Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of iHeartRadio.
Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind.
My name is Robert Lamb and I am Joe McCormick. And Hey, it is no longer October. But is this still a topic that we planned on doing in October and never got to Possibly. We'll let you guess if that is the case or not.
Yeah, And you might be like, I don't know, Joe and Robert, I don't know if I wont Halloween content and the early part of November, shouldn't we be doing Christmas content now? No, absolutely not. There will be Christmas content in due time, but it will not be this month. It'll barely be next month. So you're getting more Halloween content whether you want it or not.
Are your Halloween decorations still up or do you get them down yet?
We took them down over the weekend, but the jack O Landin's are still out there. They haven't turn to jelly yet, but I'm having to give them the tap test every day. If they jiggle, then it's dangerously close and I have to get them to the backyard and spill them there.
I know exactly what you're saying. We have squirrels very slowly eating our pumpkins. It's like they take one bite out of them every day.
It's weird. We have plenty of squirrels around here, but I don't think they ever messed with the pumpkins. But it has been I feel like more people are chronicling the decay and or consumption of their jack lanterns and pumpkins this year, and it's been nice to watch.
I'm curious why just the like one bite and run away, Like it can't be that delicious if they don't stay to take a few more bites.
Unless it's you know, just gnawing. It's gnawing action. I'm not sure.
But Okay, what was this Halloween related topic that we didn't get to in October and they're covering now.
It's headlessness, Yeah, which ties in nicely with the idea of jackal lanterns. I mean, these two concepts are are connected in many ways. Yeah, we're going to discuss the idea of headless entities, mostly in the human imagination, but it probably makes sense to think about what's lacking in these fantastic creatures and what we tend to take for granted. It's we're going to get into just the concept of
why do creatures have heads? What is a head? Even it's easy to just take that whole idea for granted, because I mean, the basics I think are pretty obvious, and you know, we have to stop and look them in the mirror and realize. A head is the top or front part of an organism, the upper or anterior division of the animal body that contains the brain, most of the sense organs, and the mouth. It is the
communication array as we've described it many times before. It's the matter consumer, and it's also the nerve center of the organism.
Now, most of the animals you can probably think of off the top of your head do have heads, but actually a head is not a necessary part of what it means to be an animal. There are animals without heads, So that raises the question of why do certain animals have heads and not others? What causes this difference?
Yeah, we have to realize that heads emerge in organisms over the course of evolutionary time and a process referred to as cephalization, during which the mouth, sense organs and nerve ganglia moved toward the front or what would we would come to think of at the front of the creatures, resulting in head morphology and the emergence of complex brains and arthropods, cephalopod mollus and invertebrates. So these organisms tend
to be cephalized or semi cephalized. And would that mean that a creature in fantasy that has lost its head and continues to move around and act and behave is decephalized.
Well, I think that would be the term. The head is removed, a thing is decephalized. But whether or not a thing can continue to act without its head, it probably depends on the degree to which it was originally cephalized as a matter of its innate anatomy. I'll get back to that in a few minutes. Actually, So I was thinking about this, and it probably helps to put cephalization within the broader evolutionary history of bilateral animals or bilatarians.
These are animals that have a left side and a right side of the body that are roughly symmetrical, that are mirror images of each other. So we are bilatarians, and again, most of the animals you can think of off the top of your head are bilatarians. The symmetry does not have to be exact. It refers to the overall body plan and how the animal develops in its earliest phases of growth. So even in the case of animals
that happen to have evolved wildly asymmetrical features. One example we've talked about on the show before is male fiddler crabs, which have one claw that's much bigger than the other, in some cases half of the crab's body weight, So you know, roughly on the scale of a human with one regular sized hand and then another hand that's four feet in diameter and weighs eighty pounds, even that animal is a bilatarian because the animal's body plan has bilateral
symmetry overall, with the exception of the claw, And it's also a question of its evolutionary clade. It is descended from the evolutionary clade of bilateral animals. So bilateral symmetry is not just a feature of an animal body, but a particular branch on the evolutionary tree, going back to a common ancestor. As I was saying a minute ago, though most of the animals you can think of are bilateral,
not all animals are. There are lots of sea creatures like sponges, jellyfish, hydri and corals, that are animals but are not Bilatarians. We don't know for sure when exactly this split took place, when the last common ancestor of all bilatarians split off from the ancestors of other animals, but based on what I've been reading, I think it's probably sometime between roughly five hundred and fifty and six
hundred million years ago. Is clearly it pre dates the Cambrian Explosion, because in the Cambrian era, starting around five hundred and fifty million years ago, you see a great diffusion or profusion of different animal body plans that exhibit bilateral symmetry. So clearly their last common ancestor was before that.
