Discussion:
How to Make a Saint
(too old to reply)
Tom
2011-01-14 18:11:06 UTC
Permalink
The conservatives currently running the Vatican have been working day
and night to have their boy, the late Karol Józef Wojtyła, alias Pope
John Paul the Second, beatified. Beatification is an official
Catholic Church "Go Directly To Heaven" card. Whereas there is always
a lingering doubt as to whether any of our dear departed have made it
safely past the Pearly Gates and avoided the Eternal Lake of Fire, a
beatification is incontrovertible verification from Heaven that some
particular soul has, in fact, Made It.

JP2 was a serious fan of beatifications and, over his long reign, he
managed to certify the Heavenly Presence of over 1300 souls, which
exceeds the total number of Catholics beatified by all the popes for
the past 500 years combined. I'm sure it's just coincidence that 500
years is just about exactly how long any beatification rules at all
have been in place. Prior to the late 1500's, any local bishop could
beatify anybody they liked. (In one case, a chronically inebriated
priest was beatified after having been killed in a drunken brawl.)

So how did John Paul 2 manage this incredible burst of blessedness?
Well, it's easy. He was pope. He simply changed the rules and
reality had no choice but to follow suit.

It used to be fairly tough to establish that a person had indeed met
the three great criteria that establish one as heroically Catholic.
First, one had to have "fame of sanctity". There had to be some
popular stories about how holy you were. Second, the prospective
proto-saint had to demonstrate "purity of doctrine", which basically
meant that he or she was not a closet heretic. Third (and this is the
real toughie), there had to be some documented heavenly miracle
associated with praying for his or her intercession after death.

For the past five hundred years there has been at least a token
skepticism in the official Catholic Church's reaction to claims of
miraculous holy purity. It wasn't enough just to claim this stuff.
There had to be some evidence. The Church Fathers had been somewhat
embarrassed by the drunken brawler beatification, not to mention the
beatification of several fictional characters, and they didn't want
any more of that, thank you very much. So they did what all good
organizations do when they need self-justification, they formed a
committee.

This committee's job was to examine the credibility of claims for
miraculous interventions and so on. One member of the committee
served as "Devil's Advocate", which was basically what we might call a
"fact checker". His job was to pour some cold (but holy) water on the
claim. He checked to see, for instance, if the person in questions
actually existed. He also inquired into the possibility that they may
have had a mistress or boy on the side, or engaged in any casual
simony, or that the claimed miracle was a made-up pile of crap, and so
on.

John Paul the Second thought that was too cumbersome. A genuine
skeptical inquiry into the facts of a claim took too long and too
often ended in disappointment. Things had gotten bogged down. It was
the same problem faced by professional basketball back in the 60's.
There were too many rules to make for a really entertaining spectator
sport. So John Paul Jr. made the same decision that the NBA did.
They let the players cheat more.

And so the office of the Devil's Advocate was abolished. No more
inconvenient skepticism. While doubts might be raised, a voting
majority of the committee could simply ignore them.

And so it was that John Paul was able to beatify so many claimants.
And now, it's his turn.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12192639
Bassos
2011-01-14 19:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
The conservatives currently running the Vatican have been working day
and night to have their boy, the late Karol Józef Wojtyła, alias Pope
John Paul the Second, beatified. Beatification is an official
Catholic Church "Go Directly To Heaven" card. Whereas there is always
a lingering doubt as to whether any of our dear departed have made it
safely past the Pearly Gates and avoided the Eternal Lake of Fire, a
beatification is incontrovertible verification from Heaven that some
particular soul has, in fact, Made It.
There is the part about reality not being able to care about individual
parts of itself.
There is also the movie dogma.
http://www.kickasstorrents.com/dogma-1999-brrip-xvid-ac3-extratorrentrg-t4862388.html
Post by Tom
JP2 was a serious fan of beatifications and, over his long reign, he
managed to certify the Heavenly Presence of over 1300 souls, which
exceeds the total number of Catholics beatified by all the popes for
the past 500 years combined. I'm sure it's just coincidence that 500
years is just about exactly how long any beatification rules at all
have been in place. Prior to the late 1500's, any local bishop could
beatify anybody they liked. (In one case, a chronically inebriated
priest was beatified after having been killed in a drunken brawl.)
That is just not fair.
I am bound to write that websites who pertain to discuss previous lives,
put me at a 500 year interval.

(no ofcourse i am not bonged to anything, do not be silly)

What is it about that 500 year then ?
Post by Tom
So how did John Paul 2 manage this incredible burst of blessedness?
Ah, i know that one;
Endowing people with faith (trust/thrust) changes them.

I love you dude.
Post by Tom
Well, it's easy. He was pope. He simply changed the rules and
reality had no choice but to follow suit.
Perhaps.
Corey Connor
2011-01-14 19:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bassos
 He simply changed the rules and
reality had no choice but to follow suit.
Perhaps.
I think you're both not quite right, but I'm scared shitless to say
anything. Once upon a time I chatted with some turd in England in a
Christian newsgroup and basically read him the riot act about bein' a
homo and whatnot. He kept sayin' it wasn't cool, it's in the bible,
bla bla bla. I just showed him where he's wrong and the guy frickin'
went ballistic on me. Check it out, if you want. It's in the
archives.
Corey Connor
2011-01-14 19:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Corey Connor
Post by Bassos
 He simply changed the rules and
reality had no choice but to follow suit.
Perhaps.
I think you're both not quite right, but I'm scared shitless to say
anything.  Once upon a time I chatted with some turd in England in a
Christian newsgroup and basically read him the riot act about bein' a
homo and whatnot.  He kept sayin' it wasn't cool, it's in the bible,
bla bla bla.  I just showed him where he's wrong and the guy frickin'
went ballistic on me.  Check it out, if you want.  It's in the
archives.
And that's not the only thing, so please don't frickin' ask my opinion
about anything, 'cause lord knows I cain't read shit good nomore.
Tom
2011-01-14 20:27:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Corey Connor
Post by Bassos
 He simply changed the rules and
reality had no choice but to follow suit.
Perhaps.
I think you're both not quite right, but I'm scared shitless to say
anything.
Would that it were so...
Bassos
2011-01-14 20:36:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Corey Connor
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
He simply changed the rules and
reality had no choice but to follow suit.
Perhaps.
I think you're both not quite right, but I'm scared shitless to say
anything.
Would that it were so...
Well, he ignored me in telling him he should not flood.
So i squelched him on all his aliases so far.

It is weird someone would go through this much trouble to get ignored.

I have not been reading his posts anymore for some days, but so far:

He seems like a dude in transit, abusing his transit.

Do you think he realizes what he could be doing to get out of the pit of
because ?
Hieronymous Corey
2011-01-21 20:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
Post by Corey Connor
Post by Bassos
  He simply changed the rules and
reality had no choice but to follow suit.
Perhaps.
I think you're both not quite right, but I'm scared shitless to say
anything.
Would that it were so...
Well, he ignored me in telling him he should not flood.
So i squelched him on all his aliases so far.
It is weird someone would go through this much trouble to get ignored.
He seems like a dude in transit, abusing his transit.
Do you think he realizes what he could be doing to get out of the pit of
because ?
I know you can't dig your way out. It only gets deeper, and deeper,
and deeper ... zzzzzzzzzzz
Bassos
2011-01-14 20:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
It used to be fairly tough to establish that a person had indeed met
the three great criteria that establish one as heroically Catholic.
Lets see how current standards can make it look tilted.
Post by Tom
First, one had to have "fame of sanctity".
As in not insane.
Post by Tom
There had to be some popular stories about how holy you were.
So close but far away from god.
Post by Tom
Second, the prospective proto-saint had to demonstrate "purity of doctrine",
Ah, mate, doctrine and holy. seems so restricted to catolics.
Post by Tom
which basically meant that he or she was not a closet heretic.
Politics then.
Again.
Post by Tom
Third (and this is the real toughie), there had to be some documented heavenly miracle
associated with praying for his or her intercession after death.
I have experienced those sometimes continually.
I fail at the point of doctrine though.

Apparantly me being baptised as a protestant makes me ineligable to be a
saint anyway, so that is comforting.
Post by Tom
For the past five hundred years there has been at least a token
skepticism in the official Catholic Church's reaction to claims of
miraculous holy purity. It wasn't enough just to claim this stuff.
There had to be some evidence. The Church Fathers had been somewhat
embarrassed by the drunken brawler beatification, not to mention the
beatification of several fictional characters, and they didn't want
any more of that, thank you very much. So they did what all good
organizations do when they need self-justification, they formed a
committee.
Atm, i am attempting beautification with microsoft, on a false image.

Just a log part.
Post by Tom
This committee's job was to examine the credibility of claims for
miraculous interventions and so on. One member of the committee
served as "Devil's Advocate", which was basically what we might call a
"fact checker".
Lol.
Now we know what your fantasy personality is.
HINT: that is not you, you are far more refined.
Post by Tom
His job was to pour some cold (but holy) water on the
claim. He checked to see, for instance, if the person in questions
actually existed. He also inquired into the possibility that they may
have had a mistress or boy on the side, or engaged in any casual
simony, or that the claimed miracle was a made-up pile of crap, and so
on.
Yeah, miracle workers cannot suddenly go against the norm :)
Post by Tom
John Paul the Second thought that was too cumbersome. A genuine
skeptical inquiry into the facts of a claim took too long and too
often ended in disappointment.
For noobs.
For curious people, that just spurs one on.
Post by Tom
Things had gotten bogged down. It was
the same problem faced by professional basketball back in the 60's.
There were too many rules to make for a really entertaining spectator
sport. So John Paul Jr. made the same decision that the NBA did.
They let the players cheat more.
Like Nascar re jon/stephem)
Post by Tom
And so the office of the Devil's Advocate was abolished. No more
inconvenient skepticism. While doubts might be raised, a voting
majority of the committee could simply ignore them.
Like cheating in sumo wrestling.

The public is only ready for so much change.
Post by Tom
And so it was that John Paul was able to beatify so many claimants.
And now, it's his turn.

Tom
2011-01-14 21:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
It used to be fairly tough to establish that a person had indeed met
the three great criteria that establish one as heroically Catholic.
Lets see how current standards can make it look tilted.
Post by Tom
First, one had to have "fame of sanctity".
As in not insane.
Sanctity, not sanity. One can be insane and still have fame of
sanctity.

Are you familiar with Brother Juniper, a follower of St. Francis of
Assisi back around 1210 CE?

The other friars all had to be watchful of Juniper, because he was
inclined to extreme generosity. He was notorious for giving the
clothes off his back to passing beggars when he had nothing else to
give them. They also had to make sure that he did not give away the
monks' kitchen utensils, furniture, or anything else he found lying
around, no matter who it belonged to.
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
Second, the prospective proto-saint had to demonstrate "purity of doctrine",
Ah, mate, doctrine and holy. seems so restricted to catolics.
"The word of sin is restriction."
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
which basically meant that he or she was not a closet heretic.
Politics then.
Again.
When more than two people get together, politics naturally arise.
Post by Bassos
Apparantly me being baptised as a protestant makes me ineligable to be a
saint anyway, so that is comforting.
Whew! One more contest you don't have to risk losing.
Post by Bassos
Atm, i am attempting beautification with microsoft, on a false image.
I'm talking beatification, not beautification. And don't start taking
about false images, either. It keeps reminding Catholics about the
commandment they edited out of the Ten, the one about making no graven
images.
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
This committee's job was to examine the credibility of claims for
miraculous interventions and so on.  One member of the committee
served as "Devil's Advocate", which was basically what we might call a
"fact checker".
Lol.
Now we know what your fantasy personality is.
It was my ambition as a good Catholic child, to be sure. I was
reading Pierre Teilhard de Chardin at 11. He represented the last gasp
of my childish faith. Once I discovered why he was full of shit, my
Catholicism came to an abrupt end.
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
John Paul the Second thought that was too cumbersome.  A genuine
skeptical inquiry into the facts of a claim took too long and too
often ended in disappointment.
For noobs.
For curious people, that just spurs one on.
The infallible have no curiosity. They already *know*.
HG
2011-01-14 22:16:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
which basically meant that he or she was not a closet heretic.
Politics then.
Again.
When more than two people get together, politics naturally arise.
"More than" two...? I'd replace that with "at least two".


