Interview with Dr. Lock #03



shima: This issue covers James Q&A session again, but I think information is neck and neck in interesting significance with the previous issue. Especially to me it is pretty intriguing to read responses using scientific language.

Particularly about ILN, if we can measure the activation of ILN, I think we prove through scientific experiment whether WMM have such an effect...


Dr: I love the science too; and I am very interested in how scientific experiments will go in the future as they lead towards the discovery of the GP. Some of these may well begin to unite the arts and sciences in the near future IMO.


I remember a few years ago reading of someone who wanted to get a genetic scan or brain print of my biological system so that the differences could be noted from others. Actually, there would be no real noticeable differences because everyone is so different and we do not know exactly what we are looking for until we have the answer. James even said there would be no noticeable difference between his DNA or genetics than our own.


Actually it would, be far more beneficial for people to print out their own bio data than mine ? but before they experience transformation. This is because we need comparisons of before and after to know and thereby be able to measure what changes have occurred ? and to prove change has occurred.


It is too late for me to get a print out of what I was before the transformation. This is one reason why I really wanted some equipment at the time so that I could have printed out what had happened.


It might be remotely similar to getting a print out of what is happening in the brain and genetics when you fall madly in love or are having a mystical experience; and some of these experiments have already been initiated as I outlined in my Chamber 17 paper. You can't do that once you are there; you need a print out before and preferably during the event too and then you can see what is happening, or at least what has happened. Of course, we don't even have the equipment sensitive enough to do this with respect to the WMM yet, but we are getting closer to inventing it all the time.


The value of James mentioning the ILN and thalamocortical system (Q&A session 1; Neruda Interview 3) is that we now know in which areas to look in order to monitor some of the changes. I'm absolutely sure this will prove very useful to researchers and experimenters in the coming decades. So when some of you reading this hear of equipment having been developed that can record changes in these areas I'd encourage you to get a print out for yourself. The later you can see what changes have actually occurred.


In the third part of his online interview with Mark Hempel James informs that the artwork was originally the main basis of the WMM and that the philosophies and other material developed from this. It suggests to me, again, that the artwork is a primary catalyst for transformation in the WMM. Of course, I'm bound to think that way, and all the various forms of music, poetry, philosophy and story can do this; but perhaps the artwork may be the strongest, it being the springboard for the development of all the other forms. As you know I bear testament to the artworks' powers to transform.


shima: As for the Genetic Mind, I think this part is the best clarification about the GM. Thanks to this information, many readers must understand more clearly about the GM.


However, a lot of mysteries remain. For example, how can we access the repository of information? And what style/format is the information? Language, or image? Or is it composed of the fragment of someone's or some people's memory...?

Dr: The GM appears to be the collective subconscious of a species across time, and the subconscious usually "speaks" through the psyche and mind in visual format. I find reading Jung's Man and his symbols very helpful here, but do keep in mind that the GM is also across time not merely the species of the present time or any one time.


The Philosophy and/or Glossary notes say it is "creative will" which enables attunement with All That Is (ATI). Since ATI is a grander version of the GM clearly contact with the GM is also through the use of creative will. I have also personally found that this is so. It is important to remember though that it is not just a matter of will power.


"Creative will" is a phrase that I seem to instinctively understand, like many just "understand" the word "WingMakers" means something for them when they first read or hear it. Rather than really thinking about it there tends to be just a natural flow into it. It is much easier for me