There's still debate about exactly what that animal was like, but whatever its exact features were, it is mind boggling to imagine the common ancestor of all of the world's fish, crabs, cats, squid, slugs, barnacles and worms all in one body.
Yeah, you can't just combine all those things in your head and say, like, all right, a little bit of the cat, a little bit of the squid. It's a different sort of arithmetic in play.
But one of the things, apart from bilateral symmetry that makes Bilatarians unique is their degree of cephalization. That they these animals really started to develop heads in ways that non biletarian animals did not. And the authors of a paper I was looking at, they they define cephalization as quote anterior concentration, and remember anterior means front, so front facing concentration of nervous tissue, sensory organs, and the appearance
of dedicated feeding structures surrounding the mouth. Now, one question I was wondering about was how to even decide which is the anterior part of an animal that doesn't already have a head. I think the answer is it's where the mouth is. Makes sense. Yeah, Now to get some more perspective on why and how a head developed in Bilatarians,
I was reading a few chapters from a book. It was a book called Creatures of acxis The Rise of the Animal Kingdom, published by Hill and Wang two thousand and seven by an author named Wallace Arthur.
So.
The author of this book, Wallace Arthur is an evolutionary biologist who was a professor at the University of Galway in Ireland. I looked him up and it seems like his work focused a lot on the interplay between evolution and development and the emergence of animal body plans, which is what we're talking about here, And in a couple of chapters of this book he has a very nice, plain language summary of the likely pressures leading early by
leetarians to acquire ahead. So one interesting thing to think about here is that the early evolution of the animal lineage found different types of symmetries. So the first animals were not symmetrical, and there are animals today that are not symmetrical in their bodies, like sponges. You know, you can't cut them down the middle and get a mirror image in any direction. Then there came animals with radial symmetry, where the body is symmetrically reproduced around an axis in
the middle. And a great example here would be a jellyfish. Jellyfish, they're not bilaterally symmetrical, but they're radially symmetrical. Finally, there came animals with bilateral symmetry, tracing back to a common ancestor that is known in the literature as the ur bileatarian, so biletarian with the letters you are in front of it,
you are meaning like original or first. And again we don't know exactly what this animal was like, but Arthur thinks the best guess is that it was somewhat similar to modern flatworms. This, he acknowledges this is debatable, and I was reading a bit about the modern debate here it seems like this is still one of the one of the possible pictures of what this creature was like.
So Arthur asks a question, if you compare a bilaterally symmetrical flatworm with a radially symmetrical animal like a jellyfish, can we really say that one is more complex than the other? He writes, quote, does a flatworm have more different types of parts than a jellyfish? Well, not really. Yes, it has left and right sides, which a jellyfish does not,
but that's about it. Although the flatworm has head and tail ends while the jellyfish does not, The jellyfish has a top side and an underside, the latter having the mouth, which pretty much amount to the same thing. And the jellyfish has tentacles while the flatworm does not. And yet despite this basic parity, or maybe you might even say that the jellyfish seems more complex, we do tend to think of bilaterally symmetrical animals as more complex than animals
with radial symmetry. Why do we think of them that way. Well, Arthur says that there could be a good reason for this, and it's that bilateral symmetry led to subsequent steps of
increasing complexity. Bilateral symmetry was not itself necessarily more complex, but it became a platform for future complexity to emerge, making the point that some changes in evolution can seem really important to us because they are necessary precursors to other developments, maybe millions of years down the line, and you couldn't always necessarily predict what those future developments would
be at the time. Like if we were standing there in the pre Cambrian era looking at the orbilatarian, you wouldn't necessarily be able to look at this little flatworm like creature or whatever it was that it looked like some kind of little little organism that has left and right sides that roughly mirror each other and think, well, yes, this is going to be big, This will turn into spiders and cats and octopuses.
But that is.
