unicorn

unicorn

[Raimund Kohl-Füchsle]

Hello there,

just a (stupid?) question: On the orgmode.org site there is the image of
a unicorn.  Is this the official Logo for org-mode?  I (finaly!) plan on
writing and publishing a little org-mode Manual and I would find it nice
to have a logo that connects to the project of org-mode.

Oh, and btw, if german guys from the list here are wanting to help, help
would be very welcome ... :-)

ray

Re: unicorn

[Carsten Dominik]

Hi Raimund,

I guess it is something like an official logo, yes (even though
some people don't like it, I have seen it being called  
"demasculinating" ...)

You are welcome to use it for Org-related stuff.

- Carsten

On Feb 25, 2009, at 10:58 PM, Raimund Kohl-Füchsle wrote:

> Hello there,
>
> just a (stupid?) question: On the orgmode.org site there is the  
> image of
> a unicorn.  Is this the official Logo for org-mode?  I (finaly!)  
> plan on
> writing and publishing a little org-mode Manual and I would find it  
> nice
> to have a logo that connects to the project of org-mode.
>
> Oh, and btw, if german guys from the list here are wanting to help,  
> help
> would be very welcome ... :-)
>
> ray
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: unicorn

[Bastien]

Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:

> I guess it is something like an official logo, yes (even though
> some people don't like it, I have seen it being called "demasculinating"
> ...)

Hehe...  Since I picked up this "animal", I entirely assume any queer
connotation it may have.  The IT world is already "masculine" enough!

-- 
 Bastien

Re: unicorn

[Carsten Dominik]

On Feb 27, 2009, at 12:12 PM, Bastien wrote:

> Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:
>
>> I guess it is something like an official logo, yes (even though
>> some people don't like it, I have seen it being called  
>> "demasculinating"
>> ...)
>
> Hehe...  Since I picked up this "animal", I entirely assume any queer
> connotation it may have.  The IT world is already "masculine" enough!
>
> -- 
> Bastien


:-)

I like it, and I really do like the list of reasons
we have (in hindsight) for choosing it...

http://orgmode.org/worg/org-faq.php#unicorn


- Carsten

Re: unicorn

[Ross A. Laird]

Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:

> On Feb 27, 2009, at 12:12 PM, Bastien wrote:
>
>> Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:
>>
>>> I guess it is something like an official logo, yes (even though
>>> some people don't like it, I have seen it being called
>>> "demasculinating"
>>> ...)
>>
>> Hehe...  Since I picked up this "animal", I entirely assume any queer
>> connotation it may have.  The IT world is already "masculine" enough!

>> Bastien
>
> I like it, and I really do like the list of reasons
> we have (in hindsight) for choosing it...
>

I teach several courses in mythology at my university (it's my area of
concentration), and I feel inclined to say that the unicorn, as a
mythological animal, does not have any type of queer of emasculating
connotation in myth. In fact, it is sometimes quite a masculine animal
that is related to the stag in the grail quest (the stag stabs, with his
antler, the inner thigh of the grail knight, thus showing the stag's
greater masculinity). These animals are symbols of divinity,
essentially, of the fusion of purity and power. They don't really have a
sexual connotation other than the idea of generative power (like the
bull). Queer is a new idea in myth; it's about fifty years old. Myth
itself, on the other hand, is about 70,000 years old. So, the
application of queer terminology to mythological items such as unicorns
is a modern practice which has no real impact on ancient myths and myth
items such as the unicorn. In a thousand years we will still have myths
of the unicorn, but the idea of queer will probably have evolved into
something else (it already is evolving into something else...).

As to the question of whether or not unicorns still exist (see org FAQ),
this falls within the same domain as the question of whether Atlantis
exists. The answer (as much as there can be one) is that they do exist,
as mythological items that Carl Jung called "archetypal;" they are
essential to, and foundational of, human nature. They will always be a
part of human culture, and exist timelessly in that sense whether or not
they exist in fact.

I can hardly ever contribute anything useful to this list. Today is an
exception.

