Starship Asterisk*

neufer wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 8:26 pm

• The Arnolfini Wedding : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnolfini_Portrait
  ...............................................................................................
  Margaret van Eyck : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_ ... t_van_Eyck
  Jan van Eyck : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_ ... rtrait%3F)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnolfini_Portrait wrote:

Detail of the convex mirror

---

<<The Arnolfini Portrait (or The Arnolfini Wedding) is a 1434 oil painting on oak panel by the Early Netherlandish painter Jan van Eyck. It forms a full-length double portrait, believed to depict the Italian merchant Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini and his wife, presumably in their residence at the Flemish city of Bruges. It is considered one of the most original and complex paintings in Western art, because of its beauty, complex iconography, geometric orthogonal perspective, and expansion of the picture space with the use of a mirror.

The small medallions set into the frame of the convex mirror at the back of the room show tiny scenes from the Passion of Christ: all the scenes on the wife's side are of Christ's death and resurrection. Those on the husband's side concern Christ's life. The mirror itself may represent the eye of God observing the vows of the wedding. A spotless mirror was also an established symbol of Mary, referring to the Holy Virgin's immaculate conception and purity. The mirror reflects two figures in the doorway, one of whom may be the painter van Eyck himself. In Panofsky's controversial view, the figures are shown to prove that the two witnesses required to make a wedding legal were present, and Van Eyck's signature on the wall (i.e., "Jan van Eyck was here") acts as some form of actual documentation of an event at which he was himself present.

According to one author "The painting is often referenced for its immaculate depiction of non-Euclidean geometry", referring to the image on the convex mirror. Assuming a spherical mirror, the distortion has been correctly portrayed, except for the leftmost part of the window frame, the near edge of the table and the hem of the dress.>>

Astronymus wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 6:18 pm
You know that was a joke, do you?

And I've seen the original. The painting, not the moonscape.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnolfini_Portrait wrote:
<<There is a carved figure as a finial on ["Mrs. Arnolfini's"] bedpost, of Saint Margaret devoured by a dragon.>>

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_the_Virgin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucca_Madonna wrote:
<<The Lucca Madonna is an oil painting by the Early Netherlandish master Jan van Eyck, painted in approximately 1437. The Virgin has been identified as a portrait of the painters's wife, Margaretha. The two fruits on the windowsill are either apples or oranges, both of which would be allusions to paradise.>>

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_ ... %D7%A7.jpg

• https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ail%29.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_of_a_Man_(Self_Portrait%3F) wrote:
<<The man [Jan van Eyck] is not, as it is commonly thought, wearing a turban, but a chaperon with the ends that normally hang down tied up over the top, which would be a sensible precaution if it was worn whilst painting. A similar chaperon is worn by a figure in the background of van Eyck's Rolin Madonna, and it has been suggested that this is also a self-portrait.>>

Astronymus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:45 pm
You can clearly see the studio wall...

• The Arnolfini Wedding : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnolfini_Portrait
  ...............................................................................................
  Margaret van Eyck : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_ ... t_van_Eyck
  Jan van Eyck : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_ ... rtrait%3F)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnolfini_Portrait wrote:

Detail of the convex mirror

---

<<The Arnolfini Portrait (or The Arnolfini Wedding) is a 1434 oil painting on oak panel by the Early Netherlandish painter Jan van Eyck. It forms a full-length double portrait, believed to depict the Italian merchant Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini and his wife, presumably in their residence at the Flemish city of Bruges. It is considered one of the most original and complex paintings in Western art, because of its beauty, complex iconography, geometric orthogonal perspective, and expansion of the picture space with the use of a mirror.

The small medallions set into the frame of the convex mirror at the back of the room show tiny scenes from the Passion of Christ: all the scenes on the wife's side are of Christ's death and resurrection. Those on the husband's side concern Christ's life. The mirror itself may represent the eye of God observing the vows of the wedding. A spotless mirror was also an established symbol of Mary, referring to the Holy Virgin's immaculate conception and purity. The mirror reflects two figures in the doorway, one of whom may be the painter van Eyck himself. In Panofsky's controversial view, the figures are shown to prove that the two witnesses required to make a wedding legal were present, and Van Eyck's signature on the wall (i.e., "Jan van Eyck was here") acts as some form of actual documentation of an event at which he was himself present.

