Ed Goble, The Book of Abraham, and Aesthetic Theory

[mfbukowski]

Ed Goble has not received a great reception on this board historically because I think no one understands his position.

I do not want to get into the details of his recent article and the recently closed thread but I would like to point out that if we take into consideration some views of aesthetic theory, he may have an excellent way of seeing the Book of Abraham.  

For those who would question my qualifications for bringing this up, just know that I have studied art history as much as I have studied philosophy, and the connections between the two disciplines, but we really don't get into art history much here obviously.  I have done graduate work in Art History as well as philosophy, but no degrees because of my pragmatic streak which could see no reason to finish either because I did not want to teach either subject, but I have been in the gallery business as well.

My Avatar represents that though few if any get it.  Picasso created himself and the act of creating cubism represents humans creating themselves out of matter unorganized.  So I see all that in my avatar- as me creating myself symbolically, as Picasso saw himself symbolically also.  In choosing the avatar, I make myself Picasso recreating himself in his own image. (the painting is a Picasso self portrait)

  So to see that avatar that way requires the kind of thought that Ed would like us to use in seeing the Book of Abraham.

Contemporary art especially encourages us to take the object at face value and see it as we interpret it, with all our prejudices firmly attached, to see it phenomenologically- loaded with meaning we bring to the table.  Why would a painting showing minimal skill be in a fancy art museum?  Why indeed- that is the whole point!!  What does that fact tell you about art, or why someone sees that as important?

Why would Warhol paint a campbell's soup can?  And what about that is "artisitic"?  THAT is the point- to take the object at its face value in its present context- and see what that context says about modern socieity, about aesthetics itself?

THAT is what "modern art" is about.  

Now Ed Goble makes the point that the Book of Abrham "translation" should be taken that way- that Joseph interpreted the symbols as he did, and as how we might interpret the Andy Warhol soup can.

These are my words, and my interpretation of Ed's article, perhaps I have it right or wrong, but that is what the thread is for.

He documents numerous examples in a scholarly way how that sort of phenomenological way of seeing text is common in the ancient world.

So the "translation" is not a translation at all, but, as I would put it, an artistic INTERPRETATION of the symbols as Joseph saw them as an AESTHETIC OBJECT.

I have been saying that for years in my own way and IF that is what Ed is saying, I think it is a brilliant point, well made in his article.   My only suggestion is that he throw in more aesthetic theory and make the point that the translation itself IS an interpretation of an aesthetic object- the impressions of Joseph about the papyri taken as art.

It never was a "translation" though that word fits, according to meanings of the word from Joseph's time.

Anyway, it bears looking at from this perspective.   Here is a link to the article

https://www.academia.edu/36428246/The_Principles_of_Book_of_Abraham_and_Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers_Symbolism

Remember to criticize this from an Egyptological perspective is irrelevant.  Ed's argument is about aesthetics, and not about language or translation.  It is about how we interpret art and without that understanding critics are barking up the wrong tree.

Unfortunately the other thread got closed because of squabbling.  Let's try to avoid that and keep this thread in an aesthetic and phenomenological context.

If you don't know what that means, perhaps you need not comment.

Edited April 25, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Regarding "Modern Art"- it is a way of SEEING that requires thought and practice.

http://theconversation.com/three-simple-steps-to-understand-art-look-see-think-33020

 

Quote

 

What’s the key to understanding art? Could there be some easy steps to unpacking the meaning of an artwork?

The short answer is: yes.

I recently wrote an article for The Conversation called Three questions not to ask of art – and four to ask instead, which tackled some age-old questions that get asked of art: Why is that art? What is it meant to be? Couldn’t a four-year-old do that?

I suggested four better questions to ask, taken from Australian art academic Terry Smith.

Here’s a simple three-step method I use, adapted from an old technique by the art historian Erwin Panofsky:

1) Look
2) See
3) Think

The first two – look and see – are just about using your eyes, and observational skills. The third requires a bit of thought, drawing on what we already know and creatively interpreting what we’ve observed within an artwork’s broader contexts.

When we see anything, whether it’s a work of art, a movie or a billboard, our brains perform a massively complex split-second process of reading and making meaning. We absorb a whole range of clues that make up our understanding of any image, many of which we’re not even conscious of.

Any process of understanding art, then, is about slowing down that process, breaking down the image deliberately and holding off from jumping to any snap conclusions until later.....

...

Step 2: See

What’s the difference between looking and seeing in the context of art? Looking is about literally describing what is in front of you, while seeing is about applying meaning to it. When we see we understand what is seen as symbols, and we interpret what’s there in front of us.

Erwin Panofsky calls the symbols in an artwork “iconography”, and any image can be easily broken down into the iconography that makes it up.

