (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind).  While in modern courts, mens rea is now called "fault elements" or "mental elements" and actus reus is now called "physical elements" or "external elements", the meaning is the same, the welcome changes being made to replace obscure Latin words with plain English.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

Acceptance by courts of the existence of automatism is relatively common but not its acceptance as a defense of the sane and, on technical grounds, prior fault generally excludes automatism, as does intoxication, even when involuntary.  Automatism is thus more associated with a plea of insanity under the M'Naghten Rules (M'Naghten's Case 1843 10 C & F 200).  Under English law, internal causes of automatism are generally judged to be insane automatism and so result in the verdict not guilty by reason of insanity rather than acquittal.  While the sane automatism defense is available in matters such as murder, there are offences of absolute liability where it’s not allowed, even if evidence proved it could be sustained such as receiving parking ticket after neglecting to feed meter.

Automatist Art

The Garden, (1964), by Hannah Hoch (1889-1978)

Surrealist automatism was first described during the 1920s as a technique in which an artist allows their unconscious mind to prevail over their consciousness; unsurprisingly, the process was sometimes drug-assisted.  Sceptical (ie conservative or traditionalist) critics, at the time pondering the work of the early surrealists and Dadaists made the point it wasn’t immediately (and often not subsequently) obvious whether a piece could be thought the product of an artist’s conscious or unconscious mind but such critiques seem to have made little impact on the movement.  At the technical level, the process of automatism involved an artist “allowing” their hand to create imagery with a randomness, chance (some critics preferred “accidents”) as much an element in composition as whatever remained of rational intent.  As art, a viewer could make of the works what they would but the claim there was some reflection of the artist’s “repressed subconscious” attracted the psychoanalysts, some of who made such “blind drawing” part of their clinical practice although as a purely artistic approach it had earlier been discussed by the English artist Austin Osman Spare (1886–1956) who in The Book of Pleasure (1913) included a chapter titled Automatic Drawing as a Means to Art.  Although he never emerged from the periphery of the art world during his lifetime, Osman worked and exhibited almost to the day he died and in recent years has become a minor cult figure, something accounted for as much as him being a noted occultist as for his paintings and drawings.

Nerf

Nerf (pronounced nurf)

(1) A device, traditionally metal but of late also rubber or plastic, attached to the front or corners of boats or road vehicles for the purpose of absorbing impacts which would otherwise damage the device to which they’re attached.

(2) A slang term in motorsport which describes the (intentional) use of part of a vehicle to nudge another vehicle off its course; used also to describe the almost full-length protective bars used in some forms of dirt-track (speedway) racing (although the term may have be retrospectively applied, based on the use on hot-rods).

(3) As a trademark, the brand name of a number of toys, often modeled on sports equipment but made of foam rubber or other soft substances.

(4) In video gaming, a slang term for reconfigure an existing character or weapon, rendering it less powerful.

(5) By extension from the original use at the front and rear of 1950s hot rod cars and in motorsport, the name adopted (as nerf bar) for a step to ease entry and exit on pickup trucks or sport utility vehicles (SUV) and known also as step rails, step tubes, step bars or truck steps; also sometimes used to describe the extended foot-rests used on some motorcycles.

(6) As "nerf gun", a toy which fires foam darts, arrows, discs, or foam balls; the class is based on the original "Nerf Blaster" by Hasbro.

Circa 1955: Apparently an invention of US (specifically 1950s Californian hot-rod culture) English, the source of the word being speculative.  The later use, in computer-based gaming, etymologists trace (though there is dissent) from the primitive Indo-European mith- (to exchange, remove) from which Latin gained missilis (that may be thrown (in the plural missilia (presents thrown among the people by the emperors)), source (via the seventeenth century Middle French missile (projectile)) of the English missile ((1) in a military context a self-propelled projectile whose trajectory can sometimes be adjusted after it is launched & (2) any object used as a weapon by being thrown or fired through the air, such as stone, arrow or bullet).  Nerf is a noun & verb, nerfed is a verb & adjective and nerfing is a verb; the noun plural is nerfs.

Lindsay Lohan holding Herbie's nerf bar, Herbie Fully:Loaded (2005) premiere, El Capitan Theater, Hollywood, Los Angeles, 19 June 2005.