Cheers.

Ross

-- 
Ross A. Laird, PhD
www.rosslaird.info

[OT] Re: unicorn

[Detlef Steuer]

> 
> I teach several courses in mythology at my university (it's my area of
> concentration), and I feel inclined to say that the unicorn, as a
> mythological animal, does not have any type of queer of emasculating
> connotation in myth. In fact, it is sometimes quite a masculine animal
> that is related to the stag in the grail quest (the stag stabs, with his
> antler, the inner thigh of the grail knight, thus showing the stag's
> greater masculinity). These animals are symbols of divinity,
> essentially, of the fusion of purity and power. They don't really have a
> sexual connotation other than the idea of generative power (like the
> bull). Queer is a new idea in myth; it's about fifty years old. Myth
> itself, on the other hand, is about 70,000 years old. So, the
> application of queer terminology to mythological items such as unicorns
> is a modern practice which has no real impact on ancient myths and myth
> items such as the unicorn. In a thousand years we will still have myths
> of the unicorn, but the idea of queer will probably have evolved into
> something else (it already is evolving into something else...).
> 
> As to the question of whether or not unicorns still exist (see org FAQ),
> this falls within the same domain as the question of whether Atlantis
> exists. The answer (as much as there can be one) is that they do exist,
> as mythological items that Carl Jung called "archetypal;" they are
> essential to, and foundational of, human nature. They will always be a
> part of human culture, and exist timelessly in that sense whether or not
> they exist in fact.
> 
> I can hardly ever contribute anything useful to this list. Today is an
> exception.

Thank you very much! Posts like these convince me, that org-mode
is a very nice and capable filter to find people who are worth listening to.

Carsten, you started building a tool and what you've got is a real 
interdisciplinary fan group!

Nice weekend to all of you
Detlef

-- 
Wisely, and slow. They stumble that run fast. - Shakespeare

Re: [OT] Re: unicorn

[Carsten Dominik]

On Feb 28, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Detlef Steuer wrote:

>>
>> I teach several courses in mythology at my university (it's my area  
>> of
>> concentration), and I feel inclined to say that the unicorn, as a
>> mythological animal, does not have any type of queer of emasculating
>> connotation in myth. In fact, it is sometimes quite a masculine  
>> animal
>> that is related to the stag in the grail quest (the stag stabs,  
>> with his
>> antler, the inner thigh of the grail knight, thus showing the stag's
>> greater masculinity). These animals are symbols of divinity,
>> essentially, of the fusion of purity and power. They don't really  
>> have a
>> sexual connotation other than the idea of generative power (like the
>> bull). Queer is a new idea in myth; it's about fifty years old. Myth
>> itself, on the other hand, is about 70,000 years old. So, the
>> application of queer terminology to mythological items such as  
>> unicorns
>> is a modern practice which has no real impact on ancient myths and  
>> myth
>> items such as the unicorn. In a thousand years we will still have  
>> myths
>> of the unicorn, but the idea of queer will probably have evolved into
>> something else (it already is evolving into something else...).
>>
>> As to the question of whether or not unicorns still exist (see org  
>> FAQ),
>> this falls within the same domain as the question of whether Atlantis
>> exists. The answer (as much as there can be one) is that they do  
>> exist,
>> as mythological items that Carl Jung called "archetypal;" they are
>> essential to, and foundational of, human nature. They will always  
>> be a
>> part of human culture, and exist timelessly in that sense whether  
>> or not
>> they exist in fact.
>>
>> I can hardly ever contribute anything useful to this list. Today is  
>> an
>> exception.
>
> Thank you very much! Posts like these convince me, that org-mode
> is a very nice and capable filter to find people who are worth  
> listening to.
>
> Carsten, you started building a tool and what you've got is a real
> interdisciplinary fan group!

:-)  Yes, it is quite beautiful...

- Carsten

OT Re: unicorn

[Carsten Dominik]

Hi Ross,

great post, thank you very much!

