Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Real DaVinci Code?
Questions & issues to consider:
1) How credible do you find this theory to be? Why? What is the basis for your judgment?
2)What would it take for you to be able to say that you know that this is, or is not, the true DaVinci Code?
3) What do you believe about the claim, any claim, that there really is a DaVinci Code? Why? What is the basis for your claim? Are you willing to say that you know that there really is, or is not, a DaVinci Code of some kind? On what basis?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I have trouble finding this to be a credible code. It's more my belief that by looking for some secret, hidden code in the painting, the discoverer has made himself see something that is not there at all. Pala just wants to believe something is there so badly that he makes it appear by warping things around to make it make sense.
The music was not really even written out straightforwardly, making it hard for me to believe that anything is really there. When the notes stack closely together, sometimes they become chords sometimes they don't. It seems to me that he just chose the option that made it the best sound. Additionally, Pala had to further make the assertion that it was meant to be read right to left as with much of DaVinci's writing. However, didn't DaVinci write normally when it was meant for others. If the music truly is there, it would seem more like a praising requiem. If so, that would mean he wasn't the heretic people have begun to think he was. If he was actually religious, would he not have rather wanted that side of him to be more easily revealed in his art?
I can't say that I know that there is no DaVinci code. I'm not DaVinci, I didn't even live in his time, so I can't really say what he was necessarily thinking. I'm not modern day DaVinci expert either, nor have I read much by such experts, so my knowledge (if any at all exists) of DaVinci is severely limited.
But I don't believe that there is one. Mostly because I don't have the knowledge to know what would set DaVinci apart as one who necessarily has to have a code. Granted, this does mean I'm using my ignorance of the facts as a reason to justify my beliefs. Unfortunately, however, something like this doesn't interest me enough to gain the necessary knowledge to make an adequate judgment. I'd hope that in other subjects this isn't the case...
I find it credible that there is a musical score in the Last supper painting, only because this guy found it, but the he had to change certain things, and he omitted some of the pieces of bread. The only thing that i have trouble believing is whether or not Da Vinci created for real or if he did it by accident.
For me there isn't anything short of meeting Da Vinci and him telling me that there is a code, otherwise i can only sit in the middle of the argument. The reason why it can't be proven to me with just "evidence" is because people also have to prove to me that Da Vinci intended to create this code, otherwise i just a bunch of paranoid conspiracy people jumping at the wind. The reason that i can't say i know there is no code is because there is no proof that there isn't one somewhere, just that people are looking in the wrong direction. There isn't a single claim about there being a Da Vinci code unless people can somehow prove that Da Vinci wanted to do that, and its not just people looking for meaning when there truly is none, so i can make no claim. My biggest question is what does it matter if Da Vinci really did create a code, if people found one what would happen, would anything really change or would just be the same, except now we have proof of something else. I don't really care whether there is one or not, because it doesn't seem that life will change at all if there is one.
Although there may be a Da Vinci code, due to the lack of my personal knowledge of the claim I will never know if there truly is one. I have never seen it, felt it, to me it doesn’t exist, yet I am not throwing out the fact there is truly one. It is all a matter of fact with believing without any sort of justification. I believe there is a God, but I cannot see Him. It is just like the wind, we know there is wind, but can you see it? You only see the work of the wind i.e. the trees moving. It is said that in order to find out that something is true you must first find all the things that are not true. In order for me to believe this claim, there must be several other examples that are proven false. I know that the picture is there as a visual, and I believe there is a Da Vinci code due to several discoveries that are uncovered within Di Vinci’s work. I’m only willing to except knowledge in visuals, anything that I cannot feel or see I only believe. So to me the song is unreasonble without any sort of justification of the presumed knowledge.
To start of this post I do not believe this to be very credible. First of all I believe that people are just looking to find some type of code or secret message and when you look at something for along enough period you can warp it into what you want it to be. I believe that Robert hit it on the head when he said that their were omitted pieces of bread in the musical score. Also when he started off by saying that the bread was all in a line and the indicated a musical score. That is when I began to loose faith. The reason that all of the bread is in a line is beacuse of prespective. The easiest way for an author to create a natural perspective is by placing things in a line to create a natural sense of depth. I also don't see how this musical score is any type of a good or a secret message.
I don't believe that I will ever be able to truly know wheather their is a DaVinci good; beacuse he is dead. We will never be able to ask hime wheather or not he hide a secret message into his works, and even if he did he may not admit to doing it our not. So I don't believe that I will ever be able to truly know or not know that their is a DaVinci Code.