In the US, nerf bars were often fitted to cars with bumper bars mounted lower than were typically found on domestic vehicles.  What these nerf bars did was provide a low-cost, sacrificial device which would absorb the impact the bodywork would otherwise suffer because the standard bumper would pass under the bumper of whatever was hit in an accident.  On a large scale, the idea was in the 1960s implemented on trucks as the "Mansfield Bar", a (partial) solution to the matter (understood since the 1920s) of cars crashing into the rear of trucks, tending increasingly (as bodywork became lower) to “pass under” the rear of a truck's chassis, meaning it was the passenger compartment (at the windscreen level) which suffered severe damage.  The death toll over the decades was considerable and Jayne Mansfield (1933–1967) the most famous victim, hence the eponymy.  Design rules and regulations began to proliferate only in the late 1960s and remarkably as it must seem in these safety conscious times, in the US it wasn't until the early 1970s that cars were required to be built with standardized bumper-bar heights, front & rear.

The suggested etymology is said to account for the application of nerf to gaming where it means “to cripple, weaken, worsen, deteriorate or debuff” (“debuff” a linguistic novelty attributed to gamers) a character, a weapon, a spell etc.  The idea is apparently derived from the proprietary “Nerf” guns, large-scale (often realized in 1:1) toys which fire extremely soft (and therefore harmless) projectiles (al la missilis from the Latin); the Nerfball in 1970 apparently the first.  It doesn’t however account for the use either in motorsport or on hot-rods but the evidence suggests it was the hot-rod crew who used it first, based on an imperfect echoic, thinking the dirt-track (speedway) drivers using the protective bars running along the outside of the bodywork of their vehicles to nudge other competitors off the track and onto the grass were saying “to nerf” whereas they were actually saying “to turf”.  Because the hot-rods became widely known as part of the novel “youth culture” of the 1950s, the specifics of their slang also sometimes entered the wider vocabulary and the bars of the speedway cars, in an example of back-formation, also became “nerf bars”.

Nerf bars on a hot-rod.

AC Shelby Cobra 427 (replica) with naked nerf bars (top) and a real one with over-riders fitted (bottom).

The ultimate hot-rod was the AC Shelby Cobra (1962-1967) of which fewer than a thousand were made, a number exceeded more than fifty-fold by the replica industry which has flourished since the bulge-bodied original was retired in 1967, looming regulations proving just to onerous economically to comply with.  The first Shelby Cobra street cars used nerf bars as attachment points for chrome over-riders but, as a weight-saving measure, the latter were usually removed when the vehicles were used in competition, leaving the raw nerf bars exposed.  The raw look has become popular with customers of the replica versions and, surprisingly, the authorities in some jurisdictions appear to allow them to be registered in this state for street use.

On production vehicles, what are sometimes mistakenly called nerf bars are actually “bumperettes”, cut-down bumpers which in their more dainty iterations were sometimes little more than a decorative allusion to the weight-saving techniques used on genuine competition cars.  The increasing stringent impact regulations imposed during the 1970s ended the trend but modern engineering techniques have allowed designers to pick up the motif in the twenty-first century.

The concept of nerf bars as used on hot-rods existed long before the term became popular and can be found in depictions of Greek and Roman ships from antiquity and remain a common sight today, either as a specifically-designed product or simply as old car-tyres secured to the side of the hull and used especially on vessels such as tug-boats which need often to be maneuvered in close proximity to others.  The correct admiralty term for these is "fender" (ie in the sense of "fending-off" whatever it is the vessel has hit).  Manufactured usually from rubber, foam or plastic, there are also companion products, “marine fenders”, which are larger and permanently attached to docks on quay walls and other berthing structures.  Much larger than those attached to vessels, they're best thought of as big cushions (which often they resemble).  The construct was fend + er (the suffix added to verbs and used to form an agent noun); fend was from the Middle English fenden (defend, fight, prevent), a shortening of defenden (defend), from the Old French deffendre (which endures in modern French as défendre), from the Latin dēfendō (to ward off), the construct being dē- (of, from) +‎ fendō (hit, thrust), from the primitive Indo-European ghen- (strike, kill).

Obliterate

Obliterate (pronounced uh-blit-uh-reyt (U) or oh-blit-uh-reyt (non-U))

(1) To remove or destroy all traces of something; do away with; destroy completely.

(2) In printing or graphic design, to blot out or render undecipherable (writing, marks, etc.); fully to efface.

(3) In medicine, to remove an organ or another body part completely, as by surgery, disease, or radiation.

