tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4912713243046142041.post1724266940859077535..comments2024-03-28T23:22:41.774-05:00Comments on TYWKIWDBI ("Tai-Wiki-Widbee"): Care to look over Isaac Newton's shoulder ?Minnesotastanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382888179579245181noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4912713243046142041.post-9586148692077209142011-12-16T21:25:51.667-06:002011-12-16T21:25:51.667-06:00@Damien--LOL!
--Swift Loris@Damien--LOL!<br /><br />--Swift LorisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4912713243046142041.post-27754026031790940362011-12-15T09:55:33.243-06:002011-12-15T09:55:33.243-06:00well...I had a salad today. His writings make me f...well...I had a salad today. His writings make me feel very obsolete which I find bitterly amusing considering that the pages are over 100 years old and what "obsolete" implies as far as time is concerned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4912713243046142041.post-59329249332453560392011-12-15T06:35:25.970-06:002011-12-15T06:35:25.970-06:00Here's a rough transcription of the page that ...Here's a rough transcription of the page that precedes the final photograph in your set:<br /><br />Third day in a row I was hit on the head by fruit during my postprandial nap beneath the apple tree.<br />This time, I spied a strangely-attired prankster up the tree. Introduced himself as a doctor, but wouldn't say what of. He dared to ask if I'd had any interesting ideas lately. Be off, I said, and gave chase.<br />He fled to a small blue edifice. It was bigger on the inside. Overleaf is a map of the small portion I explored before he politely ejected me from the premises. Couldn't find the place later.Damiennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4912713243046142041.post-2314683471160340502011-12-14T15:40:20.054-06:002011-12-14T15:40:20.054-06:00My thanks to all three of you. I've incorporat...My thanks to all three of you. I've incorporated your comments into the body of the post.<br /><br />I really appreciate the expertise of the readers here.Minnesotastanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01382888179579245181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4912713243046142041.post-73965421972938345102011-12-14T13:38:33.304-06:002011-12-14T13:38:33.304-06:00islenskr is correct. It is a diagram that classif...islenskr is correct. It is a diagram that classifies the universe into categories. Reading from the root upwards, you have Substance -> Corporeal -> Body or Non-Corporeal -> Spirit, then following the Corporeal line, the next branch is animate or inanimate. Inanimate terminates in Mineralia (minerals) and Elementum (elements). The animate branch continues to the next split of sensitive and insensitive. The insensitive ends in plants. The sensitive branch continues through animal and splits at rational and irrational. The irrational branch goes through beasts (brutu) and ends in beasts, fish and two others. The rational branch goes through Man (homo) and splits into male (masculine) and female (feminine).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03579522812057768523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4912713243046142041.post-37252099151656666492011-12-14T13:28:00.650-06:002011-12-14T13:28:00.650-06:00It appears to be a tree diagram form of the Great ...It appears to be a tree diagram form of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being" rel="nofollow">Great Chain of Being</a>.<br /><br />The bottom split is Corporia vs Incorporia, leading to Corpus (material) and Spiritus (ethereal). I can't make out all the words on the second split, but the right hand side leads to Orbes Celestes. The left is "corrupted" something, i.e. terrestrial matter.<br /><br />The next split is life from non-life, the right hand branches leads out to mineralia and simplex(?). Then plants split off, as insensitive life. <br /><br />Then the top is animals, both Rational, (i.e. humans, male and female), and Irrational/Brute (everything else). The non-human animals are split into Aquatic, Volatile (flying), Reptilia, and Bestia. <br /><br />I don't know enough about the history of the concept to say much without getting something horribly wrong, but I find it interesting that it's presented as a branching tree, reminiscent of a nested-set paradigm, rather than a straight chain. I don't know how common that was at the time. 1660s seems to me to be pretty early for such an interpretation. <br /><br />Also possibly notable is that God isn't on it.Knifflerhttp://eu.than.asianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4912713243046142041.post-70321625461767671712011-12-14T11:57:08.694-06:002011-12-14T11:57:08.694-06:00The last page looks like a mapping of human existe...The last page looks like a mapping of human existence, starting with the body and ending with rationality and irrationality. I have not studied enough, but it looks like philosophy. I'm interested to see what others have to say on this!Red Katehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00827558400109486797noreply@blogger.com