HG
Sultan Bbub
2011-01-14 22:58:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
which basically meant that he or she was not a closet heretic.
Politics then.
Again.
When more than two people get together, politics naturally arise.
"More than" two...?  I'd replace that with "at least two".
                HG
I WANT TO BE BEATIFIED AND MAKE IT TO HEAVEN AUTOMATICALLY PREFERRABLY
WITHOUT DYING... can it be done???
Bassos
2011-01-14 22:54:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
It used to be fairly tough to establish that a person had indeed met
the three great criteria that establish one as heroically Catholic.
Lets see how current standards can make it look tilted.
Post by Tom
First, one had to have "fame of sanctity".
As in not insane.
Sanctity, not sanity. One can be insane and still have fame of
sanctity.
yes.
But will an insane saint be acknowledhed ?
Post by Tom
Are you familiar with Brother Juniper, a follower of St. Francis of
Assisi back around 1210 CE?
no.
Post by Tom
The other friars all had to be watchful of Juniper
I just see jupiler.
Post by Tom
because he was inclined to extreme generosity. He was notorious for giving the
clothes off his back to passing beggars when he had nothing else to
give them.
Yeah yeah, just like some saint named after some spanish place.
Post by Tom
They also had to make sure that he did not give away the
monks' kitchen utensils, furniture, or anything else he found lying
around, no matter who it belonged to.
Hiding is an artform.
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
Second, the prospective proto-saint had to demonstrate "purity of doctrine",
Ah, mate, doctrine and holy. seems so restricted to catolics.
"The word of sin is restriction."
Without restriction; no catolicism.
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
which basically meant that he or she was not a closet heretic.
Politics then.
Again.
When more than two people get together, politics naturally arise.
Can we just all get along ?
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Apparantly me being baptised as a protestant makes me ineligable to be a
saint anyway, so that is comforting.
Whew! One more contest you don't have to risk losing.
I know right,
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Atm, i am attempting beautification with microsoft, on a false image.
I'm talking beatification, not beautification.
i did not realize you had such strong anti americain feelings.

Then again, you hide your feelings well.
Post by Tom
And don't start taking about false images, either.
Too late.

All images are false.

< It keeps reminding Catholics about the
Post by Tom
commandment they edited out of the Ten, the one about making no graven
images.
5 commandments ?
and they are free ?
Give us two of those.
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
This committee's job was to examine the credibility of claims for
miraculous interventions and so on. One member of the committee
served as "Devil's Advocate", which was basically what we might call a
"fact checker".
Lol.
Now we know what your fantasy personality is.
It was my ambition as a good Catholic child, to be sure.
So far the obvious, but oh wait, you snipped the actual.

Oh well.
Tom
2011-01-14 23:04:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bassos
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
It used to be fairly tough to establish that a person had indeed met
the three great criteria that establish one as heroically Catholic.
Lets see how current standards can make it look tilted.
Post by Tom
First, one had to have "fame of sanctity".
As in not insane.
Sanctity, not sanity.  One can be insane and still have fame of
sanctity.
yes.
But will an insane saint be acknowledhed ?
Not usually, but it has happened on occasion.
Post by Bassos
When more than two people get together, politics naturally arise.
Can we just all get along ?
Politics is how that's done.
Post by Bassos
Post by Bassos
Atm, i am attempting beautification with microsoft, on a false image.
I'm talking beatification, not beautification.
i did not realize you had such strong anti americain feelings.
We probably have very different ideas about what an "americain" is.
Bassos
2011-01-14 23:20:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
It used to be fairly tough to establish that a person had indeed met
the three great criteria that establish one as heroically Catholic.
Lets see how current standards can make it look tilted.
Post by Tom
First, one had to have "fame of sanctity".
As in not insane.
Sanctity, not sanity. One can be insane and still have fame of
sanctity.
yes.
But will an insane saint be acknowledhed ?
Not usually, but it has happened on occasion.
Would you formally acknowledge one ?

See it as advice.
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
When more than two people get together, politics naturally arise.
Can we just all get along ?
Politics is how that's done.
No, that is really wrong.

It is every part of the whole being itself.

I mean, this stuff is so obvious...
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Atm, i am attempting beautification with microsoft, on a false image.
I'm talking beatification, not beautification.
i did not realize you had such strong anti americain feelings.
We probably have very different ideas about what an "americain" is.
No, i do not think we do.

I am actually fairly sure.

No moar hints.
Tom
2011-01-15 05:04:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
First, one had to have "fame of sanctity".
As in not insane.
Sanctity, not sanity.  One can be insane and still have fame of
sanctity.
yes.
But will an insane saint be acknowledhed ?
Not usually, but it has happened on occasion.
Would you formally acknowledge one ?
I have. I acknowledge Emperor Joshua Norton (1819? - 1880) to be a
saint and he was clearly not sane.
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Can we just all get along ?
Politics is how that's done.
No, that is really wrong.
Every act of cooperation or conflict is a political act. All that
differs is the kind of society in which our political acts are
committed.
Bassos
2011-01-15 06:37:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
First, one had to have "fame of sanctity".
As in not insane.
Sanctity, not sanity. One can be insane and still have fame of
sanctity.
yes.
But will an insane saint be acknowledhed ?
Not usually, but it has happened on occasion.
Would you formally acknowledge one ?
I have. I acknowledge Emperor Joshua Norton (1819? - 1880) to be a
saint and he was clearly not sane.
(P)raise be to the saint BR!
(i am pretty easy with bestowing sainthood, then again, i also see lots
of miracles)_
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Can we just all get along ?
Politics is how that's done.
No, that is really wrong.
Every act of cooperation or conflict is a political act. All that
differs is the kind of society in which our political acts are
committed.
Ah, we are turning around to how city states should be goverened.
(de politeia, for noobs)
Tom
2011-01-15 21:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bassos
Every act of cooperation or conflict is a political act.  All that
differs is the kind of society in which our political acts are
committed.
Ah, we are turning around to how city states should be goverened.
(de politeia, for noobs)
"As in other departments of science, so in politics, the compound
should always be resolved into the simple elements or least parts of
the whole. We must therefore look at the elements of which the state
is composed, in order that we may see in what the different kinds of
rule differ from one another, and whether any scientific result can be
attained about each one of them." -- Aristotle, Politics (Book 1)

Aristotle begins with a husband and wife, and then proceeds to a
household, and so on. His point is that the same basic underlying
rules apply because no matter how your government is arranged, it is
made up of households centering on the procreative couple. What holds
a household together is also what holds the state together. The
differences arise from the complexity of the permutations of these
basic household relationships. Compare this with Confucius, who says
the government is simply a larger expression of the family.
Corey Connor
2011-01-15 21:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Testing, testing. Nope, didn't think so. This fucking thing has
never worked, never will, and you all can just go fuck yourselves for
all i'n concerned.
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Every act of cooperation or conflict is a political act.  All that
differs is the kind of society in which our political acts are
committed.
Ah, we are turning around to how city states should be goverened.
(de politeia, for noobs)
"As in other departments of science, so in politics, the compound
should always be resolved into the simple elements or least parts of
the whole. We must therefore look at the elements of which the state
is composed, in order that we may see in what the different kinds of
rule differ from one another, and whether any scientific result can be
attained about each one of them."  -- Aristotle, Politics (Book 1)
Aristotle begins with a husband and wife, and then proceeds to a
household, and so on.  His point is that the same basic underlying
rules apply because no matter how your government is arranged, it is
made up of households centering on the procreative couple.  What holds
a household together is also what holds the state together.  The
differences arise from the complexity of the permutations of these
basic household relationships.  Compare this with Confucius, who says
the government is simply a larger expression of the family.
M. JL Esq.
2011-01-15 22:35:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Every act of cooperation or conflict is a political act. �All that
differs is the kind of society in which our political acts are
committed.
Ah, we are turning around to how city states should be goverened.
(de politeia, for noobs)
"As in other departments of science, so in politics, the compound
should always be resolved into the simple elements or least parts of
the whole. We must therefore look at the elements of which the state
is composed, in order that we may see in what the different kinds of
rule differ from one another, and whether any scientific result can be
attained about each one of them." -- Aristotle, Politics (Book 1)
Aristotle begins with a husband and wife, and then proceeds to a
household, and so on. His point is that the same basic underlying
rules apply because no matter how your government is arranged, it is
made up of households centering on the procreative couple. What holds
a household together is also what holds the state together. The
differences arise from the complexity of the permutations of these
basic household relationships. Compare this with Confucius, who says
the government is simply a larger expression of the family.
Everyone familiar with the "Doni Tondo" of Michelangelo?


Loading Image...

The painting is a typical "Holy Family" in the forefront but if one
examines the background certain questions arise.

First and foremost among them, is the background anything more than
decoration? void of any philosophical or theological meaning or bearing
on the concept of family, holy or otherwise.

Or, did Michelangelo, with his reputed alternative sexuality mean to
make an inclusive statement with the back ground of his Doni Tondo?

I sometimes think there must be a few lesbians unseen behind the central
figures and the 2 men just to the right and left of the central figures
reaching towards the centre might be representative of the bisexual
males reaching out to similarly inclined females?

Many art critics put it down to "convention" that the posing of naked
men together does not imply anything more than a collection of naked men
together for a decorative effect, and if anything illustrate both
Michelangelo skill as a painter and love of the human form "i will paint
man as God made man." and thus the back ground, even if indicating some
more "pagan" or non or pre christian approach to sexuality and the
definition of family, its separation from the main figures of the
painting by a wall or moat like emphasis can also be taken to represent
a cutting off, and walling away from, any such bacchanalian revelry and
sexual ambiguity for an emphasis on strict, heterosexual family life.
--
Mr. JL Esq.
Corey Connor
2011-01-15 23:52:41 UTC
Permalink
Okay, look, let's make one thing perfectly clear, Joe.
Okay, look, let's make one thing perfectly clear, Joe?
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Every act of cooperation or conflict is a political act. All that
differs is the kind of society in which our political acts are
committed.
Ah, we are turning around to how city states should be goverened.
(de politeia, for noobs)
"As in other departments of science, so in politics, the compound
should always be resolved into the simple elements or least parts of
the whole. We must therefore look at the elements of which the state
is composed, in order that we may see in what the different kinds of
rule differ from one another, and whether any scientific result can be
attained about each one of them."  -- Aristotle, Politics (Book 1)
Aristotle begins with a husband and wife, and then proceeds to a
household, and so on.  His point is that the same basic underlying
rules apply because no matter how your government is arranged, it is
made up of households centering on the procreative couple.  What holds
a household together is also what holds the state together.  The
differences arise from the complexity of the permutations of these
basic household relationships.  Compare this with Confucius, who says
the government is simply a larger expression of the family.
Everyone familiar with the "Doni Tondo" of Michelangelo?
http://www.lib-art.com/imgpainting/1/2/14021-the-doni-tondo-framed-mi...
The painting is a typical "Holy Family" in the forefront but if one
examines the background certain questions arise.
First and foremost among them, is the background anything more than
decoration?  void of any philosophical or theological meaning or bearing
on the concept of family, holy or otherwise.
Or, did Michelangelo, with his reputed alternative sexuality mean to
make an inclusive statement with the back ground of his Doni Tondo?
I sometimes think there must be a few lesbians unseen behind the central
figures and the 2 men just to the right and left of the central figures
reaching towards the centre might be representative of the bisexual
males reaching out to similarly inclined females?
Many art critics put it down to "convention" that the posing of naked
men together does not imply anything more than a collection of naked men
together for a decorative effect, and if anything illustrate both
Michelangelo skill as a painter and love of the human form "i will paint
man as God made man."  and thus the back ground, even if indicating some
more "pagan" or non or pre christian approach to sexuality and the
definition of family, its separation from the main figures of the
painting by a wall or moat like emphasis can also be taken to represent
a cutting off, and walling away from, any such bacchanalian revelry and
sexual ambiguity for an emphasis on strict, heterosexual family life.
--
Mr. JL Esq.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Okay, look, let's make one thing perfectly clear, Joe?
Okay, look, let's make one thing perfectly clear, Joe.
Tom
2011-01-16 06:40:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by M. JL Esq.
Everyone familiar with the "Doni Tondo" of Michelangelo?
http://www.lib-art.com/imgpainting/1/2/14021-the-doni-tondo-framed-mi...
The painting is a typical "Holy Family" in the forefront but if one
examines the background certain questions arise.
First and foremost among them, is the background anything more than
decoration?  void of any philosophical or theological meaning or bearing
on the concept of family, holy or otherwise.
Or, did Michelangelo, with his reputed alternative sexuality mean to
make an inclusive statement with the back ground of his Doni Tondo?
Other interpretations have also been proffered. For instance, the
design elements of the Doni Tondo refer to earlier artistic works.
Most particularly, the foreground figures, the Holy Family, are very
much like an early sketch of DaVinci's "The Virgin and Child with St.
Anne". Similarly, the poses of the background figures have a striking
similarity to a Roman statue called "Laocoon and His Sons", in which
male nudes are writhing in the grip of two huge serpents. In
Michelangelo's work, no serpents are apparent, but the figures appear
to struggle as if they were. Laocoon was killed by serpents sent by
Athena for daring to voice doubts about the innocence of the Greek
motives for sending them the Wooden Horse. It was Laocoon who uttered
the line we all now know as the adage" Beware of Greeks bearing
gifts." If the background figures are indeed the slain Trojan
doubters, could Michelangelo be sending a very subtle message that the
Catholic Church might also be a ploy that ultimately leads to disaster
and that the brutal suppression of "heretics" like Giordano Bruno was
like strangling those who dare to cast a well-founded doubt on the
innocence of Christianity's motives?
Post by M. JL Esq.
I sometimes think there must be a few lesbians unseen behind the central
figures and the 2 men just to the right and left of the central figures
reaching towards the centre might be representative of the bisexual
males reaching out to similarly inclined females?
Well, trying to interpret the symbolism of figures that *don't* appear
seems a bit far-fetched.
M. JL Esq.
2011-01-16 07:14:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
Everyone familiar with the "Doni Tondo" of Michelangelo?
http://www.lib-art.com/imgpainting/1/2/14021-the-doni-tondo-framed-michelangelo-buonarroti.jpg
The painting is a typical "Holy Family" in the forefront but if one
examines the background certain questions arise.
First and foremost among them, is the background anything more than
decoration? �void of any philosophical or theological meaning or bearing
on the concept of family, holy or otherwise.
Or, did Michelangelo, with his reputed alternative sexuality mean to
make an inclusive statement with the back ground of his Doni Tondo?
Similarly, the poses of the background figures have a striking
Post by Tom
similarity to a Roman statue called "Laocoon and His Sons", in which
male nudes are writhing in the grip of two huge serpents. In
Michelangelo's work, no serpents are apparent, but the figures appear
to struggle as if they were.
The don't look to be struggling at all IMO.

