What is mindprint, the subconscious art code

An Australian Kimberley Gwion 'Sashes' area rock art image (Bradshaw Foundation) of dancers, one with a long-necked mask, with mindprint labels and axes by Edmond Furter.
An Australian Kimberley Gwion ‘Sashes’ area rock art image (Bradshaw Foundation) of dancers, one with a long-necked mask, with mindprint labels and axes by Edmond Furter.

Mindprint spiral chart furter 2014 branded

A chart of the sequence and structure of visual concepts in all art. Compare the chart to the Australian rock art example above (Kimberley Foundation) and its mindprint labels and axes (analysis by Edmond Furter).

Mindprint is sixteen sets of conceptually related optional archetypal attributes, each set consisting of one or two frequent attributes, and three, four, five or six decanal (related) and less frequent attributes. These are attached to figures which are arranged in a standard sequence near the edge of an artwork.

Their eyes (replaced by one heart and one womb in constant and adjacent positions, at type 12 or 13 Leo and type 11 Virgo) are always in an approximate oval, at varied radii, each on an axis with its opposite type. These axes cross in one point, analogous to the ecliptic (orbital) pole.

The structure is analogous to a flattened cosmic sphere, with some features of the underside visible, and ‘galactic’ features doubled. Antithetical (mirrored) galactic poles are usually marked by limb joints, near and between the heart and womb figure, and on the opposite side (conceptual ‘underside’), between the eyes of types 5 Aquarius and 4 Pisces.

Each conceptual galactic pole centres one of the oblique galactic equators, traceable along prominent limb joints, half inside and half outside the equator of eyes.

One of the ‘celestial’ poles is usually marked by a limb joint, such as a jaw, shoulder, hand or ankle, near the axial pole, incidental with the position of the midsummer and midwinter solstices in one of the last three astrological Ages (or four mindprint Ages, since Taurus is doubled).

Celestial poles move in an arc around the ecliptic pole due to precession. The general Age of artworks, specifically the inspirational Age, is incidental with the position of the ‘celestial’ markers.

Four ‘large’ types are optionally doubled as one or two expressions; types 1 Taurus and 2 Taurus, opposite 8 Scorpius and 9 Scorpous; and/or 5Aquarius20 and 21, opposite 12 and 13 Leo. When 5 is doubled it retains the same lower number, therefore the highest type number (the sixteenth) is type 15 Gemini, while type 1 Taurus16 Orion overlaps 1 Taurus Auriga as two decans.

Seven types are overlapped by their prominent decans: 15 Gemini and 15 Gemini0(zero); 1 Taurus and 1 Taurus16; 2 Taurus and 2 Taurus17; 3 Aries and 3 Aries18; 4Pisces and 4 Piscest19; 5 Aquarius t20 and 5 Aquarius21).

The entire arrangement is subconscious and compulsive to artists, and independent of conscious and conventional attributes, design grids, perspective lines and meanings.

Conscious symbolism and style is determined by the culture and experience of the artist, but mindprint in all its detail is standard in all cultures, areas and ages.

Mindprint was discovered in 2010, and its types, attributes, geometry, polar structure and correspondence with myth, emblems, the Tarot deck and astronomy were assigned, numbered and tabulated by Edmond Furter, and published in the popular archaeology and art analysis book Mindprint, the subconscious art code, in August 2014 (Lulu.com).

When identified in artworks, mindprint is marked by axial lines between the eyes of opposing figures, crossing in one point, each labelled by zodiac equivalents and the lower range of type numbers; from 1Ta, 2Ta, 3Ar, 4Pi, 5Aq20, 5Aq21, 6Cp, and so on, to 15Ge. The higher numbers, or first magnitudes, overlap part of the sequence as a second or decanal layer.

(From the Terminology appendix of Mindprint, the subconscious art code, by Edmond Furter, 2014, Lulu.com). See updates on http://www.stoneprint.wordpress.com

Mindprint summary

The introduction explains how to read the illustration labels (see a post and comments on www.edmondfurter.wordpress.com), and reveals the types and structural features in art. It also notes some aspects of their disguise.