1590–1600: From the Latin oblitterātus, perfect passive participle of oblitterō (blot out), from oblinō (smear over) and past participle of oblitterāre (to efface; cause to disappear, blot out (a writing) & (figuratively) cause to be forgotten, blot out a remembrance), the construct being ob- (a prefixation of the preposition ob (in the sense of “towards; against”)) + litter(a) (also litera) (letter; script) + -ātus (-ate).  The suffix -ate was a word-forming element used in forming nouns from Latin words ending in -ātus, -āta, & -ātum (such as estate, primate & senate).  Those that came to English via French often began with -at, but an -e was added in the fifteenth century or later to indicate the long vowel.  It can also mark adjectives formed from Latin perfect passive participle suffixes of first conjugation verbs -ātus, -āta, & -ātum (such as desolate, moderate & separate).  Again, often they were adopted in Middle English with an –at suffix, the -e appended after circa 1400; a doublet of –ee.  True synonyms include black out, eliminate, exterminate, annihilate, eradicate, delete, erase & expunge because to obliterate something is to remove all traces.  Other words often used as synonyms don’t of necessity exactly convey that sense; they include obscure, ravage, smash, wash out, wipe out, ax, cancel and cut.  Obliterate & obliterated are verds & adjetives, obliteration & obliterator are nouns, obliterature & obliterating are nouns, verb & adjective, obliterable & obliterative are adjectives and obliteratingly is an adverb; the noun plural is obliterations.

Social anxiety can be "obliterated".  Who knew?

The verb obliterate was abstracted from the phrase literas scribere (write across letters, strike out letters).  The noun obliteration (act of obliterating or effacing, a blotting out or wearing out, fact of being obliterated, extinction) dates from the 1650s, from the Late Latin obliterationem (nominative obliteratio), the noun of action from the past-participle stem of oblitterāre (to efface; cause to disappear, blot out (a writing) & (figuratively) cause to be forgotten, blot out a remembrance).  The related late fourteenth century noun oblivion (state or fact of forgetting, forgetfulness, loss of memory) was from the thirteenth century Old French oblivion and directly from the Latin oblivionem (nominative oblivio) (forgetfulness; a being forgotten) from oblivisci, the past participle of oblitus (forget) of uncertain origin.  Oblivion is if interest to etymologists because of speculation about a semantic shift from “to be smooth” to “to forget”, the theory based on the construct being ob- (using ob in the sense of “over”) + the root of lēvis (smooth).  For this there apparently exists no documentary evidence either to prove or disprove the notion.  The Latin lēvis (rubbed smooth, ground down) was from the primitive Indo-European lehiu-, from the root (s)lei- (slime, slimy, sticky).

Obliterature

The noun obliterature is a special derived form used in literary criticism, the construct being oblit(erate) + (lit)erature.  It describes works of literature in some way "obliterated or mad void", the most celebrated (or notorious according to many) being those which "interpreted" things in a manner not intended by the original author but the words is applied also to texts deliberately destroyed, erased or rendered unreadable, either as an artistic statement or as a result of censorship, neglect, or decay.  La biblioteca de Babel" (The Library of Babel (1941)) by Jorge Luis Borges (1899-1986) was a short story which imagined a universe consisting of an infinite library containing every possible book but all volumes are some way corrupted or comprise only random strings of characters; all works wholly unintelligible and thus useless.  The chaotic library was symbolic of the most extreme example of obliterature in that all works had been rendered unreadable and devoid of internal meaning.

Nazis burning books, Berlin, 1933.

Probably for a long as writing has existed, there has been censorship (and its companion: self-censorship).  Some censorship is official government policy while countless other instances exist at institutional level, sometimes as a political imperative, some time because of base commercial motives.  The most infamous examples are literary works banned or destroyed as political or religious repression including occasions when the process was one of public spectacle such as the burning of books in Nazi Germany, aimed at Jewish, communist and other “degenerate or undesirable” authors.   The critique: “They burn the books they cannot write” is often attributed German-Jewish poet, writer and literary critic Heinrich Heine (1797–1856) whose work was among the thousands of volumes placed on a bonfire in Berlin in 1933 but it’s a paraphrase of a passage from his play Almansor (1821-1822), spoken by a Muslim after Christian had burned piles of the holy Quran: “Das war ein Vorspiel nur, dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen.”  (That was but a prelude; where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people as well.")