You have made me curious:  What argumentation is used to estimate
the age of Myth at 70000 years.  I can't be the fossile record,
I guess :-)  So I am wondering how something like this is figured out.

If you feel like putting background stuff about unicorns into the
FAQ, be my guest.

- Carsten

On Feb 27, 2009, at 7:33 PM, Ross A. Laird wrote:

> Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:
>
>> On Feb 27, 2009, at 12:12 PM, Bastien wrote:
>>
>>> Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:
>>>
>>>> I guess it is something like an official logo, yes (even though
>>>> some people don't like it, I have seen it being called
>>>> "demasculinating"
>>>> ...)
>>>
>>> Hehe...  Since I picked up this "animal", I entirely assume any  
>>> queer
>>> connotation it may have.  The IT world is already "masculine"  
>>> enough!
>
>>> Bastien
>>
>> I like it, and I really do like the list of reasons
>> we have (in hindsight) for choosing it...
>>
>
> I teach several courses in mythology at my university (it's my area of
> concentration), and I feel inclined to say that the unicorn, as a
> mythological animal, does not have any type of queer of emasculating
> connotation in myth. In fact, it is sometimes quite a masculine animal
> that is related to the stag in the grail quest (the stag stabs, with  
> his
> antler, the inner thigh of the grail knight, thus showing the stag's
> greater masculinity). These animals are symbols of divinity,
> essentially, of the fusion of purity and power. They don't really  
> have a
> sexual connotation other than the idea of generative power (like the
> bull). Queer is a new idea in myth; it's about fifty years old. Myth
> itself, on the other hand, is about 70,000 years old. So, the
> application of queer terminology to mythological items such as  
> unicorns
> is a modern practice which has no real impact on ancient myths and  
> myth
> items such as the unicorn. In a thousand years we will still have  
> myths
> of the unicorn, but the idea of queer will probably have evolved into
> something else (it already is evolving into something else...).
>
> As to the question of whether or not unicorns still exist (see org  
> FAQ),
> this falls within the same domain as the question of whether Atlantis
> exists. The answer (as much as there can be one) is that they do  
> exist,
> as mythological items that Carl Jung called "archetypal;" they are
> essential to, and foundational of, human nature. They will always be a
> part of human culture, and exist timelessly in that sense whether or  
> not
> they exist in fact.
>
> I can hardly ever contribute anything useful to this list. Today is an
> exception.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Ross
>
> -- 
> Ross A. Laird, PhD
> www.rosslaird.info
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: OT Re: unicorn

[Ross A. Laird]

Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:

> Hi Ross,
>
> great post, thank you very much!
>
> You have made me curious:  What argumentation is used to estimate
> the age of Myth at 70000 years.  I can't be the fossile record,
> I guess :-)  So I am wondering how something like this is figured out.
>
> If you feel like putting background stuff about unicorns into the
> FAQ, be my guest.
>
> - Carsten
>

Hi Carsten;

Thanks for the feedback -- and actually, I was wondering if someone
might ask about the 70,000 years. Until recently, the accepted date for
the appearance of human culture -- as evidenced by complex tools and
apparent symbolic thinking -- was somewhere around thirty or forty
thousand years ago (the so-called Willendorf Venus figures, for
example). But this threshold has now doubled back -- to at least seventy
thousand before the present. Archaeologists working at the Blombos cave
in South Africa have found, among other surprises, finely worked weapons
decorated with symbolic engravings -- within a strata older than seventy
thousand years.

So, it seems that humans were thinking in terms of symbols at least
70,000 years ago. And symbols always derive from myths (this is the most
basic rule of myth: symbols indicate myths). So, myths are at least
70,000 years old. By the way, this is not the same as the emergence of
individuality, which is a related but not identical development.
Individuality seems to have taken quite a bit longer: it seems to first
appear with the ancient Egyptians around 3000 BCE. A statue of the
pharaoh Khafre (the owner of the second-largest pyramid at Giza) is the
world's oldest surviving individualized work of art. This statue is now
in room 42 of the Cairo Museum. So indeed, the answer to life, the
universe, and everything is 42! (I devoted quite a bit of time to Khafre
in my book on myth; he was a very interesting character who may be the
face on the sphinx; and the sphinx, of course, is of the same
mythological family as the unicorn).