Chapter A demonstrates six examples of the typological sequence, and explains structural sets in nature, myth, grammar and our subconscious.

Chapter B demonstrates the structure in our iris and bodies, and explains our structural perception, inspiration, consciousness, psychology and disguise.

Chapter C demonstrates the structure in our hands, and explains the co-incidence of structure in our bodies, culture, events and literature.

Chapter D demonstrates cosmic structure and explains structural cosmology, astronomy and astrology.

Chapter E demonstrates cosmic polar structure and explains structural time, Ages, archaeo astronomy, planets and spherical doubling.

Chapter F demonstrates artistic structure in a famous painting by Pierro de Cosimo (see below), and explains structural symbolism, artistic functions, initiation and esoterica.

Chapter G demonstrates a rock art painting process, and explains structural inspiration and compulsive expression.

Chapter H tests mindprint in two Egyptian decanal sets [Narmer and Dendera; see below], and explains conscious aspects of expression, as well as the Tarot trump sequence numbering.

Chapter J lists the attributes and concepts of the sixteen types, reduces these to tables, offers a format for artistic typological data, formulates a statistical test, tests 170 artworks, lists and explains the results. It also demonstrates how to identify visual types and archetypal structure in art, speculates on the possibility of prior discovery, and lists the few inherent ambiguities among some types.

Chapter K compares scientific and esoteric paradigms, illustrates natural ‘art’, and speculates on the implications of the discovery of mindprint for some sciences and crafts.

Chapter L demonstrates mindprint in 200 artworks (the book contains 214 examples in total), grouped by their dominant themes, and ordered to compare rock art against schooled art. Some notable details are explained.

The postscript explains how the visual types and structure were found. (see below)

Mindprint index

  • How to read the illustration labels
  • [a] The typological sequence and axial grid
  • The subconscious artefact and its disguise
  • [A] The figure sequence in our art
  • Comparing our semi-conscious sets
  • Animals, Myth, Grammar, Subconscious layers
  • [B] The structure in our eyes and bodies
  • Our eyes flash Boo; Oto-visual emissions
  • The vortex of visual inspiration
  • Gestalt and Occam
  • Psychological structure
  • [C] The structure in our hands
  • Our inner and outer structures converge
  • Archetype dressed as culture
  • Literate structure in a Mishnah
  • [D] The structure in our cosmos
  • Our astronomical sets
  • The galactic and polar cross
  • Astrological structure
  • 40 [E] The three poles of time
  • 42 Our calendric sets
  • 43 Ages in art
  • 46 Age Aries, Age Pisces, Age Aquarius
  • 50 [b1 and b2] The typological spiral chart
  • 52 [F] The structure in our art; Honey to mead
  • 54 Conscious and subconscious meaning in art
  • 57 Mystery and initiation
  • 58 Instant culture, art analysis, doubled spheres
  • 62 [G] The layers in our expression
  • 64 Digging through paint layers
  • 67 The double life of decans
  • 68 [H1] Decans on the Narmer palette
  • 70 [H2] Decans in the Dendera zodiac
  • 72 The Tarot trump sequence
  • 73 Compulsive inspiration and expression
  • 75 [J] Holistic types t1 to t15
  • 79 Typological tables
  • 82 Statistical test of artistic types
  • 84 Statistical test results
  • 87 How to identify types and structure in art
  • 88 Commission impossible
  • 88 Duplications and conventions
  • 89 Conscious recognition is elusive
  • 91 Ambiguous types
  • 93 Scientific and esoteric paradigms
  • 96 [K] Nature is also an artist
  • 97 Esoteric structure
  • 98 Implications for sciences and crafts
  • 99 [L] Mindprint and sixteen themes illustrated
  • 100  T1 Taurus Auriga, Orion; Rain diviner
  • 110  T2 Taurus Pleiades, Perseus; Rainmaker
  • 118  T3 Aries Androm; Moon queen, dragons
  • 130  T4 Pisces Pegasus; Sun king, Sun twins
  • 134  T5 Aquarius20 Pegasus; World baptist
  • 148  T5 Aquarius21; World spirit
  • 160  T6 Capricornus; Pan
  • 164  T7 Sagittarius; Bag
  • 170  T8 Scorpius Ophiuchus; Giant snake holder
  • 180  T9 Scorpius; Giant in trance
  • 182  T10 Libra Bootes; Lord of the forest
  • 188  T11 Virgo; Womb
  • 198  T12 Leo Crater; King inverted
  • 212  T13 Leo Ursa; King’s heart
  • 224  T14 Cancer Ursa Minor; Time angel
  • 232  T15 Gemini; Creator and rope churner
  • 240  T15 Gemini 00 Canis; Creator wounded
  • 250 How mindprint was discovered
  • 253 Acknowledgements, About the author
  • 254 Terminology
  • 257 Index of rock art tested, Index of art tested
  • 265 Graphics sources, Sources, References.