Exactly what happened. It became this sort of platform for future development. But to come back to the question, what is it about these early Bilatarians that favors the evolution of a head. Well, Arthur argues that it is the peculiarities of pre cam animal movement. It had to do with how animals move. So he says, you know, jellyfish, this animal with radial symmetry swims around in the open sea. You know, it floats in the water column. It kind
of pulses to swim where it wants. And then you might have other animals that have radial symmetry, like the sea anemone. This lives it's a sessile organism, so it lives most of its life by sticking itself to a surface and staying there, you know, grabbing things from the water. Flatworms, however, creep across the two dimensional surfaces of solid objects like rocks in the water. So you can imagine what he thinks is likely the form of the orbiletarian traversing the
face of a flat boulder in an archaic lagoon. And so he zeros in on the different ways that these creatures move. For the jellyfish with radial symmetry floating in the water, Arthur says, there is little reason to think of any direction as forward or backward. All directions are basically the same. The sessile sea an enemy doesn't generally travel around, so travel isn't a big issue for it.
But for the flatworm like or biltarian, there is a very definite forward and backward regime in the way that this animal moves. You can think of the difference between a car and an aerial drone. You know, the jellyfish might be more like the aerial drone. It can kind of go in whatever direction a car has to like aim its movement. It crawls, it creeps along on a forward path.
That's a good way of putting it. Yeah, yeah, drones versus cars.
Yeah, now, no, there's absolutely nothing wrong with moving like a drone, you know, the jellyfish, and there's nothing wrong with these other lineages. Jellyfish can be highly successful without a brain and with limited range of behaviors. They're doing just find how they are, and this leads to what Arthur calls an evolutionary cul de sac. You know, they're
just successful in the way they already are. But for the orbiletarian, with a definite bias for forward movement, there is a lot of reason to differentiate the front of the body from the back. There are reasons this animal needs to change based on the way it moves. Arthur writes, quote, it is more important to be able to detect the features of the area you are moving into than the one you're leaving behind. So it is to be expected that natural selection will favor variants that have more of
their nerve net upfront. As part of this concentration of perceptive powers at the front of the animal, in the region that will one day merit the term head, there may be rudimentary forward pointing outgrowths densely populated with sensory nerves primitive antennae. And I was thinking about this. Maybe this is getting a little too philosophical about it, but you could argue that the evolution of the head in
animals is related to the nature of time. For an organism that specializes in moving in one direction, moving like a car, or like a flatworm moving forward along varied terrain, the gathering of nerve cells and sensory organs in the front reflects the fact of reality that it is more important to sense and react to the future where you are headed than to the past where you've just been. The past can't hurt you anymore, but the future can no.
I think that's a good way of looking at it. And it reminds me of some accounts. Off the top of my head. I can't recall how accurate these are held up to be, but there was at least an idea that was put forward in Western writing that certain members of Native Arctic groups kind of referred linguistically to something in the distance as being tomorrow, like this relationship between where you will be and how you think about
what is ahead of you. And yeah, I can sort of see that reflected in what we're talking about here.
Oh, this came up when we were talking about the cultural spatialization of time. Yeah, how people represent time in as a type of physical space or the metaphor of the space around them. And I don't remember if that example in particular was thought to be valid, but that there are cultural differences in the spatial metaphors people used to describe, like the future in the past and so forth.
Yeah, yeah, but even today, you know, we can easily think about everything that's coming into us is like our future. You know, it's the future of our body in that in what we are consuming the you know, the future of our thoughts based on the sense data that's entering entering our body and our mind and so forth. So uh yeah, I can see this this holding up. Whereas what is it like? I mean, to the limited extent you can even ask this question, what is it like then?
For the creature that is not farward loaded, that is, you know, it's kind of like an a nowness. It's kind of perhaps something at least distantly comparable to that state of calmness and serenity that we aspire to, you know, or so many of us aspire to to try and get out of that forward headlong you know, sprint into the future.
Assume the mind of a jellyfish. Yeah yeah, okay. Next ecological consideration pressure on the creation of a head in the early piletarians. Arthur says that forward movement also favors the evolution of a front facing mouth. If you think about this, this will make sense. It's kind of obvious. Like if you feed by taking things into an orifice in your body, it's best to be able to aim your body movement to engulf food matter with that orifice.
So like, in the same way that it wouldn't make sense to build a combine harvester with its intake on the side. Right, you'd want it in the front of the vehicle so you can aim it at the thing you're trying to harvest.
Essentially an eat the future approach. Basically we've covered so.