Plain and simply, I do not believe that there was an intended hidden musical score to Da Vinci's Last supper painting. Just to get it out of the way, I have no justification for my belief other than the fact that it derives off of my skeptical emotions. Anyway, I have always found that if you stare at something long enough, or examine something long enough, you'll find meaning in it. I think that we as humans like to make rational connections off of things that are often times irrational. I know this belief goes in hand with the notion of absurdism, but I honestly dont care.
For me to know that this was the real Da Vinci code, I would need three things: justified true belief. First of all, I do not believe that this is the real Da Vinci code. Second, to say that there is sufficient justification for such a belief is in my opinion non-apparant (just because some guy transposed the painting into a musical score proves nothing in my opinion). Finally, I cannot confirm that this is true/untrue, so I could never know that this is the real Da Vinci code with these conditions. It would take something just short of a miracle to convince me otherwise.
I don't think that the theory here is completely infallible. I think that without knowing the true intentions of the artist many people are just searching for things that may or may not be there. It all seems like it could have been a coicidence to me, like why the hands AND the bread, and not something else on the painting? But again, without any record of there ever being a code, and without any of us knowing the true intentions of DaVinci, I equally cannot say that there ISN'T a code in the painting. I do agree with Luke that the music, if it's real, sounds like a praising him rather than something composed by a non-believer.
Regarding any claim about the DaVinci code, I'll admit it would be pretty cool if there was one, but so far I haven't seen any truly convincing evidence that proves one of the theories. Again, I can't claim that I know this is true, but I'm going with Descartes on this one until new evidence becomes available. That is, since there is a reasonable amount of doubt in the claim, I can't claim it's true and must destroy that belief!
I don't think that the theory here is completely infallible. I think that without knowing the true intentions of the artist many people are just searching for things that may or may not be there. It all seems like it could have been a coicidence to me, like why the hands AND the bread, and not something else on the painting? But again, without any record of there ever being a code, and without any of us knowing the true intentions of DaVinci, I equally cannot say that there ISN'T a code in the painting. I do agree with Luke that the music, if it's real, sounds like a praising him rather than something composed by a non-believer.
Regarding any claim about the DaVinci code, I'll admit it would be pretty cool if there was one, but so far I haven't seen any truly convincing evidence that proves one of the theories. Again, I can't claim that I know this is true, but I'm going with Descartes on this one until new evidence becomes available. That is, since there is a reasonable amount of doubt in the claim, I can't claim it's true and must destroy that belief!
Okay so to tell you the truth I find the whole DaVinci code thing BS. It's not that I don't believe DaVinci might have had a "secret" meaning behind certain things or intended to put certain objects or persons in his painting on purpose, such as Mary Magdelen. I mean every painter adds their own meaning and creative ideas into their art but that doesn't mean that it is credible to everyone. More than anything, I believe the media is twisting everything to do with DaVinci. The media just wants a story cover and if its going as far as "discovering" a hidden song on DaVinci's painting, then so be it, but that doesn't make it credible, at least not to me. I totaly agree with Luke that the music is not even written out straightforwardly, the media and people who want to gain media coverage, manipulate anything to gain some time on tv. But yet again I personally dont believe it because it doesn't apply to my life and beliefs.
I personally find this musical davinci code to be somewhat credible. I find it credible because I know from my experiences with art and examining various types of art that artists almost always try to hide some sort of secondary meaning behind their works. Arstists hide little "easter egg" type additions in their work for others to discover over time. It seems reasonable that Davinci put some sort of secondary meaning into his work; however it is difficult to decide what is intentional and what is unintentional being that Davinci lived long ago and is no longer available for comment on his work. Another factor working against my belief in this musical code is the seemingly fictitious nature of the davinci code book and movie. This story is not as farfetched as the book, however. Although it takes only one instance to prove a theory wrong, and real meaning behind the painting could be in the process of being discovered today, I have a theory that "the last supper" has been examined to a point where it is unlikely that new information will be discovered about it. This theory of mine is actually problematic, because it assumes infallibility, however I believe that it is most people's sense of infallibility that leads them to assume that all credible information about the davinci code has been discovered (that will ever be discovered).
In order for me to say that I know this is the true davinci code I would have to have a much higher degree of certainty than I do now. My belief in any sort of davinci code is existent, but weak. This is mainly because I lack the proper justifications to justify my belief in this musical davinci code. This davinci code would also have to be accepted as true, as one cannot know something that is false.