Rather the reverse actually given the positioning of the bodies and
gestures they look more casual and playfully interested in each other
than any possible threat to them.
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
I sometimes think there must be a few lesbians unseen behind the central
figures and the 2 men just to the right and left of the central figures
reaching towards the centre might be representative of the bisexual
males reaching out to similarly inclined females?
Well, trying to interpret the symbolism of figures that *don't* appear
seems a bit far-fetched.
So don't fetch it Stephen.
--
JL
Tom
2011-01-16 15:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
Everyone familiar with the "Doni Tondo" of Michelangelo?
http://www.lib-art.com/imgpainting/1/2/14021-the-doni-tondo-framed-mi...
The painting is a typical "Holy Family" in the forefront but if one
examines the background certain questions arise.
First and foremost among them, is the background anything more than
decoration? void of any philosophical or theological meaning or bearing
on the concept of family, holy or otherwise.
Or, did Michelangelo, with his reputed alternative sexuality mean to
make an inclusive statement with the back ground of his Doni Tondo?
Similarly, the poses of the background figures have a striking
similarity to a Roman statue called "Laocoon and His Sons", in which
male nudes are writhing in the grip of two huge serpents.  In
Michelangelo's work, no serpents are apparent, but the figures appear
to struggle as if they were.  
The don't look to be struggling at all IMO.
Well, for that matter, they don't look like their engaged in any
homosexual acts either IMO. They're just nude male figures.
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
I sometimes think there must be a few lesbians unseen behind the central
figures and the 2 men just to the right and left of the central figures
reaching towards the centre might be representative of the bisexual
males reaching out to similarly inclined females?
Well, trying to interpret the symbolism of figures that *don't* appear
seems a bit far-fetched.
So don't fetch it Stephen.
In general, the more desperate you are, the further you'll go.
M. JL Esq.
2011-01-16 18:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
The don't look to be struggling at all IMO.
Well, for that matter, they don't look like their engaged in any
homosexual acts either IMO. They're just nude male figures.
You are familiar enough with "homosexual acts" to say?

They seem, at the very least, as indicated by body language to be
comfortable in each others presence and again, the actions depicted seem
playful to me, whether "homosexual" or not.
--
JL
Corey Connor
2011-01-16 20:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
The don't look to be struggling at all IMO.
Well, for that matter, they don't look like their engaged in any
homosexual acts either IMO.  They're just nude male figures.
You are familiar enough with "homosexual acts" to say?
They seem, at the very least, as indicated by body language to be
comfortable in each others presence and again, the actions depicted seem
  playful to me, whether "homosexual" or not.
--
JL
Joe, I really have no idea how, what, when, where, why, or who you
play with, nor is it any of my concern. I do know how to be naked
with people though without wanting to have sex with them, like on a
nude beach, which, if I had my choice, is exactly where you and I
should be at this very second, because if we were, I could call you
the pecker head that you obviously are, and the only possible response
you could have in return would be to either agree with me, or point at
my dick. It's a no lose situation.
Tom
2011-01-17 04:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
The don't look to be struggling at all IMO.
Well, for that matter, they don't look like their engaged in any
homosexual acts either IMO.  They're just nude male figures.
You are familiar enough with "homosexual acts" to say?
Of course. It's pretty plain that just being naked and unconcerned is
not a homosexual act. Of course, some people have such extreme cases
of homophobia that the mere sight of a naked male body sends them into
panic and thus they may be quite confused about what a "homosexual
act" really is.
Post by M. JL Esq.
They seem, at the very least, as indicated by body language to be
comfortable in each others presence and again, the actions depicted seem
  playful to me, whether "homosexual" or not.
Never been in a male locker room at a gym, Joe? If you had you'd
already know this, but normal heterosexual males are not generally in
the least uncomfortable around other naked men. Are you? Is that why
you assume everyone else must be?
M. JL Esq.
2011-01-17 05:13:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
The don't look to be struggling at all IMO.
Well, for that matter, they don't look like their engaged in any
homosexual acts either IMO. �They're just nude male figures.
You are familiar enough with "homosexual acts" to say?
Of course. It's pretty plain that just being naked and unconcerned is
not a homosexual act. Of course, some people have such extreme cases
of homophobia that the mere sight of a naked male body sends them into
panic and thus they may be quite confused about what a "homosexual
act" really is.
Post by M. JL Esq.
They seem, at the very least, as indicated by body language to be
comfortable in each others presence and again, the actions depicted seem
� playful to me, whether "homosexual" or not.
Never been in a male locker room at a gym, Joe? If you had you'd
already know this, but normal heterosexual males are not generally in
the least uncomfortable around other naked men. Are you? Is that why
you assume everyone else must be?
So your arguing a group of naked men behind the "holy Family" means
nothing, is purely decorative?

Or is this just another example of your choosing to push your own bias
on every thing you respond to?
Corey Connor
2011-01-17 07:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
The don't look to be struggling at all IMO.
Well, for that matter, they don't look like their engaged in any
homosexual acts either IMO. They're just nude male figures.
You are familiar enough with "homosexual acts" to say?
Of course.  It's pretty plain that just being naked and unconcerned is
not a homosexual act.  Of course, some people have such extreme cases
of homophobia that the mere sight of a naked male body sends them into
panic and thus they may be quite confused about what a "homosexual
act" really is.
Post by M. JL Esq.
They seem, at the very least, as indicated by body language to be
comfortable in each others presence and again, the actions depicted seem
playful to me, whether "homosexual" or not.
Never been in a male locker room at a gym, Joe?  If you had you'd
already know this, but normal heterosexual males are not generally in
the least uncomfortable around other naked men.  Are you?  Is that why
you assume everyone else must be?
So your arguing a group of naked men behind the "holy Family" means
nothing, is purely decorative?
Or is this just another example of your choosing to push your own bias
on every thing you respond to?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes?
dr x
2011-01-17 11:25:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
The don't look to be struggling at all IMO.
Well, for that matter, they don't look like their engaged in any
homosexual acts either IMO. �They're just nude male figures.
You are familiar enough with "homosexual acts" to say?
Of course. It's pretty plain that just being naked and unconcerned is
not a homosexual act. Of course, some people have such extreme cases
of homophobia that the mere sight of a naked male body sends them into
panic and thus they may be quite confused about what a "homosexual act"
really is.
Post by M. JL Esq.
They seem, at the very least, as indicated by body language to be
comfortable in each others presence and again, the actions depicted
seem � playful to me, whether "homosexual" or not.
Never been in a male locker room at a gym, Joe? If you had you'd
already know this, but normal heterosexual males are not generally in
the least uncomfortable around other naked men. Are you? Is that why
you assume everyone else must be?
So your arguing a group of naked men behind the "holy Family" means
nothing, is purely decorative?
Or is this just another example of your choosing to push your own bias
on every thing you respond to?
he's checking you out.
M. JL Esq.
2011-01-17 19:25:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by dr x
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Tom
Never been in a male locker room at a gym, Joe? If you had you'd
already know this, but normal heterosexual males are not generally in
the least uncomfortable around other naked men. Are you? Is that why
you assume everyone else must be?
So your arguing a group of naked men behind the "holy Family" means
nothing, is purely decorative?
Or is this just another example of your choosing to push your own bias
on every thing you respond to?
he's checking you out.
Wouldn't surprise me.
dr x
2011-01-17 19:33:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by dr x
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Tom
Never been in a male locker room at a gym, Joe? If you had you'd
already know this, but normal heterosexual males are not generally in
the least uncomfortable around other naked men. Are you? Is that why
you assume everyone else must be?
So your arguing a group of naked men behind the "holy Family" means
nothing, is purely decorative?
Or is this just another example of your choosing to push your own bias
on every thing you respond to?
he's checking you out.
Wouldn't surprise me.
cutie pie.
HG
2011-01-17 13:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
The don't look to be struggling at all IMO.
Well, for that matter, they don't look like their engaged in any
homosexual acts either IMO. �They're just nude male figures.
You are familiar enough with "homosexual acts" to say?
Of course. It's pretty plain that just being naked and unconcerned is
not a homosexual act. Of course, some people have such extreme cases
of homophobia that the mere sight of a naked male body sends them into
panic and thus they may be quite confused about what a "homosexual
act" really is.
Post by M. JL Esq.
They seem, at the very least, as indicated by body language to be
comfortable in each others presence and again, the actions depicted seem
� playful to me, whether "homosexual" or not.
Never been in a male locker room at a gym, Joe? If you had you'd
already know this, but normal heterosexual males are not generally in
the least uncomfortable around other naked men. Are you? Is that why
you assume everyone else must be?
So your arguing a group of naked men behind the "holy Family" means nothing,
is purely decorative?
Or is this just another example of your choosing to push your own bias on
every thing you respond to?
What about the Finnish sauna culture, Joseph? A bunch of sweaty, naked men
in a small room together enjoying each others' company. And we dare to claim
there's nothing sexual in it.

And how about when people bring their kids along, to that company of sweaty,
naked people? Are all Finns pedophiles??


HG
Corey Connor
2011-01-17 13:34:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
The don't look to be struggling at all IMO.
Well, for that matter, they don't look like their engaged in any
homosexual acts either IMO. They're just nude male figures.
You are familiar enough with "homosexual acts" to say?
Of course.  It's pretty plain that just being naked and unconcerned is
not a homosexual act.  Of course, some people have such extreme cases
of homophobia that the mere sight of a naked male body sends them into
panic and thus they may be quite confused about what a "homosexual
act" really is.
Post by M. JL Esq.
They seem, at the very least, as indicated by body language to be
comfortable in each others presence and again, the actions depicted seem
playful to me, whether "homosexual" or not.
Never been in a male locker room at a gym, Joe?  If you had you'd
already know this, but normal heterosexual males are not generally in
the least uncomfortable around other naked men.  Are you?  Is that why
you assume everyone else must be?
So your arguing a group of naked men behind the "holy Family" means nothing,
is purely decorative?
Or is this just another example of your choosing to push your own bias on
every thing you respond to?
What about the Finnish sauna culture, Joseph?  A bunch of sweaty, naked men
in a small room together enjoying each others' company.  And we dare to claim
there's nothing sexual in it.
And how about when people bring their kids along, to that company of sweaty,
naked people?  Are all Finns pedophiles??
                HG- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Fins on fish, and peds are feats, and files are what you're reading.
Win your wish; get lead for meat, and piles are what your bleating.