(Excerpt from Mindprint, the subconscious art code, by Edmond Furter, 2014, Lulu.com)

 

==== Comment from David Allen April 2015;

Thank you for the opportunity to meet you and to listen to your talk. What you said has sent me back to the drawing board concerning my knowledge of archetypes.

What had the most impact for me was your reference to the fact that archetypes, and even culture itself, are not some artificial “construction” born of this reality, but come from a pre-existent reality that “was” before the “big bang”.

The way you supported this contention by showing how virtually one single visual pattern is repeated (with some minor variations) through all works of inspired art (I think your use of the distinction “inspired” was essential here) stretching from as far back as the Ice Age into the modern era, across many nations, cultures, religions, belief systems, continents, and throughout history, and how it can be traced in the heavens, served to emphasise this point particularly strongly for me.

Although the idea of a “pre-existent reality” is not new to me, I have found almost no support for it. If anything I have come across only deep and virulent criticism of it and so have kept an open mind on the subject. Maybe it is a sign that I need to hang out with a better class of reading material.

I found your support of this notion very pleasing because it confirmed something that always made intuitive sense to me. It will give me much food for thought and reflection in the coming weeks and months because it will feed into, and influence to some extent, much else that I am interested in.

But probably the most important revelation was that your talk has shown me how much I still have to learn and how much work awaits me in terms of now having to unpack and discard much of what I have taken to be “true”, and then to refresh my conceptual foundation and belief system concerning a number of important topics.

I begin the task of reading and absorbing your book today. -David Allen.

Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. I have recevied various questions about mindprint, and string together my responses here.

    Q; What background reading does the book require?
    A; None, The book demonstrates visual archetypal expression within the general context of relevant aspects of philosophy (Plato and commentators), anthropology (Levi Strauss), psychology (Jung and some cosmologists), esoterica (emblematic sets), and art history (cosmology as probed by Gombrich, and mythological icons), some literary structure from the Mishnah, and archaeology (arguments for and against diffusion, cultural framing, incidental idiosynchrasy. Also theoretical ‘disunity’, or tacking, as probed by Bernstein, Alison Wylie, and others).
    The application of archetype to the cultural record requires that our ingrained habits of imagining ‘diffusion and development’ be relegated to a secondary position. Current literature does not prepare readers for that, nor does Jung.
    Mindprint does not rely on any detailed Jungian work, since his work was, and remains based in generalised social typology, that could be mapped or tacked to a ‘planetary’ context, or a set of seven large, composite types.
    The book represents every known art tradition, pairing each ‘rock art’ work with a ‘formal, religious, schooled or political’ work. Such distinctions are artificial, and irrelevant to the core content of cultural expression.
    Readers need not be familiar with any of the above, or the ‘Jungian’ approach to art, since there is no such ‘school’, especially not in rock art.