As for the Davinci code as a whole, all the skepticism about the conspiracies within the church, it is almost my sense of adventure that leads me to want to believe in the Davinci code. The idea that the Davinci code could be true is exciting, albeit weakly proven. The Davinci code also plays into my sense of skepticism about the church; the idea that the church today portrays an image of an ideal past instead of the actual history.
In order for me to say that I know this is the true davinci code I would have to have a much higher degree of certainty than I do now. My belief in any sort of davinci code is existent, but weak. This is mainly because I lack the proper justifications to justify my belief in this musical davinci code. This davinci code would also have to be accepted as true, as one can not know something that is false.
As for the Davinci code as a whole, all the skeptisim about the conspiracies within the church, it is almost my sense of adventure that leads me to want to believe in the Davinci code. The idea that the Davinci code could be true is exciting, albeit weakly proven. The Davinci code also plays into my sense of skeptisism about the church; the idea that the church today portrays an image of an ideal past instead of the actual history.
I seriously doubt that this is anything significant. Even if Da Vinci did intentionally hide a musical score in his artwork, does it mean anything. People are trying to relate this to the "Da Vinci code" when it really doesn't prove anything. If it was intentional it could show that Da Vinci was creative. He did draw up plans for the helicopter 400 years before its invention. I think people are perceiving it this way because they saw the movie or read the book and it was interesting. Wouldn't it be fascinating in Da Vinci really knew something mysterious? It's funny how culture and entertainment have a tendency to distort peoples' images of the facts. It reminds me of the people who go crazy every time someone makes french toast with the Virgin Mary burned into the bread.
=Michael Benitez=
It is very difficult on whether or not anything is credible anymore. There are so many fakes and spoofs of things; it is hard to tell whether or not it is real or not. By just looking at the news media article on this, it would seem to be true, why else would it be posted on the news; I mean the news is suppose to show us the truth about things, right (awesome I used a tag question)? Or does the news on show what they think people are interested in. Is it only because the movie The Davinci Code came out in theatres that they decided to show this article, or did they think that enough people would be interested in it.
Now because I don’t have any clue on deciphering music notes, and I have never really tried to use them since elementary school, I would not be able to tell you if it is true or not. I do not have any prior knowledge on music besides just listening to it. Maybe it is a coincidence that the bread pieces line up like music notes, or maybe the artist wanted everything to be in lines. It seems to me that the Giovanni, the guy who discovered this, went through too much work for this to have been done on purpose. It almost seems like he was stretching the truth, that he was trying so hard to find something that was close to a code, that he created one himself.
I have only seen the movie The Davinci Code, so I only know as much as was put in the movie, which I have heard was not a lot, so I have no knowledge of the Davinci Code itself. Because of this I have no way of making a claim about something I do not know, and so my claim would not have any proof, I have no way of justifying it. So from this, I have no way of saying that it exists or does not exist, so I will just leave it open and say there is a possibility that the Davinci Code may exist.
Personally I don't believe that credibility should ever play a part when trying to decide if something is true/un-true. I view credibility as something that we as mankind have created in order for peoples opinions to hold additional weight. We view credibility as a source of justification when in reality it isn't. Though one man may have studied a specific topic much more vigorously than I, that man has just as much of a chance in being "incorrect" as I do, because what he is stating is personal belief just as my own statement.
Aside from this issue, I was reminded of a specific discussion we had in class after viewing this article. That discussion was about how people only search for things that will help provide justification to their original hypothesis. I believe that many things (such as the musical piece) could be deciphered from the painting because it is what they are looking for. Whether it was DaVinci's original intention or not, people may take things from the piece that may not be there, just so that they can provide a justification to their personal belief.
I believe that DaVinci created many masterpieces. One of them, the most contraversial, The Last Supper has always been a mystery. We try to find codes and signs of codes within this painting yet the truth is, no one will ever know what the "DaVinci Code" really is or if there is any. We have heard alot of intellectual "discoveries" as to what was DaVinci's code. They all have a solid foundation and applicable ideas, but there's always the contraversy as to which is the real DaVinci code. If we throw out good ideas and we cannot agree as to which is right and which is wrong then we will never find out, if there even is one. I believe that its people's facination with this painting and the theory of a code that attracts then so much that they start overanalyzing the painting so much so that they create their own codes and lable it as the one true DaVinci code. Yet the truth is only by DaVinci saying himself or having left something in writting about the code he was trying to portray in the painting will we ever find out and ever be sure that there is a code and what it means.
Therefore I do give kudos to the man who discovered the musical notes through the painting, but i do feel that its just another "discovery" as to what a human being can intellectualy over analyze and create through the painting. People want to find a code soo bad, that they start creating their own codes.
Post a Comment