Cheers.

Ross

> On Feb 27, 2009, at 7:33 PM, Ross A. Laird wrote:
>
>> Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:
>>
>>> On Feb 27, 2009, at 12:12 PM, Bastien wrote:
>>>
>>>> Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I guess it is something like an official logo, yes (even though
>>>>> some people don't like it, I have seen it being called
>>>>> "demasculinating"
>>>>> ...)
>>>>
>>>> Hehe...  Since I picked up this "animal", I entirely assume any
>>>> queer
>>>> connotation it may have.  The IT world is already "masculine"
>>>> enough!
>>
>>>> Bastien
>>>
>>> I like it, and I really do like the list of reasons
>>> we have (in hindsight) for choosing it...
>>>
>>
>> I teach several courses in mythology at my university (it's my area of
>> concentration), and I feel inclined to say that the unicorn, as a
>> mythological animal, does not have any type of queer of emasculating
>> connotation in myth. In fact, it is sometimes quite a masculine animal
>> that is related to the stag in the grail quest (the stag stabs, with
>> his
>> antler, the inner thigh of the grail knight, thus showing the stag's
>> greater masculinity). These animals are symbols of divinity,
>> essentially, of the fusion of purity and power. They don't really
>> have a
>> sexual connotation other than the idea of generative power (like the
>> bull). Queer is a new idea in myth; it's about fifty years old. Myth
>> itself, on the other hand, is about 70,000 years old. So, the
>> application of queer terminology to mythological items such as
>> unicorns
>> is a modern practice which has no real impact on ancient myths and
>> myth
>> items such as the unicorn. In a thousand years we will still have
>> myths
>> of the unicorn, but the idea of queer will probably have evolved into
>> something else (it already is evolving into something else...).
>>
>> As to the question of whether or not unicorns still exist (see org
>> FAQ),
>> this falls within the same domain as the question of whether Atlantis
>> exists. The answer (as much as there can be one) is that they do
>> exist,
>> as mythological items that Carl Jung called "archetypal;" they are
>> essential to, and foundational of, human nature. They will always be a
>> part of human culture, and exist timelessly in that sense whether or
>> not
>> they exist in fact.
>>
>> I can hardly ever contribute anything useful to this list. Today is an
>> exception.
>>
>> Cheers.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>> --
>> Ross A. Laird, PhD
>> www.rosslaird.info
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
>> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
>> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>

-- 
Ross A. Laird, PhD
www.rosslaird.info

Re: Re: OT Re: unicorn

[Carsten Dominik]

On Feb 28, 2009, at 7:37 PM, Ross A. Laird wrote:

> Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:
>
>> Hi Ross,
>>
>> great post, thank you very much!
>>
>> You have made me curious:  What argumentation is used to estimate
>> the age of Myth at 70000 years.  I can't be the fossile record,
>> I guess :-)  So I am wondering how something like this is figured  
>> out.
>>
>> If you feel like putting background stuff about unicorns into the
>> FAQ, be my guest.
>>
>> - Carsten
>>
>
> Hi Carsten;
>
> Thanks for the feedback -- and actually, I was wondering if someone
> might ask about the 70,000 years. Until recently, the accepted date  
> for
> the appearance of human culture -- as evidenced by complex tools and
> apparent symbolic thinking -- was somewhere around thirty or forty
> thousand years ago (the so-called Willendorf Venus figures, for
> example). But this threshold has now doubled back -- to at least  
> seventy
> thousand before the present. Archaeologists working at the Blombos  
> cave
> in South Africa have found, among other surprises, finely worked  
> weapons
> decorated with symbolic engravings -- within a strata older than  
> seventy
> thousand years.
>
> So, it seems that humans were thinking in terms of symbols at least
> 70,000 years ago. And symbols always derive from myths (this is the  
> most
> basic rule of myth: symbols indicate myths). So, myths are at least
> 70,000 years old. By the way, this is not the same as the emergence of
> individuality, which is a related but not identical development.
> Individuality seems to have taken quite a bit longer: it seems to  
> first
> appear with the ancient Egyptians around 3000 BCE. A statue of the
> pharaoh Khafre (the owner of the second-largest pyramid at Giza) is  
> the
> world's oldest surviving individualized work of art. This statue is  
> now
> in room 42 of the Cairo Museum. So indeed, the answer to life, the
> universe, and everything is 42! (I devoted quite a bit of time to  
> Khafre
> in my book on myth; he was a very interesting character who may be the
> face on the sphinx; and the sphinx, of course, is of the same
> mythological family as the unicorn).

