Interbane wrote:

I think largely you are wanting to see the zodiac in Leo's Last Supper the same way a religious zealot claims to see Jesus embedded in his slice of morning toast.

Apophenia!

No, it is not apophenia. For you to say that is either very stupid or just goading, obviously the latter. The video that ant mentioned is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... r5_S-EiDGg It works fine for me so I am surprised ant implied it does not work. It provides a short clear simple obvious proof of the hypothesis, with the only assumed knowledge being an ability to look at the stars of the night sky. It appears this assumption is too much for most people, which explains why this material gets ignored.

Max May, who produced this video, contacted me completely independently to discuss this work, because his familiarity with the night sky led him to see straight off that what I am saying is simple and obvious scientific truth. He could not have produced his video with its 95% agreement with my claims if these claims were not directly based on empirical evidence and logical theory. And the small differences between us on details only reinforce that the basic source of the claim is correct. People who cannot see it are generally uninterested in actually looking up at the sky, a motif that Leonardo raises with the index finger pointed skyward in both The Last Supper and John the Baptist.

I do look forward to this material eventually hitting the mainstream media, when some intrepid journalist or academic studies the archives of this thread and others where I have presented it, or when some reader decides to help me. The naysayers will then look as foolish as the nineteenth century writers who claimed there was nothing new to be discovered in physics, and as foolish as the philosopher and mathematician in the excerpt I just provided from Bertold Brecht's play about Galileo. And it will open a fascinating cultural debate about how the real meaning of the most famous painting in the world could lay hidden in plain sight for over half a thousand years.

I understand that people can't bear to look stupid, so instead go into denial. But that just does not work when the facts are undeniable.

Robert wrote:

From right to left in the painting of The Last Supper we see the twelve apostles are modelled on the shape of the stars of the twelve signs of the zodiac.

That is totally counterintuitive to what the movement of the human eye would be in reading a thematic work of art.
Being the naturalist he was, along with his interest in optics, it makes much more sense that Leonardo would encourage viewers to move their eyes from left to right - the same way text is read.

The two primary points of the narrative the painting is expressing are:

1) The early moments of Christ's last supper wherein he teaches his followers about the Eucharist - pointing to the wine glass and reaching for the bread.

2) The reaction of the disciples to the news that one of them will betray him. And as I've said before, if you examine their reactions, the physical and emotional actions of each group form a crescendo, from left to right, from subdued to an explosion of physical energy.


There was a long history of this sort of imagery in Italian art before and after Leonardo's masterpiece.

Soon after completion much of the painting began to bubble and blister because of the technique Leonardo used. It is not a true fresco (the paint never became permanent on the surface of the wall). Much of it was restored, not once, but twice, from what I recall. Much of it had to be painted over. Some parts were nearly entirely redone.

Your star pattern may follow trajectory that was not Leonardo's work at all.

In 1652 a doorway was cut into the wall where Christ's feet had been. After which it was sealed off, causing more damage to the painting. The two projects that were attempted to salvage the painting caused even more damage, according to Professor Bent.

French troops that occupied Milan in 1796 threw rocks at the mural and scratch out the eyes of some of the disciples.
20 years later an attempt was made to detach the painting from the wall in hopes to salvage it by moving it to a safer place.
That caused more damage.

Robert wrote:

The plot thickens. From Wikipedia, we learn that Leonardo habitually used mirror writing, from right to left.

There is no secret plot going on here regarding Leo's writing. In fact, wiki states exactly what Bent and scholars believe is the reason why he wrote this way:

The purpose of this practice by Leonardo remains unknown, though several possible reasons have been suggested, For example writing left handed from left to right would have been messy because ink just put down would smear as his hand moved across it. Writing in reverse would prevent such smudging

Leo was left handed. It's more than likely he didn't want his sleeves to get wet. He was writing this way before he became Italy's greatest Renaissance Man. Its childishly naive to think he thought writing backwards was some brilliant way to code his writings when anyone with a mirror could decipher what was written.
A genius wouldn't be that dumb.

Robert wrote:

friends on another board have pointed out to me that the fellow with the dagger is Saint Peter, not Judas. Judas is Mr Moneybags

Of course it is Peter holding the dagger and not Judas.
Do you want to know the real reason why you missed the obvious? Because you are too busy looking for your own narrative and not reading the painting the way it was intended to be read - as a scriptural narrative. It was Peter who would cut the centurian's ear off. Judas had already been given the 30 pieces of silver before the last supper. You missed the obvious because you are looking up at the stars, Robert.