Consider the iconography in Pablo Picasso’s epic painting, Guernica (1937). In the centre, there’s that screaming horse, with a dismembered arm just below it. On the left, a woman is wailing and holding a dead infant, and dominating the image is the light shade that looks like an explosion. Those individual elements combine to produce the overall meaning of the painting, which in this case is regarded as one of the most powerful anti-war art works created.....

Step 3: Think

The final step involves thinking about what you’ve observed, drawing together what you’ve gleaned from the first two steps and thinking about possible meanings. Importantly, this is a process of interpretation. It’s not a science. It’s not about finding the “right answers”, but about thinking creatively about the most plausible understandings of a work.

The key here is context. The broader context of an artwork will help make sense of what you’ve already observed. Much of the information about context is usually given in those dull little labels that tell you the artist’s name, the title of the work and the year. And there are often other valuable morsels of information included too, such as the place and year an artist was born.

 

I am proposing that this is the way we need to see the Book of Abraham  "translation"- that Joseph was using a similar way of seeing- and I think this is essentially Ed Goble's point though he does not put it this way

Edited April 25, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Regarding "Modern Art"- it is a way of SEEING that requires thought and practice.

http://theconversation.com/three-simple-steps-to-understand-art-look-see-think-33020

Quote

..................Consider the iconography in Pablo Picasso’s epic painting, Guernica (1937). In the centre, there’s that screaming horse, with a dismembered arm just below it. On the left, a woman is wailing and holding a dead infant, and dominating the image is the light shade that looks like an explosion. Those individual elements combine to produce the overall meaning of the painting, which in this case is regarded as one of the most powerful anti-war art works created.....

I am proposing that this is the way we need to see the Book of Abraham  "translation"- that Joseph was using a similar way of seeing- and I think this is essentially Ed Goble's point though he does not put it this way

Picasso's "Guernica" is an excellent example and test case.  It doesn't need to be tethered to stark, photographic reality in order to be an effective anti-war artwork.  It only needs verisimilitude.  It needs only to engender the appropriate emotion in the viewer.  It conjures up fictional Col Kurtz (Brando in "Apocalypse Now") speaking of the "horror" of the war crimes he has been committing on behalf of his country.

Picasso, who was born in Spain, is attempting to sum up the Spanish Civil War in one horrific image.  I want to know the details.  The historic context.  It matters to me that the event was not fictional, just as it matters to me that Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five is a result of his first-hand experience in Dresden, as it was being firebombed by his compatriots.  That it is satire is beside the point.

Just so, I want to know what the actual points of contact are between Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham and standard Egyptology.  I'll let someone else discuss whether it is impressionistic, representational, or socialist realism.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Picasso's "Guernica" is an excellent example and test case.  It doesn't need to be tethered to stark, photographic reality in order to be an effective anti-war artwork.  It only needs verisimilitude.  It needs only to engender the appropriate emotion in the viewer.  It conjures up fictional Col Kurtz (Brando in "Apocalypse Now") speaking of the "horror" of the war crimes he has been committing on behalf of his country.

Picasso, who was born in Spain, is attempting to sum up the Spanish Civil War in one horrific image.  I want to know the details.  The historic context.  It matters to me that the event was not fictional, just as it matters to me that Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five is a result of his first-hand experience in Dresden, as it was being firebombed by his compatriots.  That it is satire is beside the point.

Just so, I want to know what the actual points of contact are between Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham and standard Egyptology.  I'll let someone else discuss whether it is impressionistic, representational, or socialist realism.

And so you have! Clearly there are connections and strong ones at that.

The point I am trying to make however is that there need not be such connections for scripture to be scripture at least in my opinion.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And so you have! Clearly there are connections and strong ones at that.

The point I am trying to make however is that there need not be such connections for scripture to be scripture at least in my opinion.

Of course you are correct, Mark.  Otherwise all of us would have to become lifelong students of a wide range of specialties, leaving little time for just living life and being real people.  There is no escaping the demand to interpret and validate Scripture by the same means it came into existence -- via the Holy Spirit.

[EdGoble]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Ed Goble has not received a great reception on this board historically because I think no one understands his position.

I do not want to get into the details of his recent article and the recently closed thread but I would like to point out that if we take into consideration some views of aesthetic theory, he may have an excellent way of seeing the Book of Abraham.  

. . .

So the "translation" is not a translation at all, but, as I would put it, an artistic INTERPRETATION of the symbols as Joseph saw them as an AESTHETIC OBJECT.