Far right, So aiming the mouth orifice at food and making sure food gets inside also requires extra motor control around this region of the body. And this also favors nerve cells being concentrated at the anterior or the front of the bileatarian body. So nerve cells want to gather there not just to sense what is ahead in your movement schema, but also to control the mouth to eat
what is ahead in the movement schema. And you can see this, this direct connection between nerve cell density and eating behavior in an example that Arthur sites, which are modern snails and slugs, some of the simpler bileateian animals extant today. These creatures, he writes quote, have a arrangement of mouth and nerve cells such that the nerves form a ring around the mouth or the esophagus, and at various points around this ring are expanded groupings of nerve
cells called ganglia or mini brains if you like. So I love that. Of course, what begins as ganglia for control of just like a mouth, you know, the eating orifice could well evolve over millions of years into denser and more complex structures of neurons, and eventually could even become a brain. And so I thought this was fascinating.
According to Arthur's argument here, so much of the strange and complicated and unpredictable evolutionary potential of the bileatarian body plan arises out of the simple circumstance that these animals, the Orbileatarians, had specific limitations on their range of movement,
that their world was a world of moving forward. One more thing from this book I wanted to mention before I move on is something that he talks about in the next chapter, which is sort of the idea that cephalization is not a binary It's not like you are cephalized or not, but a question of degree. Some creatures are strongly cephalized, others are more weakly cephalized. And to illustrate this, Arthur begins by telling a story about a time he was collecting centipedes from an area along the
coast of northeast England. He says he collected a number of centipedes. He brought him back to the lab for examination,
where they seem to be functioning fine. Some of them had injuries, like they might be missing legs or parts of legs, but he explains that these centipedes have an adaptation where they cover the stumps of their missing appendages with a thick black substance that looks like tar, presumably to seal off the wound and prevent anything that's on the outside from getting in or anything on the inside from getting out.
Seems like a solid approach, some sort of weird black centipede sealant.
Okay, yep, yeap, seal it up. But then he came across something weird, he writes, quote to my surprise, I found that one specimen had lost its head and had used that same black tar technique to seal the wound. Strangely, it was moving around in a normal fashion, just like all its friends who had retained their heads. It walked in the way centipedes do, usually in a forward direction, but it was also able to retreat backward from threatening stimulis, such as my giving it a tap on its anterior
end with a pair of tweezers. Not only did it do so for a considerable period in the lab hours, but it had probably done so for an even longer one days in the wild before I found it, because the wound looked old. Inasmuch as you can tell these things. Wow, So he says that this headless centipede eventually died because it probably starved to death. No mouth means it can't eat.
But that's amazing. It's hard for us, being extremely highly cephalized organisms, to imagine that, Like the first problem to reach the crisis point with a headless animal would be that it starves to death. And the difference here is the level of cephalization in each organism. The centipede and the human are both cephalized. They both have heads, but the human is strongly cephalized and the centipede only weakly so.
In humans, control of the body functions is strongly localized in the brain, which is in the head, and the body really can't do anything without the brain. Centipedes, on the other hand, they do have a brain of sorts in the head. There is a cluster of nervous tissue up there, but they also have clusters of nerve cells in each body segment that work as a distributed system of many secondary brains throughout the body. Even without the brain in the head, the body segments can keep on
living and acting individually. They can make the centipede walk around, react to stimuli, and so forth, but not forever. But to come back to headlessness in nature, I want to emphasize again that not every animal naturally has a head. Jellyfish, for example, there's some disagreement to the extent to which you should say they are cephalized, but they really don't have anything you would normally call ahead. In fact, jellyfish, you don't even have brains or hearts, or even blood
for that matter. They do have a nervous system, but it is distributed throughout the body tissues without a central like a major command center like a biletarian brain.
Yeah, it's fascinating and maybe a little treacherous right to look at some of these organisms and ask questions like, all right, where's the head? Where's the head at? Because sometimes an animal that seems to be headless may just be all head It's another way of sort of spinning it. This was an argument I was reading about from some researchers at Stanford University and UC Berkeley. This came out
I believed this earlier this month. In a paper published in Nature, they found that ceased to once thought of as headless, actually exhibit gene expressions associated with head development all over their bodies. Meanwhile, genes related to torsos and tails were largely absent, so you could, I guess, think of them more as disembodied or never bodied heads than you would think of them as a body without a head.