Is that the stupidest thing you've ever read, or what?
M. JL Esq.
2011-01-17 19:28:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by HG
Post by Tom
Never been in a male locker room at a gym, Joe? If you had you'd
already know this, but normal heterosexual males are not generally in
the least uncomfortable around other naked men. Are you? Is that why
you assume everyone else must be?
So your arguing a group of naked men behind the "holy Family" means nothing,
is purely decorative?
Or is this just another example of your choosing to push your own bias on
every thing you respond to?
What about the Finnish sauna culture, Joseph? A bunch of sweaty, naked men
in a small room together enjoying each others' company. And we dare to claim
there's nothing sexual in it.
And how about when people bring their kids along, to that company of sweaty,
naked people? Are all Finns pedophiles??
HG
You, like "Tom" miss the point of my observation. And i think, the
purpose of the painting.
HG
2011-01-20 18:28:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by HG
Post by Tom
Never been in a male locker room at a gym, Joe? If you had you'd
already know this, but normal heterosexual males are not generally in
the least uncomfortable around other naked men. Are you? Is that why
you assume everyone else must be?
So your arguing a group of naked men behind the "holy Family" means nothing,
is purely decorative?
Or is this just another example of your choosing to push your own bias on
every thing you respond to?
What about the Finnish sauna culture, Joseph? A bunch of sweaty, naked men
in a small room together enjoying each others' company. And we dare to claim
there's nothing sexual in it.
And how about when people bring their kids along, to that company of sweaty,
naked people? Are all Finns pedophiles??
HG
You, like "Tom"
Heh. You've put Tom into quotes, as if you were sticking pins into a voodoo
doll. It's always hilariously pathetic. :-)
Post by M. JL Esq.
miss the point of my observation. And i think, the purpose of the
painting.
No, we understand the point of your observation perfectly well. We're
pointing out that the point of your observation most probably arises from
your mortal fear of human sexuality, not from the painting in question.

Come on, you're even imagining unseen lesbians into the painting!


HG
M. JL Esq.
2011-01-20 23:02:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by HG
No, we understand the point of your observation perfectly well. We're
pointing out that the point of your observation most probably arises from
your mortal fear of human sexuality, not from the painting in question.
Come on, you're even imagining unseen lesbians into the painting!
HG
"We"? this "Tom" seems to have ran away from the discussion when his
sources were questioned.

*Chuckle* i don't know which is more amusing, the assumptions you, HG,
jump to or the error of them.

Io Pan!

JL
Tom
2011-01-20 23:49:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by M. JL Esq.
No, we understand the point of your observation perfectly well.  We're
pointing out that the point of your observation most probably arises from
your mortal fear of human sexuality, not from the painting in question.
Come on, you're even imagining unseen lesbians into the painting!
                HG
"We"? this "Tom" seems to have ran away from the discussion when his
sources were questioned.
Sorry it took me a little while to dig up the precise reference, but
it has been posted. Now, to be fair, please cite *your* scholarly
source for your claim that there are invisible lesbians hidden in the
background, you babbling loony.
Corey Connor
2011-01-21 00:21:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
No, we understand the point of your observation perfectly well.  We're
pointing out that the point of your observation most probably arises from
your mortal fear of human sexuality, not from the painting in question.
Come on, you're even imagining unseen lesbians into the painting!
                HG
"We"? this "Tom" seems to have ran away from the discussion when his
sources were questioned.
Sorry it took me a little while to dig up the precise reference, but
it has been posted.  Now, to be fair, please cite *your* scholarly
source for your claim that there are invisible lesbians hidden in the
background, you babbling loony.
Okay, look. Don't ask me to explain, but Joe's right. I don't tell
my wife everything. Sometimes I think about invisible lesbians hidden
in the background. Don't ask me why; it just gives me a good feeling
to think about naked lesbians in the background. Don't naked lesbians
in the background give you a good feeling too?

I've never required Phizer Pharmaceutical products. They say they can
make you go blind after four hours if you don't call a doctor or
something.
M. JL Esq.
2011-01-21 05:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
No, we understand the point of your observation perfectly well. �We're
pointing out that the point of your observation most probably arises from
your mortal fear of human sexuality, not from the painting in question.
Come on, you're even imagining unseen lesbians into the painting!
� � � � � � � � HG
"We"? this "Tom" seems to have ran away from the discussion when his
sources were questioned.
Sorry it took me a little while to dig up the precise reference, but
it has been posted.
"Some scholars" see many things including cabalistic symbolism
http://tinyurl.com/5tuq4u4
in the painting ... i simply disagree with you and this "authority" as
to the similarities in style and pose of the nude males in the
background of the Doni Tondo.

Now, to be fair, please cite *your* scholarly
Post by Tom
source for your claim that there are invisible lesbians hidden in the
background,
Cant you read? Or is your ego so full of itself it can comprehend what
it reads?
--
JL
Corey Connor
2011-01-21 11:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
No, we understand the point of your observation perfectly well. We're
pointing out that the point of your observation most probably arises from
your mortal fear of human sexuality, not from the painting in question.
Come on, you're even imagining unseen lesbians into the painting!
HG
"We"? this "Tom" seems to have ran away from the discussion when his
sources were questioned.
Sorry it took me a little while to dig up the precise reference, but
it has been posted.
"Some scholars" see many things including cabalistic symbolismhttp://tinyurl.com/5tuq4u4
in the painting ... i simply disagree with you and this "authority" as
to the similarities in style and pose of the nude males in the
background of the Doni Tondo.
  Now, to be fair, please cite *your* scholarly
Post by Tom
source for your claim that there are invisible lesbians hidden in the
background,
Cant you read? Or is your ego so full of itself it can comprehend what
it reads?
--
JL- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Lucid, and thorough. Very smart guy, that Jordan Drori. Knows his
shit. Could stand to get out and exercise a little more from the
looks of him, but I really enjoyed his paper. Thanks, Joe.
Corey Connor
2011-01-21 13:18:51 UTC
Permalink
Lucid, and thorough. Very smart guy, that Jordan Drori. Knows his
shit. Could stand to get out and exercise a little more from the
looks of him, but I really enjoyed his paper. Thanks, Joe.
http://tinyurl.com/5tuq4u4
Post by Tom
symbolism
Tom
2011-01-21 14:55:55 UTC
Permalink
"Some scholars" see many things including cabalistic symbolismhttp://tinyurl.com/5tuq4u4
in the painting ...http://tinyurl.com/5tuq4u4
There you go. That's another interpretation that disagrees with
yours.
i simply disagree with you and this "authority" as
to the similarities in style and pose of the nude males in the
background of the Doni Tondo.
But do you disagree because of some rational reason, or is it just an
emotional decision? So far, your arguments suggest the latter.
Post by Tom
Now, to be fair, please cite *your* scholarly
source for your claim that there are invisible lesbians hidden in the
background,
Cant you read? Or is your ego so full of itself it can comprehend what
it reads?
I read just fine. Your assertion of a deliberate homosexual theme in
the background if the Doni Tondo is just your personal imposition of
meaning on a work of art that has nothing to do with the homosexual
angst you feel. While it's all well and good that a work of art
evokes feelings in its individual observers, those feelings don't
necessarily reflect the intent of the artist. People interpret all
sorts of things from Rorschach inkblots, too, but usually they're not
stupid or crazy enough to insist that Dr. Rorschach had their specific
ideas in mind when he made them in the first place and was therefore
sending them a secret message. Just because you get aroused when you
see a naked man doesn't mean that Michelangelo was sneaking gay porn
into his patron's gallery.

You demanded a "scholarly source" for an opinion which differs from
your own, as if your opinion had scholarly worth and only some other
scholarly opinion could trump it. Then you crowed that I had "run
away" because I hadn't provided it immediately. Now that I have
provided it, you want to turn around and discount scholarly opinions
entirely.

The fact of the matter is that your interpretation is a loopy one
based solely on your own wishful thinking.
M. JL Esq.
2011-01-21 16:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
"Some scholars" see many things including cabalistic symbolismhttp://tinyurl.com/5tuq4u4
in the painting ...http://tinyurl.com/5tuq4u4
There you go. That's another interpretation that disagrees with
yours.
i simply disagree with you and this "authority" as
to the similarities in style and pose of the nude males in the
background of the Doni Tondo.
Have you looked at the images?
Post by Tom
But do you disagree because of some rational reason, or is it just an
emotional decision? So far, your arguments suggest the latter.
Look at the images.
Post by Tom
Post by Tom
Now, to be fair, please cite *your* scholarly
source for your claim that there are invisible lesbians hidden in the
background,
Cant you read? Or is your ego so full of itself it can comprehend what
it reads?
I read just fine.
Than go back and re-read my original comments on the subject.
Post by Tom
Your assertion of a deliberate homosexual theme in
the background if the Doni Tondo
Go back and re read my "interpretation" that is not an assertion of a
"deliberate" theme but rather an attempt to discuss possible meaning of
the background of the painting.
--
JL
Tom
2011-01-21 19:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by M. JL Esq.
"Some scholars" see many things including cabalistic symbolismhttp://tinyurl.com/5tuq4u4
in the painting ...http://tinyurl.com/5tuq4u4
There you go.  That's another interpretation that disagrees with
yours.
i simply disagree with you and this "authority" as
to the similarities in style and pose of the nude males in the
background of the Doni Tondo.
Have you looked at the images?
Yes, I have.
Post by M. JL Esq.
Look at the images.
Yes, I have.

No invisible lesbians. No homosexual acts. And the nude figures in
the background of the Doni Tando are posturing similarly but not
identically to the struggling figures of the Laocoon sculpture.
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Tom
Now, to be fair, please cite *your* scholarly
source for your claim that there are invisible lesbians hidden in the
background,
Cant you read? Or is your ego so full of itself it can comprehend what
it reads?
I read just fine.
Than go back and re-read my original comments on the subject.
OK, Let's do just that. You wrote:

"I sometimes think there must be a few lesbians unseen behind the
central
figures"

That seems pretty clear to me. Have you got any scholarly support
for your sometimes thinking that there are unseen lesbians hiding in a
Michelangelo painting? After all, you demanded that I produce
scholarly support for different interpretation of the painting, so it
seems reasonable to expect you must have some of your own. But it
seems you don't. I doubt anyone is surprised at that.
Post by M. JL Esq.
Your assertion of a deliberate homosexual theme in
the background if the Doni Tondo
Go back and re read my "interpretation" that is not an assertion of a
"deliberate" theme but rather an attempt to discuss possible meaning of
the background of the painting.
You put is as a false dilemma, which I noted. Here are your words, as
you wrote them.

"First and foremost among them, is the background anything more than
decoration? void of any philosophical or theological meaning or
bearing
on the concept of family, holy or otherwise.
Or, did Michelangelo, with his reputed alternative sexuality mean to
make an inclusive statement with the back ground of his Doni Tondo?"

You presented only these two extreme interpretations, as if they were
the only possibilities, as if one must choose between one of the
other. In fact, there are a lot of interpretations, including some
highly scholarly ones, that seem a lot more reasonable than your
speculation that Michelangelo either meant nothing at all or he was
secretly advocating gay marriage or something.
Corey Connor
2011-01-21 19:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
"Some scholars" see many things including cabalistic symbolismhttp://tinyurl.com/5tuq4u4
in the painting ...http://tinyurl.com/5tuq4u4
There you go.  That's another interpretation that disagrees with
yours.
i simply disagree with you and this "authority" as
to the similarities in style and pose of the nude males in the
background of the Doni Tondo.
Have you looked at the images?
Yes, I have.
Post by M. JL Esq.
Look at the images.
Yes, I have.
No invisible lesbians.  No homosexual acts.  And the nude figures in
the background of the Doni Tando are posturing similarly but not
identically to the struggling figures of the Laocoon sculpture.
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Tom
Now, to be fair, please cite *your* scholarly
source for your claim that there are invisible lesbians hidden in the
background,
Cant you read? Or is your ego so full of itself it can comprehend what
it reads?
I read just fine.
Than go back and re-read my original comments on the subject.
"I sometimes think there must be a few lesbians unseen behind the
central
figures"
That seems pretty clear to me.   Have you got any scholarly support
for your sometimes thinking that there are unseen lesbians hiding in a
Michelangelo painting?  After all, you demanded that I produce
scholarly support for different interpretation of the painting, so it
seems reasonable to expect you must have some of your own.  But it
seems you don't. I doubt anyone is surprised at that.
Post by M. JL Esq.
Your assertion of a deliberate homosexual theme in
the background if the Doni Tondo
Go back and re read my "interpretation" that is not an assertion of a
"deliberate" theme but rather an attempt to discuss possible meaning of
the background of the painting.
You put is as a false dilemma, which I noted.  Here are your words, as
you wrote them.
"First and foremost among them, is the background anything more than
decoration?  void of any philosophical or theological meaning or bearing
on the concept of family, holy or otherwise.
Or, did Michelangelo, with his reputed alternative sexuality mean to
make an inclusive statement with the back ground of his Doni Tondo?"
You presented only these two extreme interpretations, as if they were
the only possibilities, as if one must choose between one of the
other.  In fact, there are a lot of interpretations, including some
highly scholarly ones, that seem a lot more reasonable than your
speculation that Michelangelo either meant nothing at all or he was
secretly advocating gay marriage or something.
Bassos
2011-01-21 20:45:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
Have you looked at the images?
Yes, I have.
And you did not consider lesbians ?

