ant wrote:What evidence would you actually accept as falsifying this hypothesis of yours, Robert?

Similar methods as used to attempt to falsify any scientific hypothesis, such as the claim that Jupiter has moons.

In this case the correlation is statistical. We have a code that can be presented symbolically as __/ Vo Π Y ? <> X ζ Д Δ Γ Λ

This code appears in the star path of the sun as the shapes of the constellations, and is embedded in The Last Supper from right to left in the stances of the twelve apostles, which also are in four groups of three as shown, reflecting how these star maps indicate the seasons of the year.

There is abundant motive and opportunity for Leonardo to have used this data with conscious and deliberate intent, given his interests in science and religion, and to conceal it.

Statistical analysis such as the difficulty of cracking complex codes indicates effectively zero probability that this correlation is coincidence.

ant wrote:Robert wrote:

he alignment of Leonardo's work with Hermetic philosophy is abundant and compelling. Leonardo was a leader of the intellectual scene in Florence where the major rediscovery of Hermetic texts occurred in his life time. He explicitly states in his extant writings “Hermes the Philosopher”

Leonardo was not part of the public intellectual scene.
Toward the end of his career, he came forward to speak on the prominence of the artist. To my knowledge, there is no documentation of LDV publicly or privately espousing "hermetic PHILOSOPHY"
Show me evidence that I am wrong, please. I'm honestly confused here, Robert. Are you saying Leonardo da Vinci wrote a work titled "Hermes the Philosopher"?

Leonardo's extant Notebooks, which are just a portion of his total writings, are available online at ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gu ... ldv209.txt

Statement 1425 is "Hermes the philosopher."

Earlier in this thread I went through a range of other hermetic comments in Leonardo's Notebooks.

Paragraph 929 is particularly relevant to demonstrate Leonardo's scientific commitment the Hermetic principle As Above So Below

Leonardo Da Vinci wrote:929: By the ancients man has been called the world in miniature; and certainly this name is well bestowed, because, inasmuch as man is composed of earth, water, air and fire, his body resembles that of the earth; and as man has in him bones the supports and framework of his flesh, the world has its rocks the supports of the earth; as man has in him a pool of blood in which the lungs rise and fall in breathing, so the body of the earth has its ocean tide which likewise rises and falls every six hours, as if the world breathed; as in that pool of blood veins have their origin, which ramify all over the human body, so likewise the ocean sea fills the body of the earth with infinite springs of water. The body of the earth lacks sinews and this is, because the sinews are made expressely for movements and, the world being perpetually stable, no movement takes place, and no movement taking place, muscles are not necessary. --But in all other points they are much alike.

The Last Supper depicts Christ and the twelve apostles as "the world in miniature" exactly in line with this principle explained by Leonardo himself.

Paragraph 1162 is also supremely decisive to show how this interpretation of The Last Supper aligns directly to Leonardo's stated intent to present man as an image of the world or cosmos, and to understand human life within the natural framework of time.

Leonardo Da Vinci wrote:1162: the man who with constant longing awaits with joy each new spring time, each new summer, each new month and new year--deeming that the things he longs for are ever too late in coming--does not perceive that he is longing for his own destruction. But this desire is the very quintessence, the spirit of the elements, which finding itself imprisoned with the soul is ever longing to return from the human body to its giver. And you must know that this same longing is that quintessence, inseparable from nature, and that man is the image of the world.

Thank you for your responses. I appreciate your not being condescending or adding any ad homs.

I am going to invoke the principle of charity here and do my best to consider what youve written in these last two posts.
Honestly speaking, there is something I thought about on my own that you have not mentioned that actually gave me a moment of pause about all this.

Ill not shoot from the hip.
Ill return to this a bit later.

Ant, you worry me. On another thread discussing evolution, you clearly went out on the attack, and here you say you appreciate others not giving you the same treatment. That worries me.

To Robert. I have been looking at your posts, and I wouldn't say i disagree with you. You seem to have your arguments in order. Once again, my comments on the cigar had nothing to do with that. I was merely making a point that readers and viewers of piece of are can't always make presuppositions on an author's intentions. I made no mention of Da Vinci's painting. I was speaking broadly about all pieces of art.

Movie Nerd wrote:Ant, you worry me. On another thread discussing evolution, you clearly went out on the attck, and here you say you appreciate others not giving you the same treatment. That worries me.

To Robert. I have been looking at your posts, and I wouldn't say i disagree with you. You seem to have your arguments in order. Once again, my comments on the cigar had nothing to do with that. I was merely making a point that readers and viewers of piece of are can't always make presuppositions on an author's intentions. I made no mention of Da Vinci's painting. I was speaking broadly about all pieces of art.