Hi Ross,

I can see how symbols can be related to Myth.  But I am wondering
if the definition of individualism is not very restrictive.

I believe I have read somewhere that decoration or jewelry, personal
ornaments, are a way to detect individuality, and I surely would have
thought that this must pre-date work of art that depicts an
individual - which I think is what you are referring to with Kafre,
I have seen pictures of his face fragment - beautiful (is that in
room 42 as well?)

Cheers

- Carsten

Re: OT Re: unicorn

[Ross A. Laird]

Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:

> On Feb 28, 2009, at 7:37 PM, Ross A. Laird wrote:
>
>> Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:
>>
>>> Hi Ross,
>>>
>>> great post, thank you very much!
>>>
>>> You have made me curious:  What argumentation is used to estimate
>>> the age of Myth at 70000 years.  I can't be the fossile record,
>>> I guess :-)  So I am wondering how something like this is figured
>>> out.
>>>
>>> If you feel like putting background stuff about unicorns into the
>>> FAQ, be my guest.
>>>
>>> - Carsten
>>>
>>
>> Hi Carsten;
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback -- and actually, I was wondering if someone
>> might ask about the 70,000 years. Until recently, the accepted date
>> for
>> the appearance of human culture -- as evidenced by complex tools and
>> apparent symbolic thinking -- was somewhere around thirty or forty
>> thousand years ago (the so-called Willendorf Venus figures, for
>> example). But this threshold has now doubled back -- to at least
>> seventy
>> thousand before the present. Archaeologists working at the Blombos
>> cave
>> in South Africa have found, among other surprises, finely worked
>> weapons
>> decorated with symbolic engravings -- within a strata older than
>> seventy
>> thousand years.
>>
>> So, it seems that humans were thinking in terms of symbols at least
>> 70,000 years ago. And symbols always derive from myths (this is the
>> most
>> basic rule of myth: symbols indicate myths). So, myths are at least
>> 70,000 years old. By the way, this is not the same as the emergence of
>> individuality, which is a related but not identical development.
>> Individuality seems to have taken quite a bit longer: it seems to
>> first
>> appear with the ancient Egyptians around 3000 BCE. A statue of the
>> pharaoh Khafre (the owner of the second-largest pyramid at Giza) is
>> the
>> world's oldest surviving individualized work of art. This statue is
>> now
>> in room 42 of the Cairo Museum. So indeed, the answer to life, the
>> universe, and everything is 42! (I devoted quite a bit of time to
>> Khafre
>> in my book on myth; he was a very interesting character who may be the
>> face on the sphinx; and the sphinx, of course, is of the same
>> mythological family as the unicorn).
>
> Hi Ross,
>
> I can see how symbols can be related to Myth.  But I am wondering
> if the definition of individualism is not very restrictive.
>
> I believe I have read somewhere that decoration or jewelry, personal
> ornaments, are a way to detect individuality, and I surely would have
> thought that this must pre-date work of art that depicts an
> individual - which I think is what you are referring to with Kafre,
> I have seen pictures of his face fragment - beautiful (is that in
> room 42 as well?)