Are you into manloving ?

Ohr just also pretend faithfull.
(anyone who claims that is per definition a liar)
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
Look at the images.
Yes, I have.
No invisible lesbians.
Such lack of imagination you present.
I see lesbians wherever i choose.
(recall a certain blue satin dressed classical muslim girl ? Yumm)
Post by Tom
No homosexual acts.
Well, the girl up fronth does look pretty muscular.
Post by Tom
And the nude figures in the background of the Doni Tando are posturing similarly but not
identically to the struggling figures of the Laocoon sculpture.
They look like small-dicked greek olympians.

You know they competed nude to prevent cheating, i reckon.

Snip doublebladed whining.
Tom
2011-01-22 05:18:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
Have you looked at the images?
Yes, I have.
And you did not consider lesbians ?
Invisible lesbians? No.
Post by Bassos
Are you into manloving ?
Loving or fucking? Are you aware there's a difference?
Post by Bassos
Ohr just also pretend faithfull.
(anyone who claims that is per definition a liar)
Which definition of "faithful" means "liar"? I think we've just found
another claim for which you lack scholarly support.
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
No invisible lesbians.
Such lack of imagination you present.
The part of my consciousness which does the looking is largely
independent of the part that does the imagining. Being mindful of
this distinction is extremely useful.
Bassos
2011-01-22 06:30:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
Have you looked at the images?
Yes, I have.
And you did not consider lesbians ?
Invisible lesbians? No.
Just make some up, i mean, that is what vision is for, right ?
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Are you into manloving ?
Loving or fucking? Are you aware there's a difference?
Yup, and i love that you notice said difference aswell.
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Ohr just also pretend faithfull.
(anyone who claims that is per definition a liar)
Which definition of "faithful" means "liar"?
Pretend faithfull.
Post by Tom
I think we've just found
another claim for which you lack scholarly support.
Perhaps, perhaps you simply read too fast.
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
No invisible lesbians.
Such lack of imagination you present.
The part of my consciousness which does the looking is largely
independent of the part that does the imagining.
No, that is really wrong.

Imagination is the method by which we see.
Post by Tom
Being mindful of this distinction is extremely useful.
There is no distinction.

There is a distinction between seeing and knowing though.
Tom
2011-01-22 15:05:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bassos
Invisible lesbians?  No.
Just make some up, i mean, that is what vision is for, right ?
Wrong. Vision is for seeing what's there. Imagination is for making
up what isn't there.

Last night I met upon the stair
A little man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
Oh, how I wish he'd go away.
Post by Bassos
The part of my consciousness which does the looking is largely
independent of the part that does the imagining.
No, that is really wrong.
This statement goes a long way towards an understanding of why you
make an ass of yourself so often.
Bassos
2011-01-22 18:56:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
Invisible lesbians? No.
Just make some up, i mean, that is what vision is for, right ?
Wrong. Vision is for seeing what's there. Imagination is for making
up what isn't there.
No, fucktard.

Imagination and seeing use the exact same brain pathways.

Seeing something is not actually seeing what is there.
It is an imagination to help us cope with reality.
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
The part of my consciousness which does the looking is largely
independent of the part that does the imagining.
No, that is really wrong.
This statement goes a long way towards an understanding of why you
make an ass of yourself so often.
I am almost always correct, and you are not ?

Even though it seems like i am wrong ?

yeah, must be, seeing the above example.
Hieronymous Corey
2011-01-22 19:54:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bassos
Post by Bassos
Invisible lesbians?  No.
Just make some up, i mean, that is what vision is for, right ?
Wrong.  Vision is for seeing what's there.  Imagination is for making
up what isn't there.
No, fucktard.
Imagination and seeing use the exact same brain pathways.
Seeing something is not actually seeing what is there.
It is an imagination to help us cope with reality.
Post by Bassos
The part of my consciousness which does the looking is largely
independent of the part that does the imagining.
No, that is really wrong.
This statement goes a long way towards an understanding of why you
make an ass of yourself so often.
I am almost always correct, and you are not ?
Even though it seems like i am wrong ?
yeah, must be, seeing the above example.
IMPROVISING A TEMPLE P. 175

"What is really more significant is the hidden, the unexpressed, soul
of th Book; the way in which it leaps into wild spate of rhapsody on
any excuse or no excuse" - Magick Without Tears
Tom
2011-01-22 21:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bassos
Post by Bassos
Just make some up, i mean, that is what vision is for, right ?
Wrong.  Vision is for seeing what's there.  Imagination is for making
up what isn't there.
No, fucktard.
Imagination and seeing use the exact same brain pathways.
Better check your facts on that one, boy. You are misinformed.
Post by Bassos
Seeing something is not actually seeing what is there.
It is an imagination to help us cope with reality.
And, in your case, alcohol.
Post by Bassos
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
The part of my consciousness which does the looking is largely
independent of the part that does the imagining.
No, that is really wrong.
This statement goes a long way towards an understanding of why you
make an ass of yourself so often.
I am almost always correct, and you are not ?
There you go confusing your imagination with reality again.
Bassos
2011-01-22 21:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Just make some up, i mean, that is what vision is for, right ?
Wrong. Vision is for seeing what's there. Imagination is for making
up what isn't there.
No, fucktard.
Imagination and seeing use the exact same brain pathways.
Better check your facts on that one, boy. You are misinformed.
Ah, you discovered that the actual vision areas of the brain are not
activated during imagination.
<snip question>

Meaning the actual V1 is not activated more when imaging.
Which would be totally irrelevant for an actual person.
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Seeing something is not actually seeing what is there.
It is an imagination to help us cope with reality.
And, in your case, alcohol.
No dude, even though i admit to always being drunk and stoned (you
forgot that part)

I am still more refined than you.
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
The part of my consciousness which does the looking is largely
independent of the part that does the imagining.
No, that is really wrong.
This statement goes a long way towards an understanding of why you
make an ass of yourself so often.
I am almost always correct, and you are not ?
There you go confusing your imagination with reality again.
Heh.

See above.
Tom
2011-01-23 02:47:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bassos
Post by Bassos
Imagination and seeing use the exact same brain pathways.
Better check your facts on that one, boy.  You are misinformed.
Ah, you discovered that the actual vision areas of the brain are not
activated during imagination.
<snip question>
Meaning the actual V1 is not activated more when imaging.
Which would be totally irrelevant for an actual person.
When there is any credible evidence that you have the slightest idea
what the actual neurological processes are, I'll discuss this with you
further. As it is, however, you're just babbling nonsense again.
Bassos
2011-01-23 08:18:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Imagination and seeing use the exact same brain pathways.
Better check your facts on that one, boy. You are misinformed.
Ah, you discovered that the actual vision areas of the brain are not
activated during imagination.
<snip question>
Meaning the actual V1 is not activated more when imaging.
Which would be totally irrelevant for an actual person.
When there is any credible evidence that you have the slightest idea
what the actual neurological processes are, I'll discuss this with you
further. As it is, however, you're just babbling nonsense again.
Heh.

Several possible answers,
let's go with:

That is your job!
Bassos
2011-01-23 09:55:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Imagination and seeing use the exact same brain pathways.
Better check your facts on that one, boy. You are misinformed.
Ah, you discovered that the actual vision areas of the brain are not
activated during imagination.
<snip question>
Meaning the actual V1 is not activated more when imaging.
Which would be totally irrelevant for an actual person.
When there is any credible evidence that you have the slightest idea
what the actual neurological processes are, I'll discuss this with you
further. As it is, however, you're just babbling nonsense again.
I realise that double posting is bassos.
But rewatch dirty dancing, and imagine you as patrick swayze, and me as
jennifer gray.

This is a ten year progress analogy ofcourse.
http://www.kickasstorrents.com/dirty-dancing-1987-20th-anniversary-edition-dvdrip-eng-greenbud1969-t1912265.html

Now hurry up with that dirty dancing :)
Bassos
2011-01-23 10:22:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Bassos
Imagination and seeing use the exact same brain pathways.
Better check your facts on that one, boy. You are misinformed.
Ah, you discovered that the actual vision areas of the brain are not
activated during imagination.
<snip question>
Meaning the actual V1 is not activated more when imaging.
Which would be totally irrelevant for an actual person.
When there is any credible evidence that you have the slightest idea
what the actual neurological processes are, I'll discuss this with you
further. As it is, however, you're just babbling nonsense again.
I realise that double posting is bassos.
But rewatch dirty dancing, and imagine you as patrick swayze, and me as
jennifer gray.
This is a ten year progress analogy ofcourse.
http://www.kickasstorrents.com/dirty-dancing-1987-20th-anniversary-edition-dvdrip-eng-greenbud1969-t1912265.html
Now hurry up with that dirty dancing :)
And well, while i am apparantly flooding;


Hieronymous Corey
2011-01-23 10:41:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Bassos
Imagination and seeing use the exact same brain pathways.
Better check your facts on that one, boy.  You are misinformed.
Ah, you discovered that the actual vision areas of the brain are not
activated during imagination.
<snip question>
Meaning the actual V1 is not activated more when imaging.
Which would be totally irrelevant for an actual person.
When there is any credible evidence that you have the slightest idea
what the actual neurological processes are, I'll discuss this with you
further.  As it is, however, you're just babbling nonsense again.
What I've found can change your mind, sir.
Babbled words like mine are fine. Were
you to ask, or task my mind; serve
sentence hence, respecting line swerve
left to right, like this one bending
right to left as this rhyme's ending,
you will be convinced, as hence moves
forward until each line present proves
now and then, again, such nonsense
proves its movement. QED / hence.
Absorbed
2011-01-25 01:24:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bassos
Imagination and seeing use the exact same brain pathways.
Seeing something is not actually seeing what is there.
So blind people can see... according to Bassos.
Bassos
2011-01-25 13:18:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
Post by Bassos
Imagination and seeing use the exact same brain pathways.
Seeing something is not actually seeing what is there.
So blind people can see... according to Bassos.
That is not at all what i wrote.
But yeah sure, blind people dream.

You are really far to stupid, or in this case far to enthralled with
attempting to notice something, anything i write you can put down, to
actually do so.

(perhaps read sentences a couple of times, so you mabe start getting a
chance at actually understanding.
M. JL Esq.
2011-01-21 21:18:25 UTC
Permalink
You presented only these two extreme interpretations, as if they were
the only possibilities, as if one must choose between one of the
other.
In your mind, but we have known for a long time that you are rather odd
in how you respond to people. I take it you are equally odd in your
response to yourself if that is the only way you think my statements can
be read.
'
In fact, there are a lot of interpretations, including some
highly scholarly ones, that seem a lot more reasonable than your
speculation that Michelangelo either meant nothing at all or he was
secretly advocating gay marriage or something.
"Or something" *chuckle* you cant even figure out what to fantasize
about accusing me of.
--
JL
Bassos
2011-01-21 21:23:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Tom
You presented only these two extreme interpretations, as if they were
the only possibilities, as if one must choose between one of the
other.
In your mind, but we have known for a long time that you are rather odd
in how you respond to people. I take it you are equally odd in your
response to yourself if that is the only way you think my statements can
be read.
'
In fact, there are a lot of interpretations, including some
Post by Tom
highly scholarly ones, that seem a lot more reasonable than your
speculation that Michelangelo either meant nothing at all or he was
secretly advocating gay marriage or something.
"Or something" *chuckle* you cant even figure out what to fantasize
about accusing me of.
--
JL
Shut up.
Hieronymous Corey
2011-01-21 21:25:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Tom
You presented only these two extreme interpretations, as if they were
the only possibilities, as if one must choose between one of the
other.
In your mind, but we have known for a long time that you are rather odd
in how you respond to people. I take it you are equally odd in your
response to yourself if that is the only way you think my statements can
be read.
'
In fact, there are a lot of interpretations, including some
Post by Tom
highly scholarly ones, that seem a lot more reasonable than your
speculation that Michelangelo either meant nothing at all or he was
secretly advocating gay marriage or something.
"Or something" *chuckle* you cant even figure out what to fantasize
about accusing me of.
--
JL
Shut up.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What he said.
M. JL Esq.
2011-01-21 21:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bassos
Shut up.
*Chuckle* you almost as bad as "Tom" but he seems to be able to tell the
difference between speech and writing.
Bassos
2011-01-22 06:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Bassos
Shut up.
*Chuckle* you almost as bad as "Tom" but he seems to be able to tell the
difference between speech and writing.
You almost understand words.

