Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
No Sire,... iconology.
I notice you have ignored the large body of my text to correct this statement.
Allow me to rephrase the relevant questions:
Where can I find examples of your Iconological analysis of other materials in a peer reviewed journal?
Where did you study Iconology?
Why do those who study art history go to great pains to differentiate themselves as Iconographers?
What qualifications in Iconology do you hold, and with which professional bodies do you register?
Where can I obtain details of you valid methodology other than 'I watched films and thought something looked like something else'?
When exactly will you discuss how other text in this film (or indeed any other film) are eliminated as irrelevant?
Is Iconology a name you gave your study because it was in a Dan Brown Book? Or can you show me that you are actually perfroming a study based on the methodology of an academic branch?
I am now assuming the later, due in no small point due to your refusal to address these issues.
So I see. Well done.I came here, after I had googled "conspiracy theorys" and your forum came out.
Perhaps. But it is your theory. I am asking more about it to find out if it is valid. So far I see no reason to believe.All I want to know is, if you hear about the twin towers in FMJ final scene. I see, you have not.
Then for what purpose did you wish to know if I had heard of this?I do not want to convince you.
For what purpose have you continued to discuss it?
Why frame the discussion as a theory?
Why tell us we "need" new theories?
What IS your belief?
No. My response was to point out flaws in the theory and ask how it can be varified, and to explain why it resembles other flawed speculations on simaler subjects.But I see your reaction : You say, I am wrong.
This is the best way for you, to explain, why you have not seen it befor.
That is not what I was explaining.
Please do not misrepresent my side of this discussion. I am being very patient and am ignoring all the indicators that you may in fact be trolling, to have a reasonable discussion.
Perhaps you should establish there is something, rather than discussing why I did not see something that there is no reason to think is there.
So are seeing patterns and objects in the random. Shapes in the clouds. World trade centres in the set dressing. Faces on mars.Okay, that is mankind's nature.
All the same.
It would be much easier if you actually discussed the points I raised and established if:While this hard discussion with you,
1) Iconology is a valid field, and your claim to authority as an iconologist or practicer of the field is valid.
2) If your speculation is using a valid methodology.
And based your theory on the * being a W, which it is not.I found "MY...TO*N" and "N..Y"
How does MY TOAN alter your theory?