According to one author "The painting is often referenced for its immaculate depiction of non-Euclidean geometry", referring to the image on the convex mirror. Assuming a spherical mirror, the distortion has been correctly portrayed, except for the leftmost part of the window frame, the near edge of the table and the hem of the dress.>>

tomatoherd wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:04 pm Artemis program, huh?
Just what the universe needs, for earth to export its PC culture, quotas, etc.
How about just sending whoever is the most qualified, and to h@ll with what gender or color they are?
What next, galactic cancel culture?
Lunar handicap access???

Artemis is the Greek goddess of the hunt, the wilderness, wild animals, the Moon, and chastity. The goddess Diana is her Roman equivalent. Artemis is the daughter of Zeus and Leto, and the twin sister of Apollo. She was the patron and protector of young girls, and was believed to bring disease upon women and relieve them of it.

Betelgeuse54 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:07 pm

De58te wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:01 am I don't mean to be a spoil sport, but if that is the American flag on the far left, the first flag planted on the Moon, I hate to say it, but I think they planted it upside down.

I believe it's the reflection of the flag on Aldrin's shoulder, not upside down.

tomatoherd wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:29 pm
History is complicated, and the future more so.

• "History is written by the victors" (i.e., mostly christian white men as of late).
  (And it will also be so in the future.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_history#Philosophy_of_neutrality wrote:
<<The question of neutrality concerns itself foremost with analysis of historiography and the biases of historical sources. One prominent manifestation of this analysis is the idea that "history is written by the victors". This phrase appears to have been coined by George Graham Vest to explain the Lost Cause of the losing side of the American Civil War.

In his Society Must Be Defended, Michel Foucault posits that the victors of a social struggle use their political dominance to suppress a defeated adversary's version of historical events in favor of their own propaganda, which may go so far as historical negationism. Wolfgang Schivelbusch's Culture of Defeat takes an opposing approach that defeat is a major driver for the defeated to reinvent himself, while the victor, confirmed in his attitudes and methods, dissatisfied by the high losses and paltry gains made, may be less creative and fall back.

For G. W. F. Hegel, the history of the world is also the Last Judgement. Hegel adopts the expression "Die Weltgeschichte ist das Weltgericht" ("World history is a tribunal that judges the World"; a quote from Friedrich Schiller's poem Resignation published in 1786) and asserts that history is what judges men, their actions and their opinions. Since the twentieth century, Western historians have disavowed the aspiration to provide a judgement of history. The goals of historical judgements or interpretations are separate to those of legal judgements, that need to be formulated quickly after the events and be final.

Related to the issues of historical judgement are those of the pretension to neutrality and objectivity. Analytic and critical philosophers of history have debated whether historians should express judgements on historical figures, or if this would infringe on their supposed role. In general, positivists and neopositivists oppose any value-judgement as unscientific.>>

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:47 pm

tomatoherd wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:00 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:22 pm

The way to deal with systemic discrimination is to deal with it. No reason to think that the people chosen won't be as qualified as necessary. The idea is not to allow the filters that have kept them from consideration in the past.

No doubt your statement is true.
But I suspect Artemis and like programs go beyond just "not allowing the filters.."
To a hammer, everything is a nail. To a communist, every problem is rooted in class. To a social justice warrior, every problem is rooted in race.
Only history will be able to tell if all these preferences accomplish good or just breed resentment.
If there is new scientific knowledge to be gained, Artemis might be worthwhile. If it is just to put minorities or genders on the moon, it is a colossal waste of resources.
When Aldrin and Armstrong walked on the moon, they represented all mankind, red, yellow, black and white, every gender, rich and poor, the healthy and the handicapped. All the world watched in awe and rejoiced. They represented US, humankind.
Sure, they found themselves strapped in those seats due to certain filters, privileges, and a nation's largesse to spend money on science alone. But they took the risk for all of us. Risking your life is not an entitlement.
The current new moderns are dividers and bean counters, nay-sayers and perpetual victims, and they slap on more filters than anyone in 1969. Where the new mentality will end is not yet known. But I'll take the old.

You seem fond of generalizing with labels. A flawed way of thinking, IMO.

De58te wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:01 am I don't mean to be a spoil sport, but if that is the American flag on the far left, the first flag planted on the Moon, I hate to say it, but I think they planted it upside down.

tomatoherd wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:00 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:22 pm

tomatoherd wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:04 pm Artemis program, huh?
Just what the universe needs, for earth to export its PC culture, quotas, etc.
How about just sending whoever is the most qualified, and to h@ll with what gender or color they are?
What next, galactic cancel culture?
Lunar handicap access???

The way to deal with systemic discrimination is to deal with it. No reason to think that the people chosen won't be as qualified as necessary. The idea is not to allow the filters that have kept them from consideration in the past.