Okay, but there are protocols regarding the logic of conversation. Some of the posts in the discussion chain that you responded to were directly attacking my views, and your comments were aligned to that critique, even though you did not endorse it, or perhaps even notice it. Readers cannot tell what is in your mind when you raise an image as cryptic as Freudian cigar symbolism. It is good to tease out what the intent may be, and how it is relevant or not to the topic at hand.

Best not to try to make sense of ant. He/she is a one-off, with little compunction regarding consistency.

Robert Tulip wrote:

Movie Nerd wrote:Ant, you worry me. On another thread discussing evolution, you clearly went out on the attck, and here you say you appreciate others not giving you the same treatment. That worries me.

To Robert. I have been looking at your posts, and I wouldn't say i disagree with you. You seem to have your arguments in order. Once again, my comments on the cigar had nothing to do with that. I was merely making a point that readers and viewers of piece of are can't always make presuppositions on an author's intentions. I made no mention of Da Vinci's painting. I was speaking broadly about all pieces of art.

Okay, but there are protocols regarding the logic of conversation. Some of the posts in the discussion chain that you responded to were directly attacking my views, and your comments were aligned to that critique, even though you did not endorse it, or perhaps even notice it. Readers cannot tell what is in your mind when you raise an image as cryptic as Freudian cigar symbolism. It is good to tease out what the intent may be, and how it is relevant or not to the topic at hand.

Best not to try to make sense of ant. He/she is a one-off, with little compunction regarding consistency.

I didn't address the criticisms of your posts directly so much, because I have nothing to add to those points. What you've written reads to me as cogent and supportable; others responses seem to be valid counterpoints in a healthy discussion and add to the general knowledge of the whole. I try to be fair in any and all comments I make, and hopefully I have succeeded in this endeavor.

I realize that readers cannot see into my own head regarding things I've written. I figured that within context of what i wrote the cigar reference made sense, but where there seemed to be confusion I attempted to explain. I do apologie if it seemed liek I was attacking you, or for any confusion; however, the comment was made regarding a side point in the thread, having nothing to do with the main topic discussion the zodiac intepretation of Da Vinci's painting. As such, I don't see why you linked it to your main argument, as I didn't use to to argue against you in that.

I only align myself with keeping a conversation going. In doing so, I've posted responding to points all over, some that might even critique your arguments. As far as noticing it, I feel that several were positive critiques which were adding to the flow of the conversation, while others, like Ant's, were just trolling rubbish. To me, this is within the protocol of the conversation.

I hope this explains where I am coming from. I do like your opinions as I've read them; I like making my little side notes where I can.

I didn't address the criticisms of your posts directly so much, because I have nothing to add to those points. What you've written reads to me as cogent and supportable; others responses seem to be valid counterpoints in a healthy discussion and add to the general knowledge of the whole. I try to be fair in any and all comments I make, and hopefully I have succeeded in this endeavor.

I realize that readers cannot see into my own head regarding things I've written. I figured that within context of what i wrote the cigar reference made sense, but where there seemed to be confusion I attempted to explain. I do apologie if it seemed liek I was attacking you, or for any confusion; however, the comment was made regarding a side point in the thread, having nothing to do with the main topic discussion the zodiac intepretation of Da Vinci's painting. As such, I don't see why you linked it to your main argument, as I didn't use to to argue against you in that.

I only align myself with keeping a conversation going. In doing so, I've posted responding to points all over, some that might even critique your arguments. As far as noticing it, I feel that several were positive critiques which were adding to the flow of the conversation, while others, like Ant's, were just trolling rubbish. To me, this is within the protocol of the conversation.

I hope this explains where I am coming from. I do like your opinions as I've read them; I like making my little side notes where I can.

You express yourself quite well despite the disappointing and, uh, traumatic experience you claim to have had while attending a religious private school for years.
Congratulations.
You must have done this all on your own.

Movie Nerd wrote:I figured that within context of what i wrote the cigar reference made sense, but where there seemed to be confusion I attempted to explain. I do apologie if it seemed liek I was attacking you, or for any confusion;

Hi MN, thanks. I didn’t say it seemed like you were attacking me, but rather indicated that the Freud Cigar Symbol continues a trope in this thread that any readings of The Last Supper (or any art work) are more the product of the beholder than the artist, and that claims of a specific natural pattern are like imagining animals in clouds.