The Address Book (1983) by French conceptual artist Sophie Calle (b 1953) was based on an address book the author found in the street which, (after photocopying the contents) she returned to the owner.  She then contacted those in the book and used the information they provided to create a narrative about the owner, a man she had never met.  This she had published in a newspaper and the man promptly threatened to sue on the grounds of a breach of his right to privacy, demanding all examples of the work in its published form be destroyed.  Duly, the obliterature was performed.  Thomas Phillips' (1937–2022) A Humument: A treated Victorian novel (in various editions 1970-2016) is regarded by most critics as an “altered” book, a class of literature in which novel media forms (often graphical artwork) are interpolated to change the appearance and sometimes elements of meaning.  Phillips use as his base a Victorian-era novel (William (WH) Mallock's (1849–1923) A Human Document (1892)) and painted over its pages, leaving only select words visible to create new narratives, many of which were surreal.  This was obliterature as artistic device and it’s of historic interest because it anticipated many of the techniques of post modernism, multi-media productions and even meme-making.

Erasure Poetry takes an existing text and either erases or blacks-out (the modern redaction technique) words or passages to create a new poem from the remaining words; in the most extreme examples almost all the original is obliterated, with only fragments left to form a new work.  Ronald Johnson (1935–1998) was a US poet who in 1977 published the book-length RADI OS (1977), based on John Milton's (1608–1674) Paradise Lost (1667-1674) and used the redactive mechanism as an artistic device, space once used by the obliterated left deliberately blank, surrounding the surviving words.

Some critics and literary theorists include unfinished and fragmentary work under the rubric of obliterature and while that may seem a bit of a definitional stretch, the point may be that such texts in many ways can resemble what post modern (and post-post modern) obliterature practitioners publish as completed work.  There are many unfinished works by the famous which have been “brought to conclusion” by contracted authors, the critical response tending to vary from the polite to the dismissive although, in fairness, it may be that some things were left unfinished for good reasons.  The Portuguese author Fernando Pessoa (1888-1935) was extraordinarily prolific and apparently never discarded a single page, leaving a vast archive of unfinished, fragmented, and often unreadable manuscripts, the volume so vast many have never been deciphered.  It’s interesting to speculate that had Pessoa had access to word processors and the cloud whether he would have saved as much; if he’d lived in the age of the floppy diskette, maybe he’d have culled a bit.

The obliteration of animal carcasses with explosives

Strictly speaking, “to obliterate something” means “to remove or destroy all traces” which usually isn’t the case when explosives are used, the result more a wide dispersal of whatever isn’t actually vaporized but there’s something about the word which attracts those who blow-up stuff and they seem often to prefer obliteration to terms which might be more accurate.  As long as the explosion is sufficiently destructive, one can see their point and obliteration does memorably convey the implications of blowing-up stuff.  The word clearly enchanted the US Forest Service which in 1995 issued their classic document Obliterating Animal Carcasses with Explosives, helpfully including a step-by-step guide to the process.  Given it’s probably not a matter about which many have given much thought, the service explained obliterating large animal carcasses was an important safety measure in wilderness recreation areas where the remains might attract bears, or near picnic areas where people obviously wouldn’t want rotting flesh nearby.  A practical aspect also is that in many cases there is no way conveniently to move or otherwise dispose of a large carcass (such as a horse or moose which can weigh in excess of 500 kg (1100 lb) which might be found below a steep cut slope or somewhere remote.  So, where physical transportation is not practical, the chemistry and physics of explosives are the obvious alternative, the guide recommending fireline devices (specially developed coils containing explosive powder), used also to clear combustible materials in the path of a wildfire. 

Interestingly, the guide notes there will be cases in which the goal might not be obliteration.  In some ecosystems, what is most desirable is to disperse the carcass locally into the small chunks suited to the eating habits of predators in the area and when properly dispersed, smaller scavenging animals will break down the left-overs, usually within a week.  To effect a satisfactory dispersal, the guide recommends placing 20 lb (9 kg) of explosives on the carcass in key locations, then using a detonator cord to tie the charges together, the idea being to locate them on the major bones, along the spine.  However, in areas where there’s much human traffic, obliteration is required and the guide recommends placing 20 lb (9 kg) pounds of explosives on top and a similar load underneath although it’s noted this may be impossible if the carcass is too heavy, frozen into the ground, floating in water or simply smells too ghastly for anyone to linger long enough to do the job.  In that case, 55 lb (25 kg) of fireline should be draped over the remains although the actual amount used will depend on the size of the carcass, the general principle being the more explosives used, the greater the chance obliteration will be achieved.  Dispersal and obliteration are obviously violent business but it’s really just an acceleration of nature’s decomposition process.  Whereas a big beast like a horse can sit for months without entirely degrading, if explosives are used, in most cases after little more than a week it’d not be obvious an animal was ever there.  With regard to horses however, the guide does include the warning that prior to detonation, “horseshoes should be removed to minimize dangerous flying debris.”  Who knew?