    Q; How many archetypes are there?
    A; Mindprint operates at ‘decanal’ level, meaning sixteen seasonal, temporal or directional types, with the intervening four cosmic points, and six polar points; thus sixteen types anchored to ten cosmic features, or 26 distinct clusters of meaning. These are expressed in the subtext of myth, pantheons, legend, and very clearly in visual art, once identified and labelled.
    Since this approach is entirely new, I demonstrate cultural structure as an ‘artefact’, and lay the foundation for the theory and the paradigm required to appreciate it.

    Q; Which readership is the book aimed at?
    A; I have the dual task of making my discovery accessible to scientists and to other publics, such as art lovers. I feel like Mendel, or Crick and Watson may have felt when the public asked them; So there is a structure in bio-chemistry, but why?! We are structured components of a holographic structure, and that is partly why we are blind to the obvious, until it is mapped in different variants of the periodic table, or benzene ring combinations; then most of us stop asking why, because it is in a textbook!

    Q; Do you read rock art panels as single compositions with meanings?
    A; Most rock art panels, as any artwork, are single compositions, with some conscious conceptual meanings to the artist and likely viewers, but only the relative proximity, and some of the spatial relationships, and some semi-conscious symbolic conventions form part of this level of manipulation. The rigorous sequence of the optional attributes (typology), and rigorous axial geometry of the spacing of eyes (as well as the two standard adjacent exceptions to a heart, and to a womb instead of the eye), compulsively expresses a subconscious inspiration. The wellspring is in the structure of nature, including biology, ecology, environment, reflexology, and cosmology. It is largely innate, activated by experience, and not subject to development or convention, therefore universal.
    The book develops the theme of inherent cosmology in perception, as posed by Gombrich. It is much more complex and rigours than Gombrich or Jung imagined. Even scarabs have some cosmology as an enabler of perception and behaviour.
    Artists to whom I have shown the mindprint in their works, are astonished, and acknowledge that they are aware of some of the conscious and symbolic level elements, and that they agree with the apparent archetypal logic revealed, however it is as a foreign ‘language’ of which they understand some terms. They may learn to speak it, but very few would become mindprint ‘linguists’, and the structure is impossible to fake. Collaborations and rrenovations are discussed in the book. It seems that the initial imprint is unaffected, unless more than half of the figures are damaged, and if adjacent ‘canvas’ is limited; then the revision uses some of the existing elements in a new expression. The same applies to formulaic copies such as amulets (hypocephali, tree of life, decans, etc); each ‘copy’ has a different structure and uses different typological options, resulting in the end in the same frequencies of every attribute. Mindprint statistics predict the likelyhood of each attribute in each artwork, and predict their frequencies in diverse collections of artworks as samll as 50.

    Q; What is the ‘standard structure of cultural expression’?
    A; All artists express a combination of their social and personal experience (which are both subject to a kind of cultural DNA) in a particular visual grammar.
    See the visual spatial version of the structure, compared to an iris and, thus linked to physiology. It is not as neatly circular in the body, yet remains in sequence, as haemoglobin molecules make a twisted ball of its basic cellular components. Art is the most basic and most strict expression of cultural structure, while elements of language, ritual, ethnography and social behaviour are more varied. However our compulsion for structure is traceable in all elements of culture, as Levi-Strauss found.

    Q; Is your theory testable?
    A; The mindprint structure is demonstrated on 200 artworks in the book, half of which is nominally rock art (including some religious engravings and post-Christianity Lapp drums). A further 400 artworks are listed in the book as having been tested. I have since gathered 130 more, making 530 works tested. I am still looking for artworks containing eleven or more figures that do not express the standard structure. The only exceptions are some rigorously linear arrangements in a single line, photographs, and one artwork by an established artists made on two notebook pages, where I suspect he used one page at first, then added a facing page.
    Mindprint is a structure. The theoretical component, in the first 100 pages, describes the context of the structure.
    I invite you to send me any artworks containing a more or less coherent grouping of about 14 figures or more, for testing, or just follow the steps in the book, using a ruler and pencil, or the Lines function in any graphics software. About theoretical testability, see below.