Robert wrote:

The knife is not disembodied, but is held secretly by Peter. Perhaps getting ready to secretly put the knife to the wisdom of Christ in order to establish the Roman Church?

Too much additives to a story already told.


Robert wrote:

On this question of using an artist's copy, for the purpose of this thread, the postures of the twelve apostles are the same as in the original, but are just a lot clearer. I don't think that artist changed Da Vinci's painting with cosmic intent as I did by changing the table cloth.

You don't think the artist changed Da Vinci's painting?

Think again, Robert. It was actually more than ONE artist involved in more than one restoration project. The extent of the restoration of the first two projects is unknown but thought to be relatively extensive.

Robert wrote:

Astrology was very prominent in Leonardo’s day, including among his sponsor Popes, but there is no evidence I have found that Leonardo had an interest in astrology

Is this a Freudian slip?
You are right. There isn't a single ounce of evidence that Leo was either interested in astrology, or defiled his art by hiding star patterns in them.
You have as much evidence that Leo hid the signs of the zodiac in his Last Supper as I do that Jesus miraculously made his face appear on my toast yesterday morning.

Robert wrote:

My claim is that astrotheology provides a parsimonious and elegant explanation that is at the basis of the emerging new paradigm. It fits well against TS Kuhn’s theory of paradigm change, noting that the scale of the change here, understanding an old paradigm that has dominated for two thousand years, means its assumptions are so deeply entrenched that debate and dialogue is quite difficult. This thread on Leonardo contributes to this paradigm shift by showing that a hidden natural observation stands behind religious genius. I often get people saying things like ‘tell us it ain’t so’, or ‘why did no one see it before?’ I think people just have great difficulty coming to terms with the actual scale of deception and delusion involved in Christianity.

This is somewhat of an ironic comment you make here. Particularly your mention of paradigm shifts.

First of all, your explanation of the meaning of the Last Supper painting is neither elegant or parsimonious in the least.
The most simple explanation is exactly what's on record:

Ludovivo Sforza commissioned Leo to paint the Last Supper as part of the renovation of the Santa Maria della Grazie complex

Last Supper portraits were tried and true images for many monastic refectories across Italy

Last Supper portrait traditions had previously been established. The template Leo worked from already had the linear structure, with characters stretched out behind a table, and each figure individuated, facing the viewers.

Many of Leo's prep drawing still exist with his notes on them. To my knowledge, none of his drafts or notations depict or speak of astrological codes or expressions. What's documented is the official record on hand. You are attempting to project what you believe into the mind of Leo and then present it as evidence. That is both unscientific and unacceptable.

If anything, the paradigm shift that was taking place in Leo's time would have discouraged a genius like Leo from promoting openly or covertly any one particular belief system.
Leonardo was both a "Renaissance Man and a Man of the Renaissance."

The world in Leo's time changed dramatically that, as Bent says, it is arguable that it would not have been possible to be a Renaissance Man before the Renaissance. Rapid and dramatic changes were caused directly by both inventions and discoveries of the age.

Leo was among the first generation of thinkers who had unfettered open access to volumes and printed books containing a wealth of information on almost every subject imaginable that anyone with curiosity could lose themselves in. The inquisitive and remarkable mind that Leo had did just that. He was a naturalist, artist, and natural philosopher. And he most certainly is not on record (you've admitted this yourself) publicly promoting any one particular theology or political stance.

Leo's personal library contained 116 books according to inventory written while he was in Florence in 1503. The books he had included:

Vitruviu's architectural treatise (his true inspiration for the Vitruvian Man)
Mathematical studies by Euclid and Luca Pacioli
Theories on art, perspective and proportion
Scientific essays
3 books on anatomy of horses
Italian translations of ancient works by Pliny the Elder, Aristotle and Ovid
Medieval philosophy by Magnus, Saint Augustine and da Siena
The Bible
Aesop's fables
Anatomical studies by Scotus
Latin Grammar
Books on civics political theory and military principles.

By the time of Leo's adulthood, cultural conditions had cultivated a more critical and questioning mentality among Europe's leading thinkers.
The Renaissance era blossomed with intellectuals like Leo who questioned the assumptions of their contemporary authorities. They were not just challenging outmoded traditions and old fashioned customs. They were challenging cherished concepts of the universal order, laws, and rules that governed society and life itself.