It’s important enough explosives are used to achieve the desired result but in carcass disposal it's important also not to use too much.  In November 1970, the Oregon Highway Division was tasked with blowing up a 45-foot (14 m) eight-ton (8100 kg) decaying whale which lay on the shores near the town of Florence and they calculated it would need a half-ton (510 kg) of dynamite, the presumption being any small pieces would be left for seagulls and other scavengers.  Unfortunately, things didn’t go according to plan.  The viewing crowds had been kept a quarter-mile (400 m) from the blast-site but they were forced to run for cover as large chunks of whale blubber started falling on them and the roof of a car parked even further away was crushed.  Fortunately there were no injuries although most in the area were splattered with small pieces of dead whale.  Fifty years on, Florence residents voted to name a new recreation ground Exploding Whale Memorial Park in honor of the event.

Embezzle

Embezzle (pronounced em-bez-uhl)

In law, fraudulently to appropriate or convert (money or property entrusted to one's care) for one's own use (applied especially to fraud committed by an employee).

1375–1425: From the late Middle English embesilen, from the fourteenth century Anglo-French embesiler, embesillier & embeseillier (to destroy, make away with; to steal, cause to disappear), the construct being em- + beseiller, from the Old French beseiller (to torment, destroy, gouge) of uncertain origin.  The sense of “dispose of fraudulently to one's own use” dates from the 1580s.  The earliest known use of the noun embezzler (one who embezzles) was in the 1660s but it may pre-date that because the noun embezzlement was known in the 1540s while the noun embezzling dates from the early fifteenth century.  The em- prefix (used before certain consonants, most often the labials b and p) was a variant of the Middle English en-.  It was originally from the Old French en- (and an-), from the Latin in- (in, into) but was also from an alteration of in-, from the Middle English in-, from the Old English in- (in, into), from the Proto-Germanic in (in).  Both the Latin and Germanic forms were from the primitive Indo-European en (in, into).  The intensive use of the Old French en- & an- is due to confluence with the Frankish an- (the intensive prefix), related to Old English intensive prefix on-.  It was used to impart the sense of (1) in, into, (2) on, onto, (3) covered, (4) caused or (5) as an intensifier.  Embezzle, embezzles, embezzled & embezzling are verbs and embezzlement & embezzler are nouns; the most common noun plural is embezzler. 

In English law, embezzle was a special class of theft or fraud which was distinguished by two characteristics: (1) the act was committed by a person employed by the owner of the misappropriated property and (2) the property misappropriated was in the (legal) possession of the employee.  The fine distinctions arose early in the development of common law because of the practical difficulties caused by the long-established legal doctrine that to constitute a larceny, the property must be removed from the possession of the owner.  Servants and others were thus able to steal with impunity goods entrusted to them by their masters and a stature of 1529 was enacted, providing that it would be a felony were employees to convert to their own use jewels, money, goods or chattels delivered to them by their employers (masters in the terminology of the time).  It's an illustration of the difference between "in legal possession of" and "lawfully possessing".   

On the way out: Bernard Madoff leaving Manhattan Federal Court, Tuesday, 10 March 2009.

Confessed embezzler Bernie Madoff (1938-2021) embezzled almost US$20 billion using as a platform history's largest (known) Ponzi scheme.  After being arrested, the DoJ (Department of Justice) and the SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) stated referring to him as “Bernard Madoff”, the media and most politicians following their lead; it was felt an affectionate diminutive like “Bernie” was no longer appropriate.  Between 1990-1993, during his respectable period, Mr Madoff served three one-year terms as chairman of the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations (the Nasdaq (one of those initialisms which became an acronym)); the New York-based stock exchange described usually as "tech heavy").  Even today, Mr Madoff's scheme is sometimes described as "a US65 billion scam" but the actual embezzlement was around US$20 billion, the additional funds all in his imagination.  Predictably, those who did best were the lawyers involved in the case who charged a reputed US$800 million.  