    Q; What did you study to discover this effect or structure in art?
    A; I studied psychology, literature, and journalism, and iconography in my own time. I am a business to business magazine and web editor, currently serving health and safety practice, an interdisciplinary field. I have researched iconography for 26 years, discovered mindprint in rock art about 2009, and tested it on Renaissance master artworks to find a reference, or supposedly entirely conscious, political and conceptual composition to compare supposed dream-induced art against. I could find no ‘reference’, but found the structure to be in all art instead. After writing the text in 2013, I did the obvious statistics, and found some few elements that I could not find by visual comparison. These are all in the text and some of them are in the stats, excluding those of small frequency.
    The last chapter in the book recalls some of my earlier steps towards typology, and of necessity away from diffusion, cultural framing and idiosyncracy (eclecticism, chance and fads), and developmentalism, or ‘evolution’ as the public like to label the assumption of continuous improvement or at least complexification. Most of the text is on this theme, and I believe it is rigorous, and had to be, since it goes against the intuitive and scientifically ingrained ‘diffusion and evolution’ model of culture, including communication and art. Fortunately the philosophical concept of archetype is also well established in science, although neglected in our current mechanistic and causal paradigm. This paradigm is misleading art history, as it misleads archaeo-astronomy and literature, away from myth and towards commodification. However even complex and ‘recognised’ commodified art contains mindprint.

    Q; Could your test results be faked by artists?
    A; The book has a page about how to identify mindprint in art, followed by two pages on a frivolous method of how it could (not) be faked, titled Commission Impossible. I could not find any indications of formalisation and therefore prior recognition of the structure. Traditions that were strong on conscious tacking, such as alchemy, emblems, Rosicrucianism, and esoterica, found parallels with astrology, and did not probe further, assuming other structures to ‘derive’ from a ‘cumulative tradition’.
    Egyptian formalised art such as tomb decoration and talismans, with their hours of the duat and decans, understood the universality of their structure, yet apparent copies of polar decans differ significantly, and do not copy all the typological variants, nor the orientation of the sequence, nor the geometry. Each ‘copy’ expresses the standard structure with other attribute variations, and with its own orientation of the sequence, yet the sequence and the geometry remains unaffected. Rock artists do the same, particularly copying and adapting styling, as artists do today in a quest for ‘signature’, but never changing the structure.
    This applies to art and rock art from the Ice Age (Niaux, Peche Merle, Trois Frere, Lascaux), Gobekli Tepe, Sumer, Luwia, Babylonia, Greece, Egypt (including its rock art), Arabia (on the back cover of the book), Africa, India, China (Tien Shan bee people and scarabs), Korea (whaling engravings), Russia (pavement engravings), the Americas (formal and informal art), Australia. It does not apply to photographs, landscapes, or portraits. The eye-hand-mind-nature co-ordination of artists could not be faked.

    Q; Is your hypotesis a universal truth, or could it be disproved?
    A; If you mean the falsification test, to reveal whether the method is scientific or not, I follow Thomas Kuhn (The structure of scientific revolutions), and the predominance of paradigm, and application success, over the supposed reliance of science on theory and refutation. I do not follow Karl Popper and his circular arguments that ironically turned science into a law unto itself.
    Some theories are scientific but wrong or useless; some are unscientific in the misinterpreted Popperian sense, but right, and useful; as Popper also stressed a century ago. I meet professed Popperians regularly. Refutation, like rhetoric, is an archetypal instinct. It is not possible to frame any single validating question (that would validate the theory by making its refutation possible).
    Psychoanalysis, and economics, are untestable and thus unscientific from some points of view. The book demonstrates the archetypal paradigm, versus the diffusionist and developmental paradigm. Both are extensive. I found archetype easy to refute, and thus incidentally scientific; and I reveal the ‘scientific’ paradigm to be guilty of some large-scale assumptions and generalisations that it carefully avoids probing, particularly where culture is concerned.
    The book cites, quotes and critiques several of the the latest relevant journal papers (2012) by world leading rock art researchers (2014). One of the inescapable conclusions is that the scientific and popular paradigm of art and culture as cululative, developmental, diverse, learned, diffused, and consciously meaningful, is wrong. There is only one culture.