Almost.
Corey Connor
2011-01-22 12:47:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bassos
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Bassos
Shut up.
*Chuckle* you almost as bad as "Tom" but he seems to be able to tell the
difference between speech and writing.
You almost understand words.
Almost.
Perish the thought. I mean like, whatever, dude.
Robert Scott Martin
2011-02-10 05:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Wisdom & Technic of ye Ancients
Post by M. JL Esq.
"Some scholars" see many things including cabalistic
symbolism http://tinyurl.com/5tuq4u4
[...]

Ernst Gombrich on John Shearman's "Only Connect: Art & The Spectator in
the Italian Renaissance" --

"In contrast to some of the authors he quotes Shearman obviously prefers to
teach by examples rather than by theoretical considerations. For this is
essentially an autobiographical book, in which the author tells of his
personal response to some two hundred works of the period that have
engaged his attention during a lifetime of study. The only brief excursion
into theory the author permits himself is the proposal to use the
grammatical term 'transitive' for the kind of relation between the work of
art and the spectator that interests him, quoting the Oxford English
Dictionary for the definition of the term as 'taking a direct object to
complete the sense' (etc.). Not everybody will find this application of
the term apposite. It is true, for instance, that the word 'to paint' in
its transitive use demands an object but not an addressee. When I say, 'I
paint my bedroom,' I may speak of redecoration or of an emulation of van
Gogh, but in neither case is a spectator implied.

"There is a term in rhetoric which comes a little closer to the meaning
the author has in mind: it is the term 'apostrophe,' which was defined by
Quintillian (in a speech at the Law Courts) as 'the diversion of our words
to address some person other than the judge.' But apart from the awkward
possibility of it being confused with its more familiar meaning as a
grammatical indicator, the device does not necessarily imply a living
addressee. 'Milton! thou should'st be living at this hour' is specifically
addressed by Wordsworth to a poet of the past.

"It may be useful at this point to step back a little and to consider the
topic in a more general context: there are cultures in which the work of
art is intended to act as a spell or a prayer addressing the spirit world
or supernatural powers; there are also conceptions of art in which each
creation is entirely self-sufficient, regarding any outsider as an
intruder or worse. Traces of these positions have occasionally surfaced in
later centuries, including our own, but by and large the historian of any
art is entitled to think that composers and playwrights intended their
works to be performed, that authors hoped to be read, and that architects,
sculptors, and painters had a public in mind that would appreciate their
inventions. It is within this general assumption that we may try to
differentiate, however crudely, between the various devices that may serve
this universal aim.

"Anyone devising a message in whatever medium will first be concerned with
its sensory form, which allows it to be clearly perceived. Speech and
music must adjust to the facts of acoustics, the visual arts to optical
conditions. There are notoriously musical compositions in the Renaissance
and in our century that disregard this demand, since their complexity is
bound to elude the listener, and there are many works, especially of
decorative art, that cannot properly be seen by the unaided eye. By
contrast many artists have carefully calculated the optimal position from
which their work is seen to the best advantage. The sculptor's concern
with the best aspect from which his statue should be viewed first comes to
mind, a concern which gives way to the aim of allowing the spectator to
walk around and to experience the intended transformations. A refinement
of this calculation is mentioned by Plato, who tells us that the sculptors
take account of the high positioning of their statues by stretching their
proportions, which will right themselves when seen from the ground. The
calculation of effects due to distance is mentioned by Vasari for
sculpture and was a commonplace in the discussion of paintings where the
beholder was supposed to step back for the picture to come to life.

"In the Renaissance artists must have found that the tricks of
perspectival representation that were universally adopted raised as many
problems as they appeared to solve. What is the ideal place from which
such a painting is to be viewed? Leonardo discussed this matter and in the
seventeenth century Pozzo notoriously marked the place in S. Ignazio in
Rome from which the illusion that the church has a dome became perfect. A
limiting case is the device of anamorphosis which only looks right when
viewed sideways, preferably through a peephole. Nor must the alternative
trick be forgotten, paintings which appear to move with us as we change
our position. Mantegna's Christo in scurzo may be a case in point, where
the wounds of Christ always appear to face us, to enhance their spiritual
appeal. A more sophisticated device was used by Vasari on the ceiling of
his own house in Arezzo: he represented Virtue trampling on Envy and,
seizing Fortune by her hair, hitting both of them with a stick; 'and what
gave much pleasure at that time,' he writes in his autobiography, 'was
that if you walked around the room it sometimes looked as if Envy was
above Fortune and Virtue, and then again Virtue above Envy and Fortune
just as it often happens in real life.'

"It may be useful to distinguish these sensory or optical devices from
psychological methods intended to ensure the receipt of the 'message.'
What is needed is clearly to ensure the listener's or the viewer's
attention, a need that admittedly also has its sensory component, witness
the toastmaster's ritual call, 'Pray silence for...' Without the physical
condition of silence, attention would be impossible. Equivalents in music
are the loud chords sometimes preceding the first movement of a
composition, often and rightly described as 'a call to attention.' In the
visual arts it is the conspicuous frame or other means of isolating the
message from its distracting surroundings which serves this purpose. The
study of the advertiser's art would reveal any number of further ways of
grabbing attention.

"Since we are all egocentric, we are more likely to pay attention to a
message addressed to us than to anybody else. The rhetorical figure of
apostrophe mentioned above has often been used for this purpose. In
literature, of course, an address to the reader has been commonplace
throughout the centuries, never more effectively than in the epitaph at
Thermopylae: 'Stranger, tell the Spartans that we lie here in obedience to
their laws.' What makes this text so poignant is the fact that the reader
is asked to transmit the message because the fallen cannot. Religious
discourse has always addressed the individual, as in the 'thou shalt not'
of the Decalogue, but it needs a master such as John Donne to give it new
force: 'Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.'
Any number of changes have been rung on this device in literature; it took
the wit and daring of Laurence Sterne to precede his account of his own
conception in Tristram Shandy with the injunction 'Shut the door.'
Needless to say it is again the advertisers who have introduced further
variants by 'personalizing' their circulars, inserting the name of an
addressee for the traditional 'dear customer.'

"These varieties are worth mentioning only to underline the resources of
language which the unaided image cannot match. Witness a popular print of
the seventeenth century showing four donkeys captioned 'Siamo Cinque' (we
are five), implying teasingly that the spectator is also an ass.

"It may be convenient to distinguish such 'framing conditions' -- the
envelope, as it were, in which the message arrives -- from that message's
intrinsic capacity to arouse the recipient's emotions. Little need be said
about this universal concern of all the arts except that the notorious
formula 'sex and violence' did not have to wait for this century to be
discovered. In addition to this universal disposition the sender of any
message is also likely to rely on expected personal or topical
associations, which are bound to vary with the cultural context. Social
satire and political cartoons gain their effect from such ephemeral
allusions.

[...]

"It is the trouble with such connections that they are more easily made
than undone. Associations are like gossamer threads; however light they
may be, they tend to cling. Perhaps the injunction -- 'Only connect' -- is
misleading. We want the switchboard operator to make only the right
connections. It will be remembered that Shearman triumphantly did so in
his earlier comments on the very subject of Mary's mourning over the dead
Christ. Is it not a pity that he has here obtruded such erudite
irrelevancies into our experience of one of Michelangelo's most moving
images? We writers on art may carry a greater burden of responsibility in
such matters than is sometimes realized."

http://www.gombrich.co.uk/showrev.php?id=19
M. JL Esq.
2011-02-13 23:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Scott Martin
Wisdom & Technic of ye Ancients
Post by M. JL Esq.
"Some scholars" see many things including cabalistic
symbolism http://tinyurl.com/5tuq4u4
[...]
"It is the trouble with such connections that they are more easily made
than undone. Associations are like gossamer threads; however light they
may be, they tend to cling. Perhaps the injunction -- 'Only connect' -- is
misleading. We want the switchboard operator to make only the right
connections. It will be remembered that Shearman triumphantly did so in
his earlier comments on the very subject of Mary's mourning over the dead
Christ. Is it not a pity that he has here obtruded such erudite
irrelevancies into our experience of one of Michelangelo's most moving
images? We writers on art may carry a greater burden of responsibility in
such matters than is sometimes realized."
http://www.gombrich.co.uk/showrev.php?id=19
Thanks for that. But it seemed a long way to go for very little.

THough im not sure how you relate Mary mourning over the dead Christ and
the Doni Tondo.

Loading Image...

"The probability for an event that can happen in two indistinguishable
ways is the sum of the probability for each way considered separately."

The forming of any opinion is ultimately a 50/50 chance or random event.
--
JL
Robert Scott Martin
2011-02-14 04:51:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Robert Scott Martin
Wisdom & Technic of ye Ancients
http://www.gombrich.co.uk/showrev.php?id=19
THough im not sure how you relate Mary mourning over the dead Christ and
the Doni Tondo.
Actually, the Pieta reference is a warning against what we might call
interpretation for its own sake. Shearman's gloss -- rather like an
unusual interest in the nudes in the background of the tondo to the
exclusion of the holy family at its center -- multiplies associative
chatter but, Gombrich intimates, distracts from the work at hand.
Post by M. JL Esq.
http://www.gnostic.org/ihsm/rosary/images_lrg/02_glori_ascen_dali.jpg
We see this same principle at work in the evolution of Dali's method from
the early "paranoiac critical" style to the later "nuclear mysticism."
Compared to the robust religious sentiment these late canvasses convey,
the multiplication of personal symbols in the early paintings -- the
beans, crutches, loaves and mantises -- may hold our interest for awhile
but not on an enduring basis.

Thus the monk responds to the yogin. "Where schools of yogis, monks or
fakirs exit, they are barely distinguishable from religious schools. The
fourth way [connecting to the painting] differs in that it is not a
permanent way."
M. JL Esq.
2011-02-18 20:20:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Scott Martin
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Robert Scott Martin
Wisdom & Technic of ye Ancients
http://www.gombrich.co.uk/showrev.php?id=19
THough im not sure how you relate Mary mourning over the dead Christ and
the Doni Tondo.
Actually, the Pieta reference is a warning against what we might call
interpretation for its own sake. Shearman's gloss -- rather like an
unusual interest in the nudes in the background of the tondo to the
exclusion of the holy family at its center -- multiplies associative
chatter but, Gombrich intimates, distracts from the work at hand.
My original comment in this thread was in response to a definition of
"family"
Post by Robert Scott Martin
Aristotle begins with a husband and wife, and then proceeds to a
household, and so on. His point is that the same basic underlying
rules apply because no matter how your government is arranged, it is
made up of households centering on the procreative couple. What holds
a household together is also what holds the state together. The
differences arise from the complexity of the permutations of these
basic household relationships. Compare this with Confucius, who says
the government is simply a larger expression of the family.
The only thing "unusual" about an "interest" in the nudes in the
background of the tondo is an expression of that interest being unusual.

Do we discard or ignore the Elgin marbles because they are ornamentation
to the Parthenon and not the central building itself?

Is the back ground of da Vincis Mona Lisa of less importance because it
is the background and not the image of an individual?

If you feel the nudes in the background of the tondo distract from the
central images that would lead me to think you might hold a similar
opinion regarding anything you think might distract from what you
consider to be 'family' holy or otherwise.

Also it seems the opinion you quote is rather more an theological
opinion than one of an aesthetic or even sociological appreciation of
the painting.
Post by Robert Scott Martin
Post by M. JL Esq.
http://www.gnostic.org/ihsm/rosary/images_lrg/02_glori_ascen_dali.jpg
We see this same principle at work in the evolution of Dali's method from
the early "paranoiac critical" style to the later "nuclear mysticism."
Compared to the robust religious sentiment these late canvasses convey,
the multiplication of personal symbols in the early paintings -- the
beans, crutches, loaves and mantises -- may hold our interest for awhile
but not on an enduring basis.
Art speak, says nothing in as imposing a manner as possible.
Post by Robert Scott Martin
Thus the monk responds to the yogin. "Where schools of yogis, monks or
fakirs exit, they are barely distinguishable from religious schools. The
fourth way [connecting to the painting] differs in that it is not a
permanent way."
Nothing is permanent.
--
JL
Robert Scott Martin
2011-02-18 21:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Robert Scott Martin
Wisdom & Technic of ye Ancients
http://www.gombrich.co.uk/showrev.php?id=19
My original comment in this thread was in response to a definition of
"family"
Now that, I like. I'm all for extending the idea of Michelangelo's "holy
family" into an outright ennead. Nine forces at play.

But...

