[FRIAM] Updike Vs the Bard
Define yourself. You'll be right! Me, I prefer Hamlet's definition: What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculty! In form, in moving, how express and admirable! In action how like an angel! In apprehension how like a God! Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for. 1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA tel:(505)983-7728 FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Updike Vs the Bard
I Always wondered how Hamlet knew what an angel looked like. Let alone, God. Seems like a version of Wittgenstein’s bug-in-a-box problem. N From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of plissa...@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 12:13 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: [FRIAM] Updike Vs the Bard Define yourself. You'll be right! Me, I prefer Hamlet's definition: What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculty! In form, in moving, how express and admirable! In action how like an angel! In apprehension how like a God! Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for. 1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA tel:(505)983-7728 FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Updike Vs the Bard
On 1 Dec 2010 at 13:12, Nicholas Thompson wrote: I Always wondered how Hamlet knew what an angel looked like. Let alone, God. ... Nick, you are being an uncareful reader. Here's the text from Hamlet, again: What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculty! In form, in moving, how express and admirable! In action how like an angel! In apprehension how like a God! No claims there about how an angel or a God looks: just about how the first acts and the Latter apprehends. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Updike Vs the Bard
I thought Hamlet was being ironic... Or am I being the Mayor of Missingthepointsville? ~~James www.turtlezero.com On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:13 PM, plissa...@comcast.net wrote: Define yourself. You'll be right! Me, I prefer Hamlet's definition: What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculty! In form, in moving, how express and admirable! In action how like an angel! In apprehension how like a God! Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Updike Vs the Bard
OK, James, you spooked me. So, I looked it up. The context is very complex. http://www.shakespeare-literature.com/Hamlet/7.html It is one of the Mad Scenes, at the end of which Hamlet describes his ... uh ... depressive state of mind. But the characterization of man seems sincere, because he immediately tells us that he is unable to take joy in these human qualities. Here is the whole speech. HAMLET I will tell you why; so shall my anticipation prevent your discovery, and your secrecy to the king and queen moult no feather. I have of late--but wherefore I know not--lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory, this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire, why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? man delights not me: no, nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so I suspect that the expression piece of work did not come into ironic use until much later. Whew! Nick -Original Message- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of James Steiner Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 5:27 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Updike Vs the Bard I thought Hamlet was being ironic... Or am I being the Mayor of Missingthepointsville? ~~James www.turtlezero.com On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:13 PM, plissa...@comcast.net wrote: Define yourself. You'll be right! Me, I prefer Hamlet's definition: What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculty! In form, in moving, how express and admirable! In action how like an angel! In apprehension how like a God! Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Updike Vs the Bard
There are angelic images in the Babylonian periods (Winged Bearded warriors) . The Egyptians had the bodiless angel with the typical Byzantine form. I've seen Nike in Paris and she is clearly an angelic form. Manuscripts were in circulation quite a bit earlier in Northern Europe and the iconography of Byzantium well known to educated people. Dante describes being struck on the forehead several times by Angels as he travels upward in purgatory and they may be the first description of motion. Clearly Dante was widely distributed before the Renaissance so Shakespeare was building on existing concepts and added a new dynamic quality not seen much earlier. Anything Italian was hot all over Europe. Angels in victorious poses over Lucifer go right back into the early days of Christianity. The Icons of the Russians are faithfully copied from Constantinople. Artists did not dare play with the established forms until the Italians started with perspective and dynamics. I can not recall Chinese angels but seem to recall so pretty extravagant Buddhist figures. The western European image of Angels is much more sophisticated than the eastern European images locked into Orthodoxy. The bearded God is a reference to the seated statue of Zeus but he may go back much further into Sumerian or Assyrian imagery. Interesting though following the evolution of fantastical images as new technology changes the world view. Angels probably got to Britain very early with Romans and remained static until the Renaissance. Christian imagery did not get established in north eastern Europe until nearly 1,000 AD so we Slavs were slow on the uptake. Even the Vikings jumped on the band wagon sooner than in the east. I can't recall Herodotus mentioning the angels but all sorts of other monsters. Cupid had wings and a Bow so maybe the little guy got mixed up with other images later on. Early Cupid is less than a savory character. But the wings were always feathered bird like never insect like. Such spirits are as far as I know African. The leathery Bat wing was reserved for Satan and Vampyres. Ray Harryhausen used bat wings for Harpies but I don't recall if that was traditional.and I suspect it is newer than the Bird wing image. It is the art of the fantastic and still follows human progress. It is the 21st century and we still have Monsters in the closets. I just recalled another variant, Baba Yaga the greatest of all witches with the house on chicken feet. Stalking the eastern Forests for wandering children. Years ago I had an artist in my shop who was studying Iconography. No I NEVER HAD Angels and Demons 101 as an Arts credit. Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology) 120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd. Winnipeg, Manitoba CANADA R2J 3R2 (204) 2548321 Phone/Fax vbur...@shaw.ca -Original Message- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson Sent: December 1, 2010 6:48 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Updike Vs the Bard OK, James, you spooked me. So, I looked it up. The context is very complex. http://www.shakespeare-literature.com/Hamlet/7.html It is one of the Mad Scenes, at the end of which Hamlet describes his ... uh ... depressive state of mind. But the characterization of man seems sincere, because he immediately tells us that he is unable to take joy in these human qualities. Here is the whole speech. HAMLET I will tell you why; so shall my anticipation prevent your discovery, and your secrecy to the king and queen moult no feather. I have of late--but wherefore I know not--lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory, this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire, why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? man delights not me: no, nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so I suspect that the expression piece of work did not come into ironic use until much later. Whew! Nick -Original Message- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of James Steiner Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 5:27 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Updike Vs the Bard I thought Hamlet was being ironic... Or am I being the Mayor of Missingthepointsville? ~~James www.turtlezero.com
Re: [FRIAM] Updike Vs the Bard
Yes, Vladimyr, and beautiful images they are. But what did the painter use as a model? God may have made Man in the image of himself, but made god in his own image. It is the ultimate anthropomorphism. I was originally making a joke, but I seem to have started a theological bicker, here. Oh dear. Beyond my pay grade. Nick -Original Message- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 10:09 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Updike Vs the Bard There are angelic images in the Babylonian periods (Winged Bearded warriors) . The Egyptians had the bodiless angel with the typical Byzantine form. I've seen Nike in Paris and she is clearly an angelic form. Manuscripts were in circulation quite a bit earlier in Northern Europe and the iconography of Byzantium well known to educated people. Dante describes being struck on the forehead several times by Angels as he travels upward in purgatory and they may be the first description of motion. Clearly Dante was widely distributed before the Renaissance so Shakespeare was building on existing concepts and added a new dynamic quality not seen much earlier. Anything Italian was hot all over Europe. Angels in victorious poses over Lucifer go right back into the early days of Christianity. The Icons of the Russians are faithfully copied from Constantinople. Artists did not dare play with the established forms until the Italians started with perspective and dynamics. I can not recall Chinese angels but seem to recall so pretty extravagant Buddhist figures. The western European image of Angels is much more sophisticated than the eastern European images locked into Orthodoxy. The bearded God is a reference to the seated statue of Zeus but he may go back much further into Sumerian or Assyrian imagery. Interesting though following the evolution of fantastical images as new technology changes the world view. Angels probably got to Britain very early with Romans and remained static until the Renaissance. Christian imagery did not get established in north eastern Europe until nearly 1,000 AD so we Slavs were slow on the uptake. Even the Vikings jumped on the band wagon sooner than in the east. I can't recall Herodotus mentioning the angels but all sorts of other monsters. Cupid had wings and a Bow so maybe the little guy got mixed up with other images later on. Early Cupid is less than a savory character. But the wings were always feathered bird like never insect like. Such spirits are as far as I know African. The leathery Bat wing was reserved for Satan and Vampyres. Ray Harryhausen used bat wings for Harpies but I don't recall if that was traditional.and I suspect it is newer than the Bird wing image. It is the art of the fantastic and still follows human progress. It is the 21st century and we still have Monsters in the closets. I just recalled another variant, Baba Yaga the greatest of all witches with the house on chicken feet. Stalking the eastern Forests for wandering children. Years ago I had an artist in my shop who was studying Iconography. No I NEVER HAD Angels and Demons 101 as an Arts credit. Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology) 120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd. Winnipeg, Manitoba CANADA R2J 3R2 (204) 2548321 Phone/Fax vbur...@shaw.ca -Original Message- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson Sent: December 1, 2010 6:48 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Updike Vs the Bard OK, James, you spooked me. So, I looked it up. The context is very complex. http://www.shakespeare-literature.com/Hamlet/7.html It is one of the Mad Scenes, at the end of which Hamlet describes his ... uh ... depressive state of mind. But the characterization of man seems sincere, because he immediately tells us that he is unable to take joy in these human qualities. Here is the whole speech. HAMLET I will tell you why; so shall my anticipation prevent your discovery, and your secrecy to the king and queen moult no feather. I have of late--but wherefore I know not--lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory, this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire, why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me