    1. Hi, I enjoyed your talk yesterday 16/06. I would like to ask, if humanity unconsciously gives expression, collectively across culture and time, then what is the message, is this message consistent, and what would this message mean to humanity? I would also love to know more about what the meanings of the specific archetypes you have referenced.

      ==== Edmond replies; Marguerite, our expression is subconscious, not entirely ‘unconscious’, since some levels of our consciousness are aware of it. The sixteen visual types are each a halo of interconnected meanings, and also derive some of their meanings from their relative positions to the others, particularly their axial opposites, and to the four ‘seasonal’ anchor points, and the four interludes that I named the cista mystica positions, and to the six polar points, or three polar axles.
      Their most frequent visually testable attributes are listed in the statistical table, and discribed in the chapter on typology, along with other more conceptual and thus visually untestable attributes.

      The mindprint typology is unerringly consistent in all art, in the Ice Age, the Younger Dryas thaw or resurgence, Gobekli Tepe, Sumeria and so on, up to contemporary art, as demonstrated in the book. Beyond the 200 illustrations, and 200 more listed in the index, I have since added another 130 structural analyses, bringing the total to 530, with only two exceptions where the structure is incomplete or absent, and one of those two artworks probably derives in part from a photograph.

      The only change in the structure is the temporal framework, as discussed in the chapter on Ages, relating mainly to the position of one of the polar axles, and the mutational effect of the four seasonal points on the static types.

      You could use familiar stereotypical sets, such as emblems, mythological characters, astrological types, Tarot trump emblems, calendric sets, pantheons, I Ching situations, trigrams, geomancy figures, octonal (eight-based) numerology, and others to expand your access to archetypal typology. Use the two pages on the four inbuilt archetypal ambiguities to unravel the inevitable quirks.

      About your question on meaning, we express structure subconsciously, but across all levels of consciousness. We also use structure as a ‘carrier wave’ or medium of more local and individual situations. We are aware of some structural elements at a conscious level, but those are crowded by practical pre-occupations such as socio-politics, where most apparent ‘meaning’ collects.

      In cultural goods like art, our conscious pre-occupations are mostly styling and subject, or market positioning. However most of the core content of culture is pure structure itself; an ultimate case of the medium equalling the message. A small part of it is symbolic, and a small part of it is conventional, which itself is merely a mutation from a limited range of options.

      The meaning of structure is individual and collective confirmation, affirmation, and therapy. We may as well ask what is the message and meaning of chemistry, or DNA, or grammar, or cosmology. It is a means of self-discovery, and an analogy to unravel other structures, such as speciation, behaviour, symbols, ritual, or mythology. Individual meaning is meaningless witout knowing who, what, where, when and how we collectively are. -Edmond Furter

      ==== I had a query on astrology from someone else;
      “Your analysis of the Ship of Faith, and the cathedral facade, are great. Can you please clarify, when you connect the figures, the characteristics of the figure determine which star sign it represents?
      Does the chronological order (clockwise or anti-clockwise) follow the same pattern as stars in the sky? What does the centre point represent?
      Clear for me that you say each artwork includes major star figures (types). Not clear if the order of the types is significant /repetitive. Also not clear how you read the sky – inverted?

      My answer; Visible attributes of the figure reveal which types they express.
      The sequence is always the same. It could be expressed either clockwise or anti-clockwise.
      The attributes, and the sequence, and the relative positions, are similar to the myth map that we impose on the sky.
      The axial centre is analogous to the ecliptic pole, thus our orbit around the sun. The map is in our eyes and subconscious minds, and in nature, thus it reveals archetype. It does not derive from astronomy or astrology. We are not aware of the intricate cosmogram that underlies our perception and expression. -Greetings, Edmond

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s