...the painter I live with tells me that the biggest thing in the image is
always what mattered to the painter. Every single time. You can tell that
Michelangelo was having fun with the five nudes and dreaming putto. Okay.
But on the painter scale of square inches, if one is not talking about
that heteronormative triad in the middle, it's just doodling about the
margins.
Post by M. JL Esq.
If you feel the nudes in the background of the tondo distract from the
central images that would lead me to think you might hold a similar
opinion regarding anything you think might distract from what you
consider to be 'family' holy or otherwise.
You would be dead wrong.
Post by M. JL Esq.
Art speak, says nothing in as imposing a manner as possible.
That's why I don't talk about art with you.

Hit dog barks!
M. JL Esq.
2011-02-18 23:15:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Scott Martin
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Robert Scott Martin
Wisdom & Technic of ye Ancients
http://www.gombrich.co.uk/showrev.php?id=19
My original comment in this thread was in response to a definition of
"family"
Now that, I like. I'm all for extending the idea of Michelangelo's "holy
family" into an outright ennead. Nine forces at play.
But...
...the painter I live with tells me that the biggest thing in the image is
always what mattered to the painter. Every single time. You can tell that
Michelangelo was having fun with the five nudes and dreaming putto. Okay.
But on the painter scale of square inches, if one is not talking about
that heteronormative triad in the middle, it's just doodling about the
margins.
Post by M. JL Esq.
If you feel the nudes in the background of the tondo distract from the
central images that would lead me to think you might hold a similar
opinion regarding anything you think might distract from what you
consider to be 'family' holy or otherwise.
You would be dead wrong.
Post by M. JL Esq.
Art speak, says nothing in as imposing a manner as possible.
That's why I don't talk about art with you.
Hit dog barks!
We see this same principle at work in the evolution of Dali's method
from the early "paranoiac critical" style to the later "nuclear
Post by Robert Scott Martin
mysticism." Compared to the robust religious sentiment these late
canvasses convey, the multiplication of personal symbols in the >early
paintings -- the beans, crutches, loaves and mantises -- may hold our
interest for awhile but not on an enduring basis.


*Chuckle* beat your dog or explain what that "art speak" actually means.
Your choice.
--
JL
Robert Scott Martin
2011-02-19 00:00:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Robert Scott Martin
...the painter I live with tells me that the biggest thing in the image is
always what mattered to the painter. Every single time. You can tell that
Michelangelo was having fun with the five nudes and dreaming putto. Okay.
But on the painter scale of square inches, if one is not talking about
that heteronormative triad in the middle, it's just doodling about the
margins.
We see this same principle at work in the evolution of Dali's method
from the early "paranoiac critical" style to the later "nuclear
mysticism." Compared to the robust religious sentiment these late
canvasses convey, the multiplication of personal symbols in the early
paintings -- the beans, crutches, loaves and mantises -- may hold our
interest for awhile but not on an enduring basis.
Cake. Please let me know if I need to dumb this down further. I don't like
to appear too patronizing.

We see [this same principle] at work = the chatter of pointless
interpretation for its own sake reflected in either (a) Shearman's
fixation on suggestions that the Pieta reflected survivals of the Dianic
cult or (b) your own apparently endless desire to revise the
heteronormative Tondo, for example.

in [the evolution of Dali's method] = the man's work changed over the 6
decades he was active, duh.

from [the early "paranoiac-critical" style] = the famous "surrealist"
canvasses of the early 1930s, which Dali painted via a technique he called
the paranoiac-critical method.

to [the later "nuclear mysticism"] = paintings like the Ascension you
linked to are in Dali's later 1950s style in which he abandoned the
paranoiac-critical tricks of interpretation for a kind of space-age
Catholicism. He called this "nuclear mysticism."

Compared to [the robust religious sentiment] = What distinguishes the
1950s Dali -- like the painting you linked to -- from the more famous
"wacky" 1930s Dali is that by the 1950s, he was moving into a more
conservative and weirdly enough, sincere relationship to religious
iconography. Uh, I mean religion in his pictures. These paintings were
thus more "robust" in their "religious" sentiment, or depth of feeling.

This, by the way, refers back to what Gombrich sees as Shearman's error
and what I see as yours. Attempting to sidestep the depth of feeling in
something like the Dali Ascension or the Pieta or the Tondo may dazzle us
with superficial chatter, but misses the point.

these late canvasses convey = refers back to paintings like the one you
linked to, as opposed to the more conventionally "surreal" melting clocks
and ants people think about.

the [multiplication] of [personal symbols] in the [early paintings] =
taking these in reverse order for clarity, the "early paintings" refer to
the paranoiac-critical canvasses like Persistence of Memory or Soft
Construction with Boiled Beans. The "personal symbols" are the, well,
personal artistic fetishes that the paranoiac-critical method allowed him
to uncover and showcase in those paintings.

The "multiplication" of those symbols speaks to the fact that Dali's
paranoiac-critical vocabulary, uh, I mean the things he liked to paint
tended to expand and mutate like one of his clocks but ultimately produced
nothing solid. Again like one of his clocks. Or like the finicky bitching
about background characters in a minor Michelangelo because, shocker, they
and the artist himself mighta been GAY, even if it means the eye glazing
passively over the mannish woman, contorted tot and impassive dude front
and center.

In the absence of a central organizing focus, symbols like chatter
multiply to infinity and leave us all no richer than we were at the
beginning.

The creation of a central organizing focus is called "composition" in art.
It is what draws the eye to the important parts. Every great work of art
is assumed to employ composition, which is to say it has important parts.

the beans, crutches, loaves and mantises = famous personal symbols for
Dali in the 1930s; we could easily add asses and lobsters and later the
almighty (avida) $$$$.

I would add Gala Dali to the list as he moved into the later phase. Gala
is the angel in the Ascension. She was also his model for Mary, among
other things. The Dali Ascension is a heteronormative romantic
relationship as well as, at the same time, an expression of Dali's uh
"robust religious sentiment."

may hold our interest for awhile but not on an enduring basis = Again, the
problem with fiddly chatter is it never lands anywhere. The whole point of
composition is to find the eye a landing spot.

Sooner or later, the eye must land. Maybe it lands on one of the nudes in
the Tondo for you. That's fine, actually. I think your discussion of the
image as a map of a new kind of holy family is actually interesting ... or
could be, if it were developed beyond the "omg fagggz yay" lolcat level at
which it currently molders.

For instance, as you know a conventional holy family generally brings in
members of Mary's family -- St Elizabeth, St Zachary and/or the plucky tot
John the Baptist -- to extend the image beyond the completely
heteronormative ah "nuclear family mysticism." I like those extended
scenes better. They give the artist a chance to explore homosocial
relationships to his heart's content.

Maybe that's what's going on in the Tondo? The putto may well be John the
Baptist and the other groups may interestingly represent the cousins. But
until I can figure out how they relate to the people in the middle, who
knows? It's all vainglorious speculation.
Post by M. JL Esq.
*Chuckle* beat your dog or explain what that "art speak" actually means.
Your choice.
Gosh, you make it sound so hard. This is why I don't talk about art with
you.
M. JL Esq.
2011-02-19 01:24:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Scott Martin
Post by Robert Scott Martin
...the painter I live with tells me that the biggest thing in the image is
always what mattered to the painter. Every single time. You can tell that
Michelangelo was having fun with the five nudes and dreaming putto. Okay.
But on the painter scale of square inches, if one is not talking about
that heteronormative triad in the middle, it's just doodling about the
margins.
We see this same principle at work in the evolution of Dali's method
from the early "paranoiac critical" style to the later "nuclear
mysticism." Compared to the robust religious sentiment these late
canvasses convey, the multiplication of personal symbols in the early
paintings -- the beans, crutches, loaves and mantises -- may hold our
interest for awhile but not on an enduring basis.
Cake. Please let me know if I need to dumb this down further. I don't like
to appear too patronizing.
We see [this same principle] at work = the chatter of pointless
interpretation for its own sake reflected in either (a) Shearman's
fixation on suggestions that the Pieta reflected survivals of the Dianic
cult or (b) your own apparently endless desire to revise the
heteronormative Tondo, for example.
Revise?

I asked a simple question, is the back ground decorative or symbolic?

And that, in so far as any individual may care to form an opinion of the
question or any possible answer is merely indicative of that individual
and NOT a "desire" to "revise" the painting.

The painting is the painting, what Michelangelo painted is painted and
will not change for a discussion of it.
Post by Robert Scott Martin
in [the evolution of Dali's method] = the man's work changed over the 6
decades he was active, duh.
Ok.
Post by Robert Scott Martin
from [the early "paranoiac-critical" style] = the famous "surrealist"
canvasses of the early 1930s, which Dali painted via a technique he called
the paranoiac-critical method.
to [the later "nuclear mysticism"] = paintings like the Ascension you
linked to are in Dali's later 1950s style in which he abandoned the
paranoiac-critical tricks of interpretation for a kind of space-age
Catholicism. He called this "nuclear mysticism."
Compared to [the robust religious sentiment] = What distinguishes the
1950s Dali -- like the painting you linked to -- from the more famous
"wacky" 1930s Dali is that by the 1950s, he was moving into a more
conservative and weirdly enough, sincere relationship to religious
iconography. Uh, I mean religion in his pictures. These paintings were
thus more "robust" in their "religious" sentiment, or depth of feeling.
This, by the way, refers back to what Gombrich sees as Shearman's error
and what I see as yours. Attempting to sidestep the depth of feeling in
something like the Dali Ascension or the Pieta or the Tondo may dazzle us
with superficial chatter, but misses the point.
these late canvasses convey = refers back to paintings like the one you
linked to, as opposed to the more conventionally "surreal" melting clocks
and ants people think about.
the [multiplication] of [personal symbols] in the [early paintings] =
taking these in reverse order for clarity, the "early paintings" refer to
the paranoiac-critical canvasses like Persistence of Memory or Soft
Construction with Boiled Beans. The "personal symbols" are the, well,
personal artistic fetishes that the paranoiac-critical method allowed him
to uncover and showcase in those paintings.
The "multiplication" of those symbols speaks to the fact that Dali's
paranoiac-critical vocabulary, uh, I mean the things he liked to paint
tended to expand and mutate like one of his clocks but ultimately produced
nothing solid. Again like one of his clocks. Or like the finicky bitching
about background characters
If a simple attempt to discuss what may or may not be symbolism is to
you 'finicky bitching" then there's not much point in continuing to even
try to translate your convoluted, lugubrious "art speak" into something
not only understandable but meaningful and worth the effort of trying to
understand.
--
JL
Robert Scott Martin
2011-02-19 01:37:20 UTC
Permalink
In article <ijn65c$119$***@speranza.aioe.org>,
M. JL Esq. <***@isp.com> wrote:

Hit dog barks!
Post by M. JL Esq.
Revise?
"Revision."

"Revisionist art criticism."

"Revisionist interpretation."

I do it myself.
Post by M. JL Esq.
The painting is the painting, what Michelangelo painted is painted and
will not change for a discussion of it.
I see a big-ass chick, an old guy and a baby in need of diapering. Whaddya
make of them?

[snip Salvador Dali 101 uncommented]
Post by M. JL Esq.
If a simple attempt to discuss what may or may not be symbolism is to
you 'finicky bitching" then there's not much point in continuing to even
try to translate your convoluted, lugubrious "art speak" into something
not only understandable but meaningful and worth the effort of trying to
understand.
Oh. I'm sorry. I thought you were trying to speak about art.

Guess not! I'll leave you to your thing then.

You know, the one without the "art speaking."