The face fragment that most people have seen (the one that's in the
Metropolitan Museum in New York), is of Queen Tiye
(http://rosslaird.info/queen). I'm not aware of any face fragments of
Khafre -- but they may exist. The room 42 statue is the only one still
intact from a series that once lined the collonade of the Valley temple.
The rest were smashed, and they are still finding fragments from those
(so, perhaps there is a face fragment after all). The room 42 statue
survived because it was tossed into a well (this all happened during a
war, of course).

The Khafre statue is interesting because -- unlike all previous art --
it clearly represents an actual person. All previous art is more
archetypal: a figure of a man represents all men, etc. So, before the
age of Khafre no one seems to have thought to make art that was specific
enough to be identifiable as one individual. They could have done so,
but for some reason did not. All the art is very vague and impersonal.
So, this does not mean that individuality did not exist, but it must
certainly have had a different relationship to art than what we have
now.

It's perhaps the biggest question of archaeo-psychology: when did the
individual mind develop? Somewhere between 2000,000 BCE and 3000 BCE;
that's about as close as we can get. There's a relationship with symbols
involved with this evolution, but no one knows how it works. All very
mysterious...

Cheers.

Ross

>
> Cheers
>
> - Carsten
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>

-- 
Ross A. Laird, PhD
www.rosslaird.info

Re: Re: OT Re: unicorn

[Jason F. McBrayer]

ross@rosslaird.info (Ross A. Laird) writes:

> So, before the age of Khafre no one seems to have thought to make art
> that was specific enough to be identifiable as one individual.

Or such art didn't survive because it was made of perishable materials.
Or it was specific enough to be identifiable as one individual /by a
member of their culture/, but not by us (because it depicted their
ceremonial properties, or their tattoos, or their name, or whatever,
instead of their face and form).

-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------+  
| Jason F. McBrayer                    jmcbray@carcosa.net  |  
| If someone conquers a thousand times a thousand others in |  
| battle, and someone else conquers himself, the latter one |  
| is the greatest of all conquerors.  --- The Dhammapada    |  

Re: unicorn

[Russell Adams]

In the spirit of Org, we need a folding unicorn! ;]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:21:32PM +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
>
> On Feb 27, 2009, at 12:12 PM, Bastien wrote:
>
>> Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:
>>
>>> I guess it is something like an official logo, yes (even though
>>> some people don't like it, I have seen it being called  
>>> "demasculinating"
>>> ...)
>>
>> Hehe...  Since I picked up this "animal", I entirely assume any queer
>> connotation it may have.  The IT world is already "masculine" enough!
>>
>> -- 
>> Bastien
>
>
> :-)
>
> I like it, and I really do like the list of reasons
> we have (in hindsight) for choosing it...
>
> http://orgmode.org/worg/org-faq.php#unicorn
>
>
> - Carsten
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>


------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Adams                            RLAdams@AdamsInfoServ.com

PGP Key ID:     0x1160DCB3           http://www.adamsinfoserv.com/

Fingerprint:    1723 D8CA 4280 1EC9 557F  66E8 1154 E018 1160 DCB3

Re: unicorn

[Christopher Suckling]

On 27 Feb 2009, at 18:47, Russell Adams wrote:

> In the spirit of Org, we need a folding unicorn! ;]

http://www.pajarita.org/aep/pajaritas/pajarita3-4.pdf

Best wishes,

Christopher

Re: unicorn

[Tim Burt]

Christopher Suckling writes:
 > 
 > On 27 Feb 2009, at 18:47, Russell Adams wrote:
 > 
 > > In the spirit of Org, we need a folding unicorn! ;]
 > 
 > http://www.pajarita.org/aep/pajaritas/pajarita3-4.pdf

In the spirit of Org I made a fold*ed* unicorn.
   http://www.flickr.com/photos/tcburt/sets/72157614543357071/
The model is from "Mythological Creatures and the Chinese Zodiac in
Origami" by John Montroll.  The designers and developers of origami
models amaze me with their ingenuity and ability, which is a
strikingly similar sentiment I have for the org community.  