Another interesting fact about sea stars is that so they're thought of as animals with radial symmetry, not bilateral symmetry, but they are actually descended from Bileatrians, So these are animals whose ancestors are part of that group. They did have bilateral symmetry and they evolved to lose it.
The idea of something having a head in a body and then becoming mostly head I was instantly reminded of a character from Marvel comics named Modoc. Included a picture for you here, Joe. You're not familiar with this guy, but essentially I believe he was supposed to have been a human at one point in the comics, and I think definitely in the movies, and he has, through you know, comic book events, become just this enormous head with much
smaller arms and legs hanging off of him. You know, there's a sense that like even these may go eventually because he doesn't need them. It's all you know, cerebral power in there.
I notice a strange body feature here, which is that Modoc's legs are not on the underside of his head body, but the front of his head body, almost like little tentacles or fe feeder jaws around the mouth.
Yeah. Yeah, and this being, I guess, the first imagined being that we've referenced here. It's something to keep in mind with all of these is the question of like, okay, well, what was literally intended with this character, but also like
how did the imaginations behind them? How did the creators behind them sort of channel some of these ideas we've already been discussed, either overtly or just sort of subconsciously, Like what do we think of when we have a head, what do we think of them when we imagine beings that have lost their head, that have a much larger head than a body, and so forth. Like there's a lot of you know, overt and then sort of hidden language in there.
I think, yes, in some ways, it's kind of hard not to approach everything with a sort of vertebrate anatomical bias, where you, you know, you are looking for the analogies to the way your body is put together in everything in the world, even in even in you know, non living inanimate objects. I mean you often, Rob, I'm sure you have this experience. You look at some kind of inanimate object and look for the head or the legs or whatever.
Yeah. Yeah, And and on top of that, like the other wrinkle for a human's especially is that in the head we see a centralization of the nervous system on the front and upper part of the creature amid its sense organs in its mouth. It's the defining feature of both humans and when humans are looking at animals, and certainly animals, it's you know, it's become it's come to be thought of as a center of personhood and self. It is the face, you know, at the front part
of the head, if you will. And of course that that factors into a lot of our conceptions of not only people, animals, but also just inanimate things. We're always looking for the face. We're looking for that that front facing communication array of micro and macro expressions, you know, and we can also couple that with this idea of the head the face looking into the future, and what happens when these two future gazing facial arrays see each other. Then, Oh,
you have to have all the computation. What does it mean that this person is in my immediate future? Am I going to eat them? Are we going to communicate on seven level? Or are we going to turn our eyes away and continue on our own forward core? Yeah?
I mean, for a second there, I was thinking about the salients of faces. Why we notice faces everywhere? I mean, we see faces in electrical outlets, and we see the you know, the boxing octopus and the kadhook on the wall. Everything is a face. Part of me wanted to interpret that as a result of our highly social brains. You know, we're always looking at other people's faces to try to understand what they're thinking, how they're feeling towards us, and
all that. That is very important. But then it could actually be even deeper than that in an ecological origin, because of course, understanding like looking for the face of a predatory animal could help you understand like, am I in the attentional zone of this this big looking animal over there? So it could go even deeper than social factors.
Yeah, no, that's a good point, and it goes back to numerous things we've discussed, but most recently talking about what happens when you meet eyes with just a household cat. Yeah know, and how that is maybe an anxious experience for the cat because again, it doesn't have all these layers of human cognition. It gets down to the basic interactions that a creature like a house cat that is both predator and prey would have when it's locking eyes
with another organism. And so on top of all that, as we begin to venture into the world of fantastic beings, imagined beings, creatures of mythology, folklore, and much more. Yeah, it's like to imagine something without a head is of course also to imagine something without a face, And you could just you can easily just you could focus on the facial aspect of this, and there's plenty of ways
to cut that apart. But then on top of that this idea of here is a thing that has no head or separated from its head, and knowing like what that would mean for a human being, Like you said, survival is not possible even for a very short period of time. I mean there, of course, studies and there've long been some fascination about to what degree a human head can survive without its body. The answer still remains
not very long at all. So to take all of that, these observations and knowledge about the importance of a human head, the role that a head plays in a human's life and personhood, what happens when that is cut away? What happens when you have an imagine being that can live without a head? And what does it mean? You know?