If we properly situate Leonardo in his proper context as both a Renaissance Man and a Man of the Renaissance, we can see that within this prodigious paradigm shift, he was a leading intellectual REBEL!
Having said that, it makes zero sense he was actually some closet dogmatic gnostic attempting to hide zodiac symbolism in his works of art.

You are truly reaching for the stars on this one,Robert.

okay ant, by your mislogic above, you must also agree with the church critics of Galileo that Jupiter cannot have moons because it is a crystal sphere, and with the creationist critics of Darwin that evolution is impossible because it would prevent Christ from redeeming Adam's sin.

I can't help it if you are incapable of following simple evidence even when it is spoon fed to you. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

okay ant, by your mislogic above, you must also agree with the church critics of Galileo that Jupiter cannot have moons because it is a crystal sphere, and with the creationist critics of Darwin that evolution is impossible because it would prevent Christ from redeeming Adam's sin.

Non sequitur

No, it is not apophenia. For you to say that is either very stupid or just goading, obviously the latter.

No, it was a bit of both. I was more happy that I knew the word for what ant was saying. I didn't look at the evidence you have. Is the youtube video the only source? You piqued my curiosity by mentioning how closely your work matched the work of the other guy. You could both be seeing a pattern that isn't intentionally there, but to make that claim I'd need to understand the evidence almost as well as you do.

Interbane wrote:

No, it is not apophenia. For you to say that is either very stupid or just goading, obviously the latter.

No, it was a bit of both. I was more happy that I knew the word for what ant was saying. I didn't look at the evidence you have. Is the youtube video the only source? You piqued my curiosity by mentioning how closely your work matched the work of the other guy. You could both be seeing a pattern that isn't intentionally there, but to make that claim I'd need to understand the evidence almost as well as you do.

Hi Interbane - thanks for the clarification. There are a few brainless fundamentalists who have thrown the pareidolia jibe at me - a more specific version of your apophenia comment. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

This illustrates that people responding on the internet do not necessarily engage with content. I tend to presume that people commenting at booktalk engage with some level of seriousness, but this thread should disabuse anyone of that, since the negative comments clearly make assumptions that are entirely unfounded, displaying a blissful disregard for evidence. It is all a good lesson in procedural discussion.

Being a fundamentalist means never having to say you are sorry. So I don’t expect any honesty or intelligence from them. The trouble is that stupid comments easily derail a serious discussion.

Hi Robert, My seeing the devil in burnt toast comment, wasn't intended as a jibe against you. I just found the idea itself amusing.
I don't know as much about Leonardo Da Vinci as you and ant do. His drawings and paintings are extraordinary in anatomical accuracy and just masterpieces of their kind.
I think his being taken from his natural mother at a very young age must have affected him profoundly and he has a lot of mother and child images in his works.
But I'm sure you and ant are far more knowledgeable on Da Vinci than I am.

I think his being taken from his natural mother at a very young age must have affected him profoundly and he has a lot of mother and child images in his works.

This has been speculated by certain psychological analyses.

Also, there is speculation that Da Vinci might have been gay given the womanish features of some of his characterizations, a scandal that accused Leonardo of possibly being intimately involved with his master, sculptor Andrea del Verrocchio, and anonymous charges accusing him of sleeping with a male prostitute. Those charges were later dismissed (somewhat mysteriously).

But Madonna and Child was a common motif at the time, as was both the crucifixion and last supper. Those that could afford these artistic renditions usually purchased them as status symbols (like some people purchase expensive cars today) or gifts.

Robert wrote:

This illustrates that people responding on the internet do not necessarily engage with content. I tend to presume that people commenting at booktalk engage with some level of seriousness, but this thread should disabuse anyone of that, since the negative comments clearly make assumptions that are entirely unfounded, displaying a blissful disregard for evidence. It is all a good lesson in procedural discussion.

I am more than willing to engage in this discussion with historical FACTS and proper context.

Both Leonardo's works and writings speak for themselves. There is zero basis for the speculation you are fixated with here, Robert. Quite frankly your behavior in this thread demonstrates your irrational motivations and your attempt to force a square into a circle to promote your disdain for Christianity in general.

