Lapis philosophorum as the articulatory oral space

John Bjarne Grover

I have discussed my own 'lapis philosophorum' from many viewpoints on this website. The recurring question is naturally 'is my lapis of a universal format' - or is it of local value of mediocre explanatory value?

My conclusion has been converging on the assumption that it is a universal 'lapis philosophorum'. I here bring another piece of interesting evidence. It is in two parts: 1) The theory that the lapis philosophorum is the same as the articulatory oral space - that is, that it simply shows the outlines of the oral tract. 2) The lapis can be seen to be the underlying basis for many central artworks - such as Caravaggio and Tiepolo. Whether these artists also really knew the lapis and studied it under a magnifying glass, or studied drawings of it circulating in art academies, I dont know. If drawings existed, they either still exist today under secrecy stamp in archives - or the archives have been purged for these by the international secret intelligence services who probably control these archives and could have wanted to have the secret for themselves.

If the lapis is not available for the public, then no serious theories can be made on e.g. 1) the assumption that the lapis philosophorum is the same as the articulatory oral space. However, when I have presented my self-made lapis here on the web, then it is available - and then serious work can continue on basis of this empirical evidence - if, that is, it has universal value and is not a local peculiarity. But the statistics to my website shows 'zero visitors' every day, even if I myself look it up from an internet point elsewhere. That means that I am not credited for my work - and that is a very dangerous situation. It means the same as the rejected work as seen from the viewpoint of the Fatima revelations.

1) In the article "Egyptian hieroglyphs, lapis philosophorum and 'Stillhetens Śndedrag'", I discuss the basis for the idea that egyptian hieroglyphs can be seen to be contained in the 'lapis philosophorum' which I have made. I show that the socalled 'hillslope' sign (which is believed to be a backward 'k', as in english 'queen') is located in the upper right of the lapis - that is, if one takes the lapis to be the outlines of an oral tract with labial to the left and glottis to the right, it is just there on the velar-uvular articulation:

If the underarm of the woman is supposed to be the pharyngeal AIN, it means that it must shift around on the platonic circle in the lower right half of the lapis. This leads to the assumption that platonic form can be the key to the identification of the phonological features in the lapis. There is a circle, a triangle and a diagonal of prominent type on my lapis - it's smooth part.

2) There seems to be traces of my lapis in many central works of art, such as Tiepolo's work on Lucia's last holy communion - in the church of Apostoli in Venice. It seems to be close to my lapis turned 90 degrees:

(For a better resolution of Tiepolo's work, click here).

One sees the 'hillslope' in the upper left curvations under the balcony on Tiepolo's work.

Now there are three birds among the fundamental glyphs listed by Gardiner: The owl, the quail chick and the egyptuan vulture - all of which are located close to the bosom ('thumos'?) of the naked woman on the lapis. However, the owl and the quail chick are labial articulations ('m' and 'w') while the vulture is supposed to be the glottal stop. What is the difference on Tiepolo's artwork?

The difference between the quail chick and the vulture is that the vulture's beak protrudes further in towards the eye of the 'eagle' or 'lamb' on the overall head of the lapis. But that is just precisely the theme of Tiepolo's artwork - the faculty of vision (of Lucia) and the 'vulture' of 'culture' feeding on the eucharist. (Modern times should understand these mechanisms by now). The beak of the vulture will follow the underarm of the lower left man, the kneeler, down into the shadows under the elbow.

This means that the difference between the labial quail chick and the glottal vulture will be that the second crosses a line which the first does not. (One observes the upper line of a potential 'basket with handle' on Tiepolo's work). In the book-length article ABC of politics (so called because of the author's only very rudimentary understanding of politics) - search for "'Apostoli' contains a masterwork of beauty by Tiepolo" - I show how this artwork could be contained in a possible 'responsibility claim' of the US film "There's no business like show business" by just these few 'platonic' aspects - whether that be a coincidence or not.

In my PhD dissertation 'A waist of time' (1997) I suggest in the 5th and final part (on the strategy for finding the essential details in the acoustic code which could lead to the establishment of the relevant acoustic definitions):

"The optimal path will be to search not for the acoustic properties which carry the fullfledged differences in themselves, but rather those properties of the signal which represent the very first traces of a differentiation between the acoustic and the articulatory code".

And furthermore:

"Consequently, in both the DIFFUSE/COMPACT and the GRAVE/ACUTE feature opposition, the essential difference between the two systems is tied up to the MIDDLE POINT of the spectrum. That is, the VERTICAL MIDDLE POINT, when we think of the spectrum along a vertical dimension over the horizontal speech flow. The following chart is based on a comparison in page 46 of Hyman, L. (1975): Phonology. Theory and analysis. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York:

high V's
nonhigh V's

nonhigh V's
high V's

The classes differ in terms of VOCALITY as to the HIGH feature. The same ambiguity as to VOCALITY is found in my discussion of NASALITY in Grover (1995). Also, some GRAVE sounds are classified differently for consonants as compared to vowels. In short, when we define the DIFFUSE and the GRAVE features to be the most important for the spectral recognition of the very beginning differentiation of the featural systems, we find that there is an obvious correlate to this FREQUENCY DIMENSION in the TIME DIMENSION which characterize the CONSONANTAL and the VOCALIC FEATURES". (From my collected works vol.3, in 'A waist of time', pages 590-591)

Characteristically, the hieroglyph with densest packing of this distinction will be the 'tethering rope' of assumed 'tsch' quality. See the article 'Vermeer and the hieroglyphs'. If the lapis is the same as the articulatory oral space, then the 'tethering rope' straddles just the essential area of ambiguity for the comparison of articulatory vs acoustic features.

This means that if the vulture is feeding its beak into the culture of the kneeling man, his elbow shadow, such as the eucharist is fed into the mouth of Lucia in the VERTICAL MIDDLE POINT of the artwork, the result of this line-crossing difference can be just that the vulture is a glottal stop while the quail chick is labial. (One notices also that this artwork is made by an artist - and there must be a sense for the grotesque theme of the work by its symbolism in the lower part).

There is an acoustic feature called 'checked' in the Jakobson/Halle feature definitions. Is it so called because of this 'chick'? Then it is high time for a thorough dishwash - to prevent that the science of linguistics is turned into a mere tool for american political power all over the world, Vietnam, Iraq etc etc - on basis of this lapis philosophorum.

Suppressing the lapis philosophorum is to suppress the nature of the human species - could be for making it possible to pretend that christianity is a form of 'soixanteneuf' and things like that - spirituality reduced to concepts of sexual organs - and that could be for preparing for the rise of the new Frankensteins constructed in laboratories, reducing humans to poodles running for their slippers. I think humans should not give up even before it has begun. Do they suppress the lapis for making it possible to control the Frankensteins? But that must be the wrong way - that would be for making it easy for the Frankensteins to control the humans. Extra-terrestrial aliens certainly exist, but to believe that the 'lapis philosophorum' as the secret of humans can be hidden away from the aliens (held by a few invincibles only) in order to protect the humans from extinction is too outdated and naive - one guesses that it rather is about a new form of class formation.

Downgrade the stone!!!!!

© John Bjarne Grover
On the web 10 august 2018