When I go back in my history of taking in stories of headless beings, the main one that comes to mind, of course, is probably not a big surprise, is the headless Horseman story and Ichabod Crane and all that, which has been realized in many you know, Halloween specials on
TV and stuff like that through all the years. And one thing I always remember thinking about the headless horsemen that made them different than other kind of ghosts and monsters is that the headless horseman seemed less like a personal entity and more like a machine or a robot than most other types of monsters and ghosts. Do you have this experience?
Yeah, yeah, And I think it's one of the reasons that at times, I mean, there's also the effects level of this, but it's one of one of the reasons that at times filmmakers have struggled with portraying it. I think of the Tim Burton film where you had Christopher Walken playing the headless being, and sometimes you see his head, you see his face, because that helps convey like the intent and the horror of the thing. You take that away,
it's like, yeah, it's like a robot. It's like all action, but without cognition, all like physical It's certainly still a physical threat, but there is no mind communication. Will like, you take this entire aspect of what it is to be an entity in the physical world, and you remove this huge slice of it. How do you reason with that? How do you even comprehend it?
I guess part of it is that even with a regular ghost, you know, this imagined entity that doesn't behave by normal biological rules, we still make biological inferences about it. So like with a ghost, a monster, you can tell you're in danger if it looks at you. You know, like you are still tracking its gaze to understand what its state of mind and attention is doing. And with a headless beast. You can't do that.
Yeah, So we're going to begin to go through some various ideas that, you know, especially with with what we've talked about so far, I think this will make for a nice discussion. The various examples of beings and entities that have lost their heads are separated from their heads and so forth, and in doing so they often have lost a face, though, as we'll discuss, sometimes the face finds a way. But let's start with roughly with the
realm of the divine headless. And I suppose the notion of the divine headless is interesting to think of in light of some of the popular modern religious views that position a mon theistic God as being essentially bodyless. And in this respect you might well argue that, well God is headless, then if God has no body, then God has no head, at least in the literal sense. But of course it's hard to escape the head in virtually any sort of anthropomorphism or any number of linguistic uses
of the word head. We even have the term godhead used to sum up different theological concepts, particularly in the Abrahamic and religions, and also in Hinduism, though.
That is a false cognate. You know. The head in godhead actually has nothing to do with the biological head. I think it is derived from the term that essentially means like godhood. It is like the essence of godness.
Yeah, but then you throw that into a language system where head means head. You can't help but think of it as such. Right now. Another thing to look at is, Okay, if your god or goddess of choice goes through different avatars or incarnations, then well, no matter what their pure form is, they're going to wind up having a head of some sort at some point, at least for a while.
I think a fantasy example we might turn to if you think of a Sauron from The Lord of the Rings, right, he takes on a number of bipedal and headed being of forms, but ultimately assumes the physical form of a great disembodied eye, devoid of body and head in the literal sense.
Though it is interesting that it's still the eyes at the top of a tower, making it kind of like a head.
Yeah. Yeah, And I guess the idea is that during that incarnation, like it has, he has become all seeking all because there is only one thing that it wants. It is not consumption. It is just to find the one ring.
It's kind of the opposite of the headless horseman issue, where like you can't tell where it's looking, all Sauron is is looking at something.
Yeah. Now, in actual religions, though, gods do sometimes lose their head heads, but unlike with human beings, this doesn't spell the end of it, because here you're dealing with again divine beings and magical powers and so forth. We've discussed in the past. The Hindu god Rahu, this is the entity that is associated with eclipses. He was once a proud oserer, a demi god of immense power and hunger seeking immortality. For demi gods are just another realm
in the wheel of Samsara. Rahu drinks the divine nectar known as Amrita, but before he can swallow it all the way, as it's passing down his throat, all powerful Vishnu decapitates him for the transgression.
He wasn't supposed to drink the nectar.
He was not supposed to drink it and was stopped in the act of drinking it. So the power of the nectar. In at least some tellings and understandings of the story makes his disembodied head immortal, and so this cleaved and fallen god continually seeks his revenge on the two planets jerry deities who ratted him out to Vishnu. However, in a lot of these tellings, his headless body is still in the mix under the new name of Ketu, so both Rahu and Katu take on the classification of
shadow planets in Indian astronomy. Katu is indeed sometimes depicted in Hindu iconography as a body without a head. Interesting now, Hinduism also boasts a headless goddess of sorts by the name of Chinnamasta. She is depicted as a nude, red fleshed,
self decapitating tantric goddess. She's generally depicted standing atop the bodies of a divine couple with a scimitar in one hand and her own head in the other, with three jets of blood spurting out of her neck, which her own severed head plus two attendants like gaze upward and open their mouths and drink like a fountain.