This entire vulgar thesis of yours is laced with anti religious shenanigans that people who are familiar with you should be able to detect:

First, claim that "science is atheistic" and as such, has proven God does not exist.
Goal number one - eradicate the concept of a God

Second, erase the existence of the historical Jesus with a non sequitur argument
Goal number two - Christianity's "poster boy" is gone.

Third, graffiti on the most famous religious painting Mankind has ever known to date - The Last Supper.

There is no historical connection whatsoever linking Leonardo to a commitment to either Gnosticism, or astrological dogma that would compel him to hide zodiac symbolism in any of his works of art.

Here are more of Professor Bent's words on Da Vinci's art: (emphasis mine).

The paintings Leonardo produced are among the easiest things to discuss, both because they are the most readily available and because in almost every painting he produced, he experimented with some aspect of traditional modes of representation.

Any great work of art—whether a painting or a poem, a symphony or a sculpture—speaks to us. The Last Supper moves us with its dramatic power, with its fleeting references to both the depths of human depravity and the hope for redemption. If any single image from Leonardo’s repertoire captures the essence of the man, the artist, and the scientist, it is The Last Supper—that failed experiment in mural painting that has been one of the greatest success stories in the entire history of narrative art.

I would add that Leonardo was the first to add the human element on the faces of the characters he painted. Thanks to Leonardo's genius, portraits of men and women came to life emotionally and physically. Intellectual depth and presence became part of their facial characteristics.
Leonardo's paintings were near perfect demonstrations of balance, depth, and natural expression.

Your graffiti insults the art in question. The aesthetic quality of Da Vinci's art is self evident, prima facie. There is no need to sully it with apophenic illusory data.

Perhaps most disturbing of all, and perhaps you are not conscious of, is your attempt to graft some form of scientific analysis on to a work of art.
Science is out of its field here.
You are attempting to critique aesthetic beauty with science.
That is scientism, Robert.

This behavior of yours is unbecoming of a true scientist.

You're a scientist, right?

Robert wrote:

The evidence and logic for my claim is compelling, simple and elegant, with clear linkages to widespread Christian motifs linking the apostles and the zodiac, seen in many of the great cathedrals of Europe, and direct link to Leonardo's own central philosophical commitments regarding how the microcosm of life on earth reflects the macrocosm of nature. 

Your "evidence" is not compelling. Nor is it an "elegant" explanation of Leonardo's Last Supper.
Actually, its a perfect example of someone trying to invent their own Leonardo to suit their own interpretation of his art and method, with zero evidence from either his writings, or the context of his personal life and interests.

In short - its a dumb analysis by a marine biologist (is that what you are) attempting to translate the corpus of a master renaissance humanist without an ounce historical evidence.
Your not a historical renaissance scholar.
Wake the fuck up.

Leonardo held that a major function of a painter (of his time and style) was to reveal the mind of a depicted figure through strict and proper attention to that person's posture, gesture, and facial expression. This tenet is found most powerfully in his narrative exemplification of The Last Supper.

Each character in the painting embodies his persona and intellectual presence as characterized in the biblical narrative which was the most utilized historical source of the period.
It's that simple, Robert. You can chose to continue to be delusional and vulgar about it if you like.
Zero scholars - actual renaissance scholars - have not even come close to hypothesizing your craziness about this.

Alberti, of Leonardo's time, described the subject matter of a painting depicting narrative.
It should the most noblest of "istoria" and success depends on the artist's ability to render posture, gesture, and facial expression in such a way that they reveal the "workings of the mind" of the figure presented.

Case in point - the "doubting Thomas" and his finger raised in credulity in response to Christ's announcement that one of them would betray him.
It also foretells more of the biblical narrative to follow - Thomas would later examine Christ's wound after his resurrection. His finger wasnt placed in its position to point at any hidden star, Robert.
That's insanely stupid to even dream about, let alone try to pass off as an interpretation of the painting.

This entire thesis of yours is not even worth arguing against at this point. It's sheer foolishness.

Stop being desperate here.
Stop playing at historical and artistical scholarship.
It's making you appear senile.

By the way, Leonardo is not on record as having any philosophical commitments.
Quite the contrary, he wrote nearly nothing about his personal reflections about any ideas of the time,
Particularly anything related to astronomy. - NOTHING

Can you provide evidence for that claim, Robert?

You are becoming a fraudulent scientist.

Its going to be fun slapping the doodoo out of this crazy fantasy of yours.
every bully needs this type of beatdown.