Mark,

There are multiple angles or dimensions to view this thing from.  One you have identified, in that these are aesthetic objects, in that I call them "decorators."  Because the Sensen characters (the Book of Breathing characters), as they are used in both the Book of Abraham Manuscripts are not information holders when they are used in the Book of Abraham manuscripts, or in the GAEL.  Similarly, the characters used in the Facsimiles that are pictures are mere decorators, because they are not "information holders" either.  They don't hold any information about the things that they are meant to represent.  This is the problem at the core of Joseph Smith's Egyptian.  The critics are right that the symbols do not translate to what they are meant to represent.  Because they do not hold information about what they are used to represent.

The problem here though is that I am trying to show that ancient people were the ones that put these characters side by side by the actual content in the Book of Abraham in an ancient manuscript.  Joseph Smith didn't do it.  He merely reproduced this where they were put side by side by actual Abrahamic content.  And ancient people were the ones that put the content together with the pictures in the Facsimiles.  Why?  Because they were aesthetic objects to them on the one hand.  But on the other hand, the symbol paired with the content in each case formed puns of various types.  And each pun created a linkage between the two items in the pair.  And this linkage was enough in the minds of the ancients to make the item paring into something where each paired item was associated with the other item it was paired with, such that a symbol could stand for the thing it is paired with.  It is not creating an equivalence between the two, but an association or assignment between the two.  This is similar to a variable in mathematics, where a variable is assigned to a value.  Or it is similar to a legend in a map in cartography, where a legend gives an assignment of value or meaning to a symbol.  So, this is about the pairing of items together giving assignments through pun types.  Not about equivalence of one item to another.  And not about where one item would "translate" into the thing it is paired with.  If an item is removed from the pair, it reverts to its default meaning.  Because it is dependent on the pairing for its association with the other item it is paired with.  This is what I call a dependency.

And I have carefully documented the other Egyptological cases where this happens OUTSIDE of Joseph Smith's productions.  This is not something that Joseph Smith made up.  I have documented MANY cases where Egyptians are assigning values/meanings to hieroglyphics merely by virtue of pun pairings.

Edited April 26, 2018 by EdGoble

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, EdGoble said:

Mark,

There are multiple angles or dimensions to view this thing from.  One you have identified, in that these are aesthetic objects, in that I call them "decorators."  Because the Sensen characters (the Book of Breathing characters), as they are used in both the Book of Abraham Manuscripts are not information holders when they are used in the Book of Abraham manuscripts, or in the GAEL.  Similarly, the characters used in the Facsimiles that are pictures are mere decorators, because they are not "information holders" either.  They don't hold any information about the things that they are meant to represent.  This is the problem at the core of Joseph Smith's Egyptian.  The critics are right that the symbols do not translate to what they are meant to represent.  Because they do not hold information about what they are used to represent.

The problem here though is that I am trying to show that ancient people were the ones that put these characters side by side by the actual content in the Book of Abraham in an ancient manuscript.  Joseph Smith didn't do it.  He merely reproduced this where they were put side by side by actual Abrahamic content.  And ancient people were the ones that put the content together with the pictures in the Facsimiles.  Why?  Because they were aesthetic objects to them on the one hand.  But on the other hand, the symbol paired with the content in each case formed puns of various types.  And each pun created a linkage between the two items in the pair.  And this linkage was enough in the minds of the ancients to make the item paring into something where each paired item was associated with the other item it was paired with, such that a symbol could stand for the thing it is paired with.  It is not creating an equivalence between the two, but an association or assignment between the two.  This is similar to a variable in mathematics, where a variable is assigned to a value.  Or it is similar to a legend in a map in cartography, where a legend gives an assignment of value or meaning to a symbol.  So, this is about the pairing of items together giving assignments through pun types.  Not about equivalence of one item to another.  And not about where one item would "translate" into the thing it is paired with.  If an item is removed from the pair, it reverts to its default meaning.  Because it is dependent on the pairing for its association with the other item it is paired with.  This is what I call a dependency.

And I have carefully documented the other Egyptological cases where this happens OUTSIDE of Joseph Smith's productions.  This is not something that Joseph Smith made up.  I have documented MANY cases where Egyptians are assigning values/meanings to hieroglyphics merely by virtue of pun pairings.

Yes, I think I get your point.

I think I might have an example that I will post later no time to dig it out now

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, EdGoble said:

...............................................