So she's understood to have cut her own head off with the scimitar.
Right right, now I suppose she is still head in body as one, even in separation, or at least that's my understanding. This might differ, you know, if one were to dive more into the theology of this particular god and what these depictions mean. But it's my limited understanding that you still think of them as as the same goddess, and she's associated with destruction and creation, but also apparently paradoxes,
which I think is worth highlighting. Now, another headless divine figure can be found in Chinese mythology, and this is Sing Ten. As Anne Beryl describes in Chinese Mythology and introduction, Sing Ten is a failed hero in minor deity. His plight is described in the Shanghaijing, the Classic of Mountains and Seas, which we've talked about on the show before. This is a work from between five hundred and two
hundred BCE. Taking into account of variations of his name, Beryl writes that we might very roughly translate his name as punished by heavens or formed by heavens or And I love this one because this one sounds like he could straight up be a death metal band. Is form prematurely dying? Who you can just imagine that in that nearly illegible script on a festival poster.
Right right, yes, in the Batlord fond.
Yeah. So Beryl points out that the story of Sing Ten kind of stands out for its gruesomeness in the in the classic, and this is partially thought to be because many instances of sex and violence were like edited a bit and cleaned up a bit over time in that work, and for one reason or another, this one
was not. She describes Sington as an odentic warrior, and we might well think of him as kind of a Satanic figure as well, if you know, comparing him to modern Christian and certainly Western literature depictions of Satan, because we know, for what little we know about him is that he winds up in this position of having no head due to his hubris, due to his violent opposition to the supreme god Huangdi, the Yellow Emperor.
So what's the story, all right?
So the story goes that sing Ten, who sometimes described as a giant as well, challenges the Yellow Emperor on a particular battleground for a divine rule. You know, He's like, you shouldn't be ruined everything, I should. Let's battle it. Out. Now, the Yellow Emperor is victorious in the end, and he beheads his challenger and buries the head on cheng Yang Mountain.
But Sing Ten is too proud to die. According to one translation, quote Ten made his nipples serve as eyes and his navel as his mouth, and brandishing his shield and battle axe, he danced. And we might well imagine this dance is a proud kind of war dance, a
a vein dance, a spiteful dance. Again, he has been defeated, his head has been removed from his giant body, and yet he refuses to truly give up, to cease his opposition to the Yellow Wimperor, and continues to fight, though in time the body dies as well and the body is buried as well. Now I included some illustrations of this entity for you to look at here Joe, the first of which is an older illustration from the Shanghaijiing
which folks can can look up. Is found in a lot of places, very very simple and kind of comical. But by doing image searches, especially using the Chinese characters for the entity, you can find a number of really cool like modern illustrations. I don't know to what extent, Like he's been utilized in Chinese comic books and video
games and whatnot. But it looks like a lot of folks have done some very unique sketches of him that look very horrifying, very demonic, with like the belly erupting into a big fanged mouth and indeed the nipples becoming eyes, and you know, this is the ferocious form, you know, still carrying and brandishing its battle axe.
At least one of these illustrations has a little bit of Critter's energy.
Yeah, yeah, they have. Maybe there there's one thing to keep in mind, like ideas of like what happens when like the head is fused with the body, or thought to have fused with the body. We'll get back to that in a bit. But yeah, it's like there's also this kind of spirit of, well, you can't be head me again, Like my head is literally my torso. Now what are you going to do? Cut my torso off?
I can't believe I didn't connect it to this earlier, but I mean when you were talking about Modoc, I mean the critters, the crits really sort of are all head. They're like a head, an eating head with legs and arms.
Yeah, and what does it mean sort of conceptionally if we are imagining a creature that doesn't have a head with a mouth, but its body is the mouth, where like head and body are fused into one. You know, on some level, does that kind of mess with our concepts of head and body? Like one of the concepts we've discussed in the past is how arguably modern humans tend to think of body and head as horse and rider. You know, we're the head and there's the body. It's
doing its thing. But of course there's really more of a centaur concept where horse and rider are one, and that breaks down in a number of different ways. But then what if we imagine, like the horse, human is just one entity, you know, Like, how are we supposed to take take account of that? Like, here is this creature, like the critter like sington, who now has its belly more or less in its body, its eyes or in its body. What does that mean about its volition and its intent?