The idea that “theft as a servant” was an offense which deserved a greater punishment that theft by a stranger remains a doctrine in common law jurisdictions, the rationale being that such crime is also a violation of trust.  In Australia, the concept has attracted interest of late because of the increasing frequency of “wage-theft” cases in which employers have been found to have been engaged in deliberately under-paying their staff, sometimes in a manner which is so carefully constructed as to have been held to have been systemic.  In most jurisdictions, the penalties available remain civil but two states have recently passed laws permitting criminal prosecutions of both corporations and individuals.  Legal commentators have generally welcomed the development, noting the frequently cited defense that organizations lacked the resources to deal with the complexity of the award wage system didn’t appear to constrain them when engaging in the tax minimization exercises made possible by the intricacies of tax law.  The law reform does nothing to alter the notion of “theft as a servant” being higher order of offending that done by a stranger but it does slightly redress the injustice of embezzlement by employees being by definition a criminal act yet embezzlement by employers was only ever a matter redressed by civil action and, in a practical sense, usually claimed to be “an error” rather than a “deliberate act”, a defense rarely tolerated if raised by an employee (an in this judges were doubtlessly usually correct).  The first case under a criminal code is now before the Victorian courts.

In idiomatic use, someone with their “fingers in the till” is committing embezzlement.  Synonyms exist but because of precise definitions in law, not all are interchangeable in a legal context.  In general use they include filch, loot, misappropriate, misuse, pilfer, purloin, skim, abstract, defalcate, forge, misapply, peculate, thieve, defalcate, flog, pinch and peculate.  Most tempting because of the rarity is probably the verb peculate (embezzle, pilfer, appropriate to one's own use public money or goods entrusted to one's care) from 1749, from the Latin peculatus, past participle of peculari (to embezzle), from peculum (private property (and originally "cattle"), the related forms being peculated, peculating & peculator.

The Great Crash 1929

The Great Crash 1929 (1955) by JK Galbraith.

Bezzle was a back-formation from embezzle, coined by the economist JK (Ken) Galbraith (1908-2006) in his 1955 book The Great Crash, 1929.  In the technical language of economics, bezzle is the temporary gap between the perceived value of a portfolio of assets and its long-term economic value.  The actions and forces which operate in economies over time create bezzle which unleash consequences understood usually only in retrospect.  The significance of the derivation from embezzlement was that Galbraith called it “the most interesting of crimes”, noting: Alone among the various forms of larceny [embezzlement] has a time parameter. Weeks, months or years may elapse between the commission of the crime and its discovery. (This is a period, incidentally, when the embezzler has his gain and the man who has been embezzled, oddly enough, feels no loss. There is a net increase in psychic wealth.) At any given time there exists an inventory of undiscovered embezzlement in—or more precisely not in—the country’s business and banks.

The conditions which exist at certain times Galbraith observed, are especially conducive to the creation of bezzle, and “…at particular times this inflated sense of value is more likely to be unleashed, giving it a systematic quality”.  Those times tend to be defined by the business cycle in that “…in good times, people are relaxed, trusting, and money is plentiful.  But even though money is plentiful, there are always many people who need more.  Under these circumstances, the rate of embezzlement grows, the rate of discovery falls off, and the bezzle increases rapidly. In depression, all this is reversed.  Money is watched with a narrow, suspicious eye. The man who handles it is assumed to be dishonest until he proves himself otherwise. Audits are penetrating and meticulous.  Commercial morality is enormously improved and the bezzle shrinks."

The Great Crash 2005

Crashed and towed, Los Angeles, 2005.

In 2005, Lindsay Lohan went for a drive in her Mercedes-Benz SL 65 AMG roadster.  It didn’t end well.  Based on the R230 (2001-2011) platform, the SL 65 AMG was produced between 2004-2012, all versions rated in excess of 600 horsepower, something perhaps not a wise choice for someone with no background handling such machinery though it could have been worse, the factory building 350 of the even more powerful SL 65 Black Series, the third occasion an SL was offered without a soft-top and the second time one had been configured with a fixed-roof.

Fixed and simonized, Texas, 2007.