No doubt your statement is true.
But I suspect Artemis and like programs go beyond just "not allowing the filters.."
To a hammer, everything is a nail. To a communist, every problem is rooted in class. To a social justice warrior, every problem is rooted in race.
Only history will be able to tell if all these preferences accomplish good or just breed resentment.
If there is new scientific knowledge to be gained, Artemis might be worthwhile. If it is just to put minorities or genders on the moon, it is a colossal waste of resources.
When Aldrin and Armstrong walked on the moon, they represented all mankind, red, yellow, black and white, every gender, rich and poor, the healthy and the handicapped. All the world watched in awe and rejoiced. They represented US, humankind.
Sure, they found themselves strapped in those seats due to certain filters, privileges, and a nation's largesse to spend money on science alone. But they took the risk for all of us. Risking your life is not an entitlement.
The current new moderns are dividers and bean counters, nay-sayers and perpetual victims, and they slap on more filters than anyone in 1969. Where the new mentality will end is not yet known. But I'll take the old.

JohnBohlen wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:13 pm The story is told that Buzz Aldrin was upset that HE wasn't the first man to walk on the Moon's surface. Armstrong was chosen because he was a civilian -- NASA wanted to emphasize that they were not military. Therefore, Aldrin refused to photograph Armstrong on the Moon, despite many admonitions from the ground to do so.
Upon return to Earth, Aldrin was asked to retire form the Astronaut Corps.

tomatoherd wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:00 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:22 pm

tomatoherd wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:04 pm Artemis program, huh?
Just what the universe needs, for earth to export its PC culture, quotas, etc.
How about just sending whoever is the most qualified, and to h@ll with what gender or color they are?
What next, galactic cancel culture?
Lunar handicap access???

The way to deal with systemic discrimination is to deal with it. No reason to think that the people chosen won't be as qualified as necessary. The idea is not to allow the filters that have kept them from consideration in the past.

No doubt your statement is true.
But I suspect Artemis and like programs go beyond just "not allowing the filters.."
To a hammer, everything is a nail. To a communist, every problem is rooted in class. To a social justice warrior, every problem is rooted in race.
Only history will be able to tell if all these preferences accomplish good or just breed resentment.
If there is new scientific knowledge to be gained, Artemis might be worthwhile. If it is just to put minorities or genders on the moon, it is a colossal waste of resources.
When Aldrin and Armstrong walked on the moon, they represented all mankind, red, yellow, black and white, every gender, rich and poor, the healthy and the handicapped. All the world watched in awe and rejoiced. They represented US, humankind.
Sure, they found themselves strapped in those seats due to certain filters, privileges, and a nation's largesse to spend money on science alone. But they took the risk for all of us. Risking your life is not an entitlement.
The current new moderns are dividers and bean counters, nay-sayers and perpetual victims, and they slap on more filters than anyone in 1969. Where the new mentality will end is not yet known. But I'll take the old.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:22 pm

tomatoherd wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:04 pm
Artemis program, huh?

Just what the universe needs, for earth to export its PC culture, quotas, etc.
How about just sending whoever is the most qualified, and to h@ll with what gender or color they are?
What next, galactic cancel culture?
Lunar handicap access???

The way to deal with systemic discrimination is to deal with it. No reason to think that the people chosen won't be as qualified as necessary. The idea is not to allow the filters that have kept them from consideration in the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herostratus wrote:
<<Herostratus (Ἡρόστρατος) was a 4th-century BC Greek, accused of seeking notoriety as an arsonist by destroying the second Temple of Artemis in Ephesus. The conclusion prompted the creation of a damnatio memoriae law forbidding anyone to mention his name, orally or in writing. The law was ultimately ineffective, as evidenced by mentions of his existence in modern works and parlance. Thus, Herostratus has become an eponym for someone who commits a criminal act in order to become famous.

A modern 1:25 scale model of the Temple of Artemis, at Miniatürk, Istanbul, Turkey

---

Archeological evidence indicates the site of the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus had been of sacred use since the Bronze Age, and the original building was destroyed during a flood in the 7th century BC. A second temple was commissioned by King Croesus of Lydia around 560 BC and built by Cretan architects including Chersiphron, constructed largely of marble, and measuring 337 feet long and 180 feet wide with its pillars standing 40 feet tall. The sculpted bases of the pillars contained life-sized carvings and the roof opened to the sky around a statue of Artemis. The second temple was included on an early list of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World by Herodotus in the 5th century BC, and was well known in ancient times.