Movie Nerd wrote: however, the comment was made regarding a side point in the thread, having nothing to do with the main topic discussion the zodiac intepretation of Da Vinci's painting. As such, I don't see why you linked it to your main argument, as I didn't use to to argue against you in that.

No you didn’t use it that way, and I acknowledge that, but my point is that even if you don’t see a connection between “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar” and “sometimes apostles are just apostles”, I certainly do, since that exact type of argument has been made repeatedly by others. So I think you are not quite right in your “nothing to do with the main topic” statement, even if making that link was not your original intent.

Movie Nerd wrote: I only align myself with keeping a conversation going. In doing so, I've posted responding to points all over, some that might even critique your arguments. As far as noticing it, I feel that several were positive critiques which were adding to the flow of the conversation, while others, like Ant's, were just trolling rubbish. To me, this is within the protocol of the conversation.

I hope this explains where I am coming from. I do like your opinions as I've read them; I like making my little side notes where I can.

Sure, your comments are fine by me, and I don’t want to put you off at all. I am just pointing out that a poster can respond to a single comment, and sometimes not see the whole context of that comment. I know that is hard in this case with such a long thread extending over several years, and I am not criticising you, just pointing out that your comments on aesthetic and psychological symbolism sit within a deeper philosophical and scientific framework than might at first appear.

Robert,

I have provided factually accurate historical evidence and context related to LDV's narrative works that are in no way translated as anything other than what they were meant to be a depiction of.

The importance of capturing man, nature, psychological presence, and popular narrative is something Leonardo himself wrote about and spoke of in his later years.
Scholars are unanimous about this. Conspiratorial theories and hidden codes in religious narrative portraits are simply not given any credibility by legitimate scholarship.

You claiming that a "paradigm shift" is needed is not enough. Nor is grafting symbols on The Last Supper and claiming that because LDV said "as above so below" is not enough for probable cause.
Your evidence of motive is not enough here. A court of law would throw your case out.

This isnt the first time you have tried to advance conspiracy theories to make your argument whole.
Nothing can and ever will change your mind or give you the slightest doubt.

The below describes your fallacious reasoning about this entire topic.
I am sorry, but you simply are not believable or credible here.

If I know that h is true, I know that any evidence against h is evidence against something that is true: so I know that such evidence is misleading. But I should disregard evidence that I know is misleading. So, once I know that h is true, I am in a position to disregard any future evidence that seems to tell against h.

-- Gil Harman, Thought

Kripkean Dogmatism, Robert.

Thanks

Robert Tulip wrote:

Movie Nerd wrote:I figured that within context of what i wrote the cigar reference made sense, but where there seemed to be confusion I attempted to explain. I do apologie if it seemed liek I was attacking you, or for any confusion;

Hi MN, thanks. I didn’t say it seemed like you were attacking me, but rather indicated that the Freud Cigar Symbol continues a trope in this thread that any readings of The Last Supper (or any art work) are more the product of the beholder than the artist, and that claims of a specific natural pattern are like imagining animals in clouds.

Movie Nerd wrote: however, the comment was made regarding a side point in the thread, having nothing to do with the main topic discussion the zodiac intepretation of Da Vinci's painting. As such, I don't see why you linked it to your main argument, as I didn't use to to argue against you in that.

No you didn’t use it that way, and I acknowledge that, but my point is that even if you don’t see a connection between “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar” and “sometimes apostles are just apostles”, I certainly do, since that exact type of argument has been made repeatedly by others. So I think you are not quite right in your “nothing to do with the main topic” statement, even if making that link was not your original intent.

Movie Nerd wrote: I only align myself with keeping a conversation going. In doing so, I've posted responding to points all over, some that might even critique your arguments. As far as noticing it, I feel that several were positive critiques which were adding to the flow of the conversation, while others, like Ant's, were just trolling rubbish. To me, this is within the protocol of the conversation.

I hope this explains where I am coming from. I do like your opinions as I've read them; I like making my little side notes where I can.

Sure, your comments are fine by me, and I don’t want to put you off at all. I am just pointing out that a poster can respond to a single comment, and sometimes not see the whole context of that comment. I know that is hard in this case with such a long thread extending over several years, and I am not criticising you, just pointing out that your comments on aesthetic and psychological symbolism sit within a deeper philosophical and scientific framework than might at first appear.

I believe I see where you were going with some of your other posts, and I believe we see eye to eye. I understand where comments Imade on one issue could be applied to the larger picture, if you'd pardon the pun. I just wanted to make sure that my comments made sense, as I know sometimes I do misspeak and put my foot in my mouth, as it were.

This thread does indeed have a lot of wear to it, it would seem. it gets hard to keep track.