I don't have a good answer on this, but I was just trying to think, how would your vision be different if your eyes were in your nipples'd be farther apart than human eyes usually are. And I don't know exactly how that would change things.
Well, yeah, they would be wider apart, and certainly these depictions of like Singing ten. You know, he seems to be have a very broad giant's body, so the nipples are pretty far apart. Yeah, I'm not sure exactly how to cut that. But in a way, it's like by having the belly be the mouth, it's like it does tend to give us this idea that like the hunger is even more all consuming, like the belly itself is opening up and wishes to eat.
There will not be like an esophagus in between the food and the stomach. You're just like chomping. It's like the stomach itself has teeth.
Yeah, yeah, I don't imagine there's a lot of tasting. This critter is not going for the tasting menu, is going for the buffet. That's right by the way. If we dip back into Hindu epics for just a second, there is a demon with these basic features that pops up there, known as Kabanda, and the story goes that Indra stove this individual's head and thighs in stove them into his body with the celestial thunderbolt weapon known as the Vadra. But then Indra shows mercy and says, well,
he's still alive, he should be allowed to eat. So Indra gives him long arms and a belly mouth. And I included one depiction of this creature here for you, Joe.
On this drawing. He's kind of cute. He's like a blue Teddy bear.
Yeah. Yeah. But this one's interesting too because it's like the head is not removed. The head is just kind of like apparently it's like driven down into the body with something like it's easy to imagine like some gruesome Mortal Kombat esque battle field fatality here, and then that is rectified by divine magic to some extent. Now, if we look to the world of Japanese jokai, there is also a creature there that is described as headless but
with nipple eyes and a belly mouth. This is a donatsura or torso face, according to I couldn't find out a lot about this one. I was looking at yokai dot com where Matthew Meyer describes this entity and says that the main connotation here is to shame and some sort of saying in Japanese about lowering the lowering of one's face. I think the effectiveness of this is likely.
You know, something that's lost in translation. M okay. There's another yokai that Meyer describes called Kuba kajiri, and this
one is also apparently sometimes described as headless. It's a kind of ghoul that consumes the heads of the dead, though plenty of illustrations depict it as having a head, as being a being with a head that is gnawing on disembodied heads, and this may seem this seems to be maybe connected to the idea of bodies buried without heads coming back as vengeful spirits that seek out corpse heads to eat. It could also be linked to starvation,
according to Meyer. But at this point, obviously we're our beginning to talk about things that are maybe less divine and maybe a little more diabolical, a little lower down the ladder of power when it comes to supernatural entities. And so this is where we're going to leave off.
But in the next episode we're going to come back in and we're going to discuss other examples of more outright diabolical headless entities, and we'll also get into the works of antiquity and various descriptions of peoples in distant parts of the world or distant from the writers and observers here, that were said to have no heads, but of course to have faces on their bodies. And so we'll get into that and discuss like where these ideas came from and what they seem to mean. So we'll
get into that on Thursday. In the meantime, we'll remind everyone out there that, Yeah, Stuff to Blow Your Mind is a science podcast with core episodes on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Mondays we do listener mail. Wednesdays we do a short form artifact or monster fact episode, and on Fridays we set aside most serious concerns to just talk about a weird film on Weird House Cinema. We remind you that if you are using social media currently, well, our accounts
are active again and you can follow us there. I especially encourage you to check out stbympodcast dot com. That's our current Instagram account. Our old Instagram account got locked up, and who's the meta guy? What's his name? Zuckerberg? Zuck Yeah, Mark Zuckerberg. You won't let us back in. You can't get a hold of the guys. So we have this new account stbympodcast dot com. Do us a solid and
if you use Instagram, follow us there. There are social media folks that are actually putting out some really cool content there, including a little bit of a video here and there related to our Wednesday episodes and to our Weird House Cinema episodes.
Huge thanks as always to our excellent audio producer Jjposway. If you would like to get in touch with us with feedback on this episode or any other, to suggest a topic for the future, or just to say hello, you can email us at contact at stuff to Blow your Mind dot com.
Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from my Heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.