By 2007, the car (still with California registration plates (5LZF057) attached) had been repaired, detailed & simonized and was being offered for sale in Texas, the odometer said to read 6207 miles (9989 km).  Bidding was said to be “healthy” so it was thought all's well that ends well but once the vehicle's provenance was brought to the attention of the repair shop, it was realized the celebrity connection might increase its value so it was advertised on eBay with more detail, including the inevitable click-bait of LiLo photographs.  However, either eBay doesn't approve of commerce profiting from the vicissitudes suffered by Hollywood starlets or they'd received a C&D (cease & desist) letter from someone's lawyers and the auction ended prematurely.  It proved a brief respite, the SL 65 soon back on eBay Motors but with the offending part of the blurb limited to "previously owned by high profile celebrity", leaving it to prospective buyers to join the dots.

Jacqueline Kennedy (1929-1994; US First Lady 1961-1963) with the elongated Ken Galbraith who at the time was serving as US ambassador to India.  Galbraith later recalled how difficult it was to get John Kennedy (JFK, 1917–1963; US president 1961-1963) interested in subjects like agriculture, a matter then (as now) of great matter in the Indian economy.

In other words, there can exist a temporary (and not necessarily short) difference between the actual economic value of a portfolio of assets and its reported market value, especially during periods of irrational exuberance.  At these times, there is “…a net increase in psychic wealth” because (1) the embezzler both feels and is richer while the original owners of the portfolio do not realize that they are poorer.  The classic case studies of the phenomenon are those duped in Ponzi schemes, a mechanism of deception in that two people simultaneously can enjoy the same wealth but the effect is similar when accounting fraud is involved, companies like Enron and WorldCom booking overvalued assets and excessively high stock valuations.   Until accounting frauds are uncovered, there is a collective increase in psychic wealth as the value of the bezzle rises.  Bezzle is of course temporary and when the truth emerges perceived wealth decreases until it once again approximates real wealth but this is not an abstract measure of value, the perceptions greatly influencing patterns of consumption with obvious effects upon the real economy.  Many recessions have followed the unwinding of a bezzle and of course, Galbraith’s 1955 book was about the worst of them, the Great Depression of 1929.

Others have since refined the idea of bezzle, noted investor Charles Munger (b 1924) explaining the net effect of a bezzle doesn’t actually demand that there be some form of constructive embezzlement as described by Galbraith.  It needs only that when the reported market value of an asset or portfolio temporarily exceeds its real economic value (which he defined as the value of future returns on that asset), the economy goes through the same cycle of increase and decrease in psychic wealth.  Munger tracked the way rising asset prices, disconnected from their underlying long-term economic value, can contribute to what he called the febezzle.  The word didn’t linger in the language as bezzle has but his insight certainly has, his point being that rising stock or real estate prices can generate income and wealth effects whether or not these rising prices reflect real increases in the earning capacity of these assets.  When asset prices rise for reasons other an increases in actual productive capacity, the overall economy doesn’t benefit because there will be no corresponding increase in the productive capacity of that economy.  The owners of the over-valued assets so of course feel richer but only temporarily because prices eventually converge to a value that represents their real contribution to the production of goods and services, thus the concern some express during periods of irrational exuberance in markets such as fashionable equities, real estate, cryptocurrencies or tulip bulbs.

Interestingly, Munger was discussing things in the distant world of the 1990s when commentators were expressing concern about the economic pattern in Western economies simultaneously to drive up asset prices while restricting the money supply.  Some of the range of possible consequences of that had unfolded since the early 1980s but those events provided little guidance to what might happen were the same forces to be unleashed when the money supply was allowed rapidly to expand and sold at marginal cost.  In the twenty-first century, the successive reactions of central banks to (1) the “tech wreck” of 2000-2001, (2) the global financial crisis (2008-2011) and (3) the COVID-19 pandemic mean the implications can be explored.

The photograph used on the cover of some editions of Galbraith's book was staged.  It was taken on 30 October 1929, shortly after the Wall Street crash and purported to show investor Walter Clarence Thornton (1903–1990) offering his 1928 Chrysler Imperial 75 Roadster for US$100, the car at the time typically costing between US$1550-2000 depending on options.  The Imperial name was used by Chrysler for its upper range models between 1926-1954 after which it was the corporation's stand-alone marque designed to compete with Cadillac, Lincoln and Packard, an approach abandoned in 1975 and few care to recall the abortive revival of 1990-1993.  At this time, Mr Thornton was working as a model and the "lost all on the stock market shoot" was just another gig.  He's remembered also for founding the Walter Thornton Modeling Agency which would be one of the most successful in the industry until the mid-1950s when he was the victim of a malicious prosecution.  All charges were dismissed before going to court but the trial-by-tabloid had so damaged his reputation he retired to Mexico.