According to tradition, the fire that destroyed the second temple was set on the day Alexander the Great was born, 21 July 356 BC. To dissuade those of similar intentions, the Ephesian authorities not only executed Herostratus, but attempted to condemn him to a legacy of obscurity by forbidding mention of his name under penalty of death. However, the ancient historian Theopompus, who was not Ephesian but rather Chian, mentions the name of Herostratus in his Philippica, and it appears again later in the works of Strabo. It is said that in fact his name has outlived the names of his judges, and in his 1658 work Hydriotaphia Sir Thomas Browne states:

• But the iniquity of oblivion blindly scattereth her poppy, and deals with the memory of men without distinction to merit of perpetuity. [...] Herostratus lives that burnt the Temple of Diana, he is almost lost that built it [...] Who knows whether the best of men be known? or whether there be not more remarkable persons forgot, than any that stand remembred in the known account of time?

Work on a third temple at the site began in 323 BC, resulting in a larger and more ornate temple that would be included by Antipater of Sidon as one of Seven Wonders of the Ancient World:

• I have set eyes on the wall of lofty Babylon on which is a road for chariots, and the statue of Zeus by the Alpheus, and the hanging gardens, and the colossus of the Sun, and the huge labour of the high pyramids, and the vast tomb of Mausolus; but when I saw the house of Artemis that mounted to the clouds, those other marvels lost their brilliancy, and I said, "Lo, apart from Olympus, the Sun never looked on aught so grand.">>

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:22 pm

tomatoherd wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:04 pm Artemis program, huh?
Just what the universe needs, for earth to export its PC culture, quotas, etc.
How about just sending whoever is the most qualified, and to h@ll with what gender or color they are?
What next, galactic cancel culture?
Lunar handicap access???

The way to deal with systemic discrimination is to deal with it. No reason to think that the people chosen won't be as qualified as necessary. The idea is not to allow the filters that have kept them from consideration in the past.

JohnBohlen wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:13 pm
The story is told that Buzz Aldrin was upset that HE wasn't the first man to walk on the Moon's surface. Armstrong was chosen because he was a civilian -- NASA wanted to emphasize that they were not military. Therefore, Aldrin refused to photograph Armstrong on the Moon, despite many admonitions from the ground to do so.

Upon return to Earth, Aldrin was asked to retire form the Astronaut Corps.

• Upon return to Earth, non of the Apollo astronauts were going to be used again as anything other than PR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzz_Aldrin#Apollo_11 wrote:

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

Armstrong on the Moon

---

<<Deke Slayton gave Armstrong the option to replace Aldrin with Lovell, since some thought Aldrin was difficult to work with. Armstrong thought it over for a day before declining. He had no issues working with Aldrin, and thought Lovell deserved his own command. Early versions of the EVA checklist had the Lunar Module Pilot as the first to step onto the lunar surface. However, when Aldrin learned that this might be amended, he lobbied within NASA for the original procedure to be followed. Multiple factors contributed to the final decision, including the physical positioning of the astronauts within the compact lunar lander, which made it easier for Armstrong to be the first to exit the spacecraft. Furthermore, there was little support for Aldrin's views among senior astronauts who would command later Apollo missions. Collins has commented that he thought Aldrin "resents not being first on the Moon more than he appreciates being second". Aldrin's first words after he set foot on the Moon were "Beautiful view", to which Armstrong asked "Isn't that something? Magnificent sight out here." Aldrin answered, "Magnificent desolation." Aldrin and Armstrong had trouble erecting the Lunar Flag Assembly, but with some effort secured it into the surface. Aldrin saluted the flag and Armstrong took an iconic photo of the scene. Most of the iconic photographs of an astronaut on the Moon taken by the Apollo 11 astronauts are of Aldrin; Armstrong appears in just two color photographs. "As the sequence of lunar operations evolved," Aldrin explained, "Neil had the camera most of the time, and the majority of the pictures taken on the Moon that include an astronaut are of me. It wasn't until we were back on Earth and in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory looking over the pictures that we realized there were few pictures of Neil. My fault perhaps, but we had never simulated this during our training." With the Apollo program coming to an end, Aldrin, now a colonel, saw few prospects at NASA, and decided to return to the Air Force on July 1, 1971.>>

tomatoherd wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:04 pm Artemis program, huh?
Just what the universe needs, for earth to export its PC culture, quotas, etc.
How about just sending whoever is the most qualified, and to h@ll with what gender or color they are?
What next, galactic cancel culture?
Lunar handicap access???