Cheers!
Bassos
2011-02-19 05:29:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Scott Martin
Post by Robert Scott Martin
...the painter I live with tells me that the biggest thing in the image is
always what mattered to the painter. Every single time. You can tell that
Michelangelo was having fun with the five nudes and dreaming putto. Okay.
But on the painter scale of square inches, if one is not talking about
that heteronormative triad in the middle, it's just doodling about the
margins.
We see this same principle at work in the evolution of Dali's method
from the early "paranoiac critical" style to the later "nuclear
mysticism." Compared to the robust religious sentiment these late
canvasses convey, the multiplication of personal symbols in the early
paintings -- the beans, crutches, loaves and mantises -- may hold our
interest for awhile but not on an enduring basis.
Cake. Please let me know if I need to dumb this down further. I don't like
to appear too patronizing.
Nice!
As in:
I am going to patronize you, but please do not feel bad (which is more
patronizing)

Then again, speaking down to Joseph is kinda honest :)

Tom
2011-01-17 19:33:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
The don't look to be struggling at all IMO.
Well, for that matter, they don't look like their engaged in any
homosexual acts either IMO. They're just nude male figures.
You are familiar enough with "homosexual acts" to say?
Of course.  It's pretty plain that just being naked and unconcerned is
not a homosexual act.  Of course, some people have such extreme cases
of homophobia that the mere sight of a naked male body sends them into
panic and thus they may be quite confused about what a "homosexual
act" really is.
Post by M. JL Esq.
They seem, at the very least, as indicated by body language to be
comfortable in each others presence and again, the actions depicted seem
playful to me, whether "homosexual" or not.
Never been in a male locker room at a gym, Joe?  If you had you'd
already know this, but normal heterosexual males are not generally in
the least uncomfortable around other naked men.  Are you?  Is that why
you assume everyone else must be?
So your arguing a group of naked men behind the "holy Family" means
nothing, is purely decorative?
There you go again, asserting your false dilemma that it must be
either a secret message of gay rights or it means nothing at all.
I've already cited a scholarly opinion reg
Post by M. JL Esq.
Or is this just another example of your choosing to push your own bias
on every thing you respond to?
Tom
2011-01-17 19:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
The don't look to be struggling at all IMO.
Well, for that matter, they don't look like their engaged in any
homosexual acts either IMO. They're just nude male figures.
You are familiar enough with "homosexual acts" to say?
Of course.  It's pretty plain that just being naked and unconcerned is
not a homosexual act.  Of course, some people have such extreme cases
of homophobia that the mere sight of a naked male body sends them into
panic and thus they may be quite confused about what a "homosexual
act" really is.
Post by M. JL Esq.
They seem, at the very least, as indicated by body language to be
comfortable in each others presence and again, the actions depicted seem
playful to me, whether "homosexual" or not.
Never been in a male locker room at a gym, Joe?  If you had you'd
already know this, but normal heterosexual males are not generally in
the least uncomfortable around other naked men.  Are you?  Is that why
you assume everyone else must be?
So your arguing a group of naked men behind the "holy Family" means
nothing, is purely decorative?
There you go again, asserting your false dilemma that it must be
either a secret message of gay rights or it means nothing at all.
I've already cited a scholarly opinion reg-
arding one possible alternative meaning, based on its similarity to
earlier works of art with which Michelangelo was familiar.

The mere fact that they are nude males who are not looking embarrassed
does not mean they are either gay or meaningless.
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
Or is this just another example of your choosing to push your own bias
on every thing you respond to?
So you think my opinion is "biased" but yours is not? Silly boy.
dr x
2011-01-17 20:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
The don't look to be struggling at all IMO.
Well, for that matter, they don't look like their engaged in any
homosexual acts either IMO. They're just nude male figures.
You are familiar enough with "homosexual acts" to say?
Of course.  It's pretty plain that just being naked and unconcerned
is not a homosexual act.  Of course, some people have such extreme
cases of homophobia that the mere sight of a naked male body sends
them into panic and thus they may be quite confused about what a
"homosexual act" really is.
Post by M. JL Esq.
They seem, at the very least, as indicated by body language to be
comfortable in each others presence and again, the actions depicted seem
playful to me, whether "homosexual" or not.
Never been in a male locker room at a gym, Joe?  If you had you'd
already know this, but normal heterosexual males are not generally
in the least uncomfortable around other naked men.  Are you?  Is
that why you assume everyone else must be?
So your arguing a group of naked men behind the "holy Family" means
nothing, is purely decorative?
There you go again, asserting your false dilemma that it must be either
a secret message of gay rights or it means nothing at all. I've already
cited a scholarly opinion reg-
arding one possible alternative meaning, based on its similarity to
earlier works of art with which Michelangelo was familiar.
The mere fact that they are nude males who are not looking embarrassed
does not mean they are either gay or meaningless.
Post by M. JL Esq.
Or is this just another example of your choosing to push your own
bias on every thing you respond to?
So you think my opinion is "biased" but yours is not? Silly boy.
there's more biases here than i can poke a stick at.
Corey Connor
2011-01-17 20:52:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Tom
Post by M. JL Esq.
The don't look to be struggling at all IMO.
Well, for that matter, they don't look like their engaged in any
homosexual acts either IMO. They're just nude male figures.
You are familiar enough with "homosexual acts" to say?
Of course.  It's pretty plain that just being naked and unconcerned
is not a homosexual act.  Of course, some people have such extreme
cases of homophobia that the mere sight of a naked male body sends
them into panic and thus they may be quite confused about what a
"homosexual act" really is.
Post by M. JL Esq.
They seem, at the very least, as indicated by body language to be
comfortable in each others presence and again, the actions depicted seem
playful to me, whether "homosexual" or not.
Never been in a male locker room at a gym, Joe?  If you had you'd
already know this, but normal heterosexual males are not generally
in the least uncomfortable around other naked men.  Are you?  Is
that why you assume everyone else must be?
So your arguing a group of naked men behind the "holy Family" means
nothing, is purely decorative?
There you go again, asserting your false dilemma that it must be either
a secret message of gay rights or it means nothing at all. I've already
cited a scholarly opinion reg-
arding one possible alternative meaning, based on its similarity to
earlier works of art with which Michelangelo was familiar.
The mere fact that they are nude males who are not looking embarrassed
does not mean they are either gay or meaningless.
Post by M. JL Esq.
Or is this just another example of your choosing to push your own
bias on every thing you respond to?
So you think my opinion is "biased" but yours is not?  Silly boy.
there's more biases here than i can poke a stick at.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Okay, that's cool. I'm straight. No big deal. Biases, gay asses,
straight asses. Every body's ass gets fucked one way or another,
don't you think?
dr x
2011-01-17 21:38:51 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:52:37 -0800, Corey Connor wrote:

Okay, that's cool. I'm straight. No big deal. Biases, gay asses,
straight asses. Every body's ass gets fucked one way or another,
don't you think?

=================

i had a girlfriend full of surprises, she shocked the hell out of me
once. i'm no longer curious, and i classify the experience as a rape.
Corey Connor
2011-01-17 21:49:46 UTC
Permalink
Okay, that's cool.  I'm straight.  No big deal.  Biases, gay asses,
straight asses.  Every body's ass gets fucked one way or another,
don't you think?
=================
i had a girlfriend full of surprises, she shocked the hell out of me
once. i'm no longer curious, and i classify the experience as a rape.
My wife does the simple electical work around here.. She loves the
DIY network. Angel just said, "What do you want?", and she wasn't
talking to me, or anybody else here in my house, so what do you have
to say about that, dr xyz? You're not the slightest bit curious who
my Angel was talking to, why, or what she has to say or think? Good
for you!! Would you condiser the experience rape if either me or my
wife simply asked you what you want? She just wants to know what you
want, but I don't mean you specifically, of course.

Nevermind. You don't want anything I've got. I can tell that right
now, from here..
dr x
2011-01-17 22:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Okay, that's cool.  I'm straight.  No big deal.  Biases, gay asses,
straight asses.  Every body's ass gets fucked one way or another, don't
you think?
=================
i had a girlfriend full of surprises, she shocked the hell out of me
once. i'm no longer curious, and i classify the experience as a rape.
My wife does the simple electical work around here.. She loves the DIY
network. Angel just said, "What do you want?", and she wasn't talking
to me, or anybody else here in my house, so what do you have to say
about that, dr xyz? You're not the slightest bit curious who my Angel
was talking to, why, or what she has to say or think? Good for you!!
Would you condiser the experience rape if either me or my wife simply
asked you what you want? She just wants to know what you want, but I
don't mean you specifically, of course.
Nevermind. You don't want anything I've got. I can tell that right
now, from here..
i don't know what you've got. :)
Corey Connor
2011-01-17 22:24:39 UTC
Permalink
Okay, that's cool.  I'm straight.  No big deal.  Biases, gay asses,
straight asses.  Every body's ass gets fucked one way or another, don't
you think?
=================
i had a girlfriend full of surprises, she shocked the hell out of me
once. i'm no longer curious, and i classify the experience as a rape.
My wife does the simple electical work around here..  She loves the DIY
network.  Angel just said, "What do you want?", and she wasn't talking
to me, or anybody else here in my house, so what do you have to say
about that, dr xyz?  You're not the slightest bit curious who my Angel
was talking to, why, or what she has to say or think?  Good for you!!
Would you condiser the experience rape if either me or my wife simply
asked you what you want?  She just wants to know what you want, but I
don't mean you specifically, of course.
Nevermind.  You don't want anything I've got.  I can tell that right
now, from here..
i don't know what you've got. :)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Don't be silly. You've seen all I've got. My word. Keep it. I've
still got a few more.
Hieronymous Corey
2011-01-27 22:57:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by dr x
Okay, that's cool.  I'm straight.  No big deal.  Biases, gay asses,
straight asses.  Every body's ass gets fucked one way or another, don't
you think?
=================
i had a girlfriend full of surprises, she shocked the hell out of me
once. i'm no longer curious, and i classify the experience as a rape.
My wife does the simple electical work around here..  She loves the DIY
network.  Angel just said, "What do you want?", and she wasn't talking
to me, or anybody else here in my house, so what do you have to say
about that, dr xyz?  You're not the slightest bit curious who my Angel
was talking to, why, or what she has to say or think?  Good for you!!
Would you condiser the experience rape if either me or my wife simply
asked you what you want?  She just wants to know what you want, but I
don't mean you specifically, of course.
Nevermind.  You don't want anything I've got.  I can tell that right
now, from here..
i don't know what you've got. :)
me neither. must be something though, right?
M. JL Esq.
2011-01-17 20:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
There you go again, asserting your false dilemma that it must be
either a secret message of gay rights or it means nothing at all.
I've already cited a scholarly opinion reg
Cite your source, the 2 younger boys in the sculpture you refer to don't
seem to me to bear any resemblance to the adult males in the
Michelangelo work other than being males, and certainly not the
"striking similarity" which you claim.

"Similarly, the poses of the background figures have a striking
similarity to a Roman statue called "Laocoon and His Sons", in which
male nudes are writhing in the grip of two huge serpents. In
Michelangelo's work, no serpents are apparent, but the figures appear
to struggle as if they were."


Loading Image...

Loading Image...

I don't know whose "scholarly opinion" you claim to cite but it seems to
me very far off the mark to see any similarity in the poses of the men
in both works of art, nor do the Michelangelo figures appear to be
'struggling'.
--

JL
Tom
2011-01-20 23:47:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by M. JL Esq.
Post by Tom
There you go again, asserting your false dilemma that it must be
either a secret message of gay rights or it means nothing at all.
I've already cited a scholarly opinion reg
Cite your source
d’Ancona, Mirella Levi (1968). "The Doni Madonna by Michelangelo: An
Iconographic Study". The Art Bulletin 50, No. 1: 43–50.
Absorbed
2011-01-16 10:03:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Aristotle begins with a husband and wife, and then proceeds to a
household, and so on. His point is that the same basic underlying
rules apply because no matter how your government is arranged, it is
made up of households centering on the procreative couple. What holds
a household together is also what holds the state together. The
differences arise from the complexity of the permutations of these
basic household relationships. Compare this with Confucius, who says
the government is simply a larger expression of the family.
I don't disagree with your point here, as there seem to be many
similarities between families and states, but it is interesting to note
the differences between them.

I recently read a Wikileaks cable where some diplomat, paraphrasing
Hayek, said that friendship will always trump law. I'm no expert in
these matters, but it rings true for me, and makes me think that laws
are more a necessity due to the large number of people in a state. Maybe
some sort of law is necessary in large families. I'm inclined to think
that social ties are what really hold a state together, not laws.
Tom
2011-01-16 15:53:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
Post by Tom
Aristotle begins with a husband and wife, and then proceeds to a
household, and so on.  His point is that the same basic underlying
rules apply because no matter how your government is arranged, it is
made up of households centering on the procreative couple.  What holds
a household together is also what holds the state together.  The
differences arise from the complexity of the permutations of these
basic household relationships.  Compare this with Confucius, who says
the government is simply a larger expression of the family.
I don't disagree with your point here, as there seem to be many
similarities between families and states, but it is interesting to note
the differences between them.
I recently read a Wikileaks cable where some diplomat, paraphrasing
Hayek, said that friendship will always trump law. I'm no expert in
these matters, but it rings true for me, and makes me think that laws
are more a necessity due to the large number of people in a state. Maybe
some sort of law is necessary in large families. I'm inclined to think
that social ties are what really hold a state together, not laws.
In a way, you're right. Laws, judges, and police arise once the
social group becomes too large for Dad to simply swat a misbehaving
kid personally, but the principle is the same.
HG
2011-01-14 23:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
Post by Bassos
Post by Tom
which basically meant that he or she was not a closet heretic.
Politics then.
Again.
When more than two people get together, politics naturally arise.
Can we just all get along ?
That sentence you just wrote is an exellent example of politics.


HG
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...