Tim

Re: unicorn

[Nick Dokos]

Christopher Suckling <suckling.list <at> googlemail.com> writes:

> 
> 
> On 27 Feb 2009, at 18:47, Russell Adams wrote:
> 
> > In the spirit of Org, we need a folding unicorn! ;]
> 
> http://www.pajarita.org/aep/pajaritas/pajarita3-4.pdf
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Christopher
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode <at> gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
> 
> 

I went looking for this one today and got a stale page, so I looked around
a bit and found it at a slightly different URL:

http://www.pajarita.biz/aep/pajaritas/pajarita3-4.pdf

Nick

Re: Re: unicorn

[Bastien]

Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> writes:

> I went looking for this one today and got a stale page, so I looked around
> a bit and found it at a slightly different URL:
>
> http://www.pajarita.biz/aep/pajaritas/pajarita3-4.pdf

I would love to see such a paper unicorn for real!  

Who knows, a clever combination A4-printed-Org-TODOs and Unicor-folding
could actually be useful: you would start your day by doing the apparent
tasks, then progressively unfold the paper unicorn...

:)

-- 
 Bastien

Re: unicorn

[J Aaron Farr]

On Fri 27 Feb 2009 19:21, Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> wrote:

> On Feb 27, 2009, at 12:12 PM, Bastien wrote:
>
>> Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:
>>
>>> I guess it is something like an official logo, yes (even though
>>> some people don't like it, I have seen it being called
>>> "demasculinating"
>>> ...)
>>
>> Hehe...  Since I picked up this "animal", I entirely assume any queer
>> connotation it may have.  The IT world is already "masculine" enough!
>>
>> --
>> Bastien
>
>
> :-)
>
> I like it, and I really do like the list of reasons
> we have (in hindsight) for choosing it...
>
> http://orgmode.org/worg/org-faq.php#unicorn

Interesting.  It always reminded me of the pink unicorn:

  http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/ipu/home.html

-- 
  J Aaron Farr     jadetower.com        [US] +1 724-964-4515
    馮傑仁         cubiclemuses.com     [HK] +852 8123-7905

Re: unicorn

[Jason F. McBrayer]

Bastien <bastienguerry@googlemail.com> writes:

> Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:
>
>> I guess it is something like an official logo, yes (even though
>> some people don't like it, I have seen it being called "demasculinating"
>> ...)
>
> Hehe...  Since I picked up this "animal", I entirely assume any queer
> connotation it may have.  The IT world is already "masculine" enough!

Along similar lines, see the [Django Pony][1], and the [Pink Bliss][2]
colour theme for Emacs.


Footnotes: 
[1]: http://www.djangopony.com/
[2]: http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/PinkBliss

-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------+  
| Jason F. McBrayer                    jmcbray@carcosa.net  |  
| If someone conquers a thousand times a thousand others in |  
| battle, and someone else conquers himself, the latter one |  
| is the greatest of all conquerors.  --- The Dhammapada    |  

Re: unicorn

[Carsten Dominik]

On Feb 28, 2009, at 1:34 AM, Sven Bretfeld wrote:

> Hello to all
>
> Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:
>
>> I guess it is something like an official logo
>
> But we need an image file, svg would be best. Is there one available?

There is now, in the git repo, I have made eps, pdf, and svg versions.

If someone is a better expert than me for this kind of thing, feel  
free to
make better ones, based on http://orgmode.org/img/nrocinu2.jpg

Here are the ones I made:

http://repo.or.cz/w/org-mode.git?a=tree;f=ORGWEBPAGE/img;h=b16fc08ad6de392481c64b5e2941eedf39dc93b3;hb=HEAD

- Carsten

>
> Greetings,
>
> Sven
>
> -- 
> Sven Bretfeld
> CERES -- CEntrum für REligionswissenschaftliche Studien
> Ruhr-Universität Bochum
> Universitätsstraße 150
> D-44780 Bochum