The problem here though is that I am trying to show that ancient people were the ones that put these characters side by side by the actual content in the Book of Abraham in an ancient manuscript.  Joseph Smith didn't do it.  He merely reproduced this where they were put side by side by actual Abrahamic content.  And ancient people were the ones that put the content together with the pictures in the Facsimiles.  Why?  Because they were aesthetic objects to them on the one hand.  But on the other hand, the symbol paired with the content in each case formed puns of various types.  And each pun created a linkage between the two items in the pair.  And this linkage was enough in the minds of the ancients to make the item paring into something where each paired item was associated with the other item it was paired with, such that a symbol could stand for the thing it is paired with.  It is not creating an equivalence between the two, but an association or assignment between the two.  This is similar to a variable in mathematics, where a variable is assigned to a value.  Or it is similar to a legend in a map in cartography, where a legend gives an assignment of value or meaning to a symbol.  So, this is about the pairing of items together giving assignments through pun types.  Not about equivalence of one item to another.  And not about where one item would "translate" into the thing it is paired with.  If an item is removed from the pair, it reverts to its default meaning.  Because it is dependent on the pairing for its association with the other item it is paired with.  This is what I call a dependency.

And I have carefully documented the other Egyptological cases where this happens OUTSIDE of Joseph Smith's productions.  This is not something that Joseph Smith made up.  I have documented MANY cases where Egyptians are assigning values/meanings to hieroglyphics merely by virtue of pun pairings.

This suggests the cipher program being pursued by William W. Phelps before the arrival of the mummies and papyri in Nauvoo -- Phelps discusses that program in his May 27, 1835 letter to his wife.   Will Schryver pointed that out in his “The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers,” paper delivered at the 2010 Conference of FAIR.  In other words, the available documents were all part of an attempt to create a “cipher-key” for encipherment-by-parallel-substitution of portions of Joseph Smith’s revelations then being prepared for publication as the 1835 D&C.  This may very well have been extended to the KEP.

See also Howard J. Wing, “Cryptograms from the Fractal Chiasmus of Messianic Speech in the Doctrine and Covenants,” School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, undated; copy in BYU Special Collections, MSS 3776, Box 6, Folder 107.

[EdGoble]

48 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This suggests the cipher program being pursued by William W. Phelps before the arrival of the mummies and papyri in Nauvoo -- Phelps discusses that program in his May 27, 1835 letter to his wife.   Will Schryver pointed that out in his “The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers,” paper delivered at the 2010 Conference of FAIR.  In other words, the available documents were all part of an attempt to create a “cipher-key” for encipherment-by-parallel-substitution of portions of Joseph Smith’s revelations then being prepared for publication as the 1835 D&C.  This may very well have been extended to the KEP.

See also Howard J. Wing, “Cryptograms from the Fractal Chiasmus of Messianic Speech in the Doctrine and Covenants,” School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, undated; copy in BYU Special Collections, MSS 3776, Box 6, Folder 107.

Will is wrong.  Not about the cipher, nor about parallel substitution.  But about who created it.  It definitely functions as a substitution cipher.

A cipher is indeed formed between the symbols and the text paired with them, but they are an ancient production.  They were not produced by Phelps.  Phelps helped translate an ancient cipher.  Here are my articles on this:

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/p/dictionaries-what-is-dictionary-is.html

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/p/the-kirtland-egyptian-papers-and.html

Edited April 26, 2018 by EdGoble

[cinepro]

If this is the state of the defense of the Book of Abraham, then heaven help us if you guys ever decide to attack it.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If this is the state of the defense of the Book of Abraham, then heaven help us if you guys ever decide to attack it.

I don't see any apologetic  value in Ed's approach, and don't know whether that is his purpose.  I prefer an approach which takes account of standard Egyptology.

However, the merits of Ed's POV aside, it is very difficult to understand what he is saying at all, and without a coherent presentation he may just as well not say it at all.

[EdGoble]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't see any apologetic  value in Ed's approach, and don't know whether that is his purpose.  I prefer an approach which takes account of standard Egyptology.

However, the merits of Ed's POV aside, it is very difficult to understand what he is saying at all, and without a coherent presentation he may just as well not say it at all.

I can say without reservation that you are simply an unkind person that has nothing nice to say at all.  You aren't even trying to understand, and you think you know everything.

You aren't paying attention to the fact that I have quoted Egyptologists throughout my presentation, and you are misrepresenting the facts about my presentation.  Please leave.  Thank you.

Many other individuals think that my presentation flows logically and coherently, and is well supported, in spite of editorial issues.  So they do not share your opinion.

Edited April 26, 2018 by EdGoble

[EdGoble]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

If this is the state of the defense of the Book of Abraham, then heaven help us if you guys ever decide to attack it.

 

They don't have to.  You are doing the attacking.  You can leave too.  So I ask you to.  You are among the unkind individuals that have always attacked me.  And for that, the golden rule and the law of restoration will award you.

You do not control who can post. Your approach has been belligerent and you will be put on limited if you make personal attacks and order posters out.