23-07-2019, 11:50 PM
JKP,
You say; "there are many ways in which it can be interpreted"
What is the "it" to which you refer??
If "it" is the critter by itself, I certainly agree that there are various possibilities which are suggested by the VMs image. And that it is difficult, if not impossible, to lock onto one of those choices and eliminate the other potential interpretations.
However, that is not the whole of the VMs illustration. If 'it" is the whole, three-part critter, cosmic boundary, and droplets (of something) as a *complex*, three things in a specific sequence / relationship, then there is the example from the "Apocalypse of S. Jean" and what else?
I'm not saying that the VMs looks like the "Apocalypse" illustration, but it seems to me that the VMs illustration is using somewhat ambiguous elements to reproduce the same three-part structure which can be seen and better understood if we know what was drawn in the "Apocalypse" illustration.
You say; "there are many ways in which it can be interpreted"
What is the "it" to which you refer??
If "it" is the critter by itself, I certainly agree that there are various possibilities which are suggested by the VMs image. And that it is difficult, if not impossible, to lock onto one of those choices and eliminate the other potential interpretations.
However, that is not the whole of the VMs illustration. If 'it" is the whole, three-part critter, cosmic boundary, and droplets (of something) as a *complex*, three things in a specific sequence / relationship, then there is the example from the "Apocalypse of S. Jean" and what else?
I'm not saying that the VMs looks like the "Apocalypse" illustration, but it seems to me that the VMs illustration is using somewhat ambiguous elements to reproduce the same three-part structure which can be seen and better understood if we know what was drawn in the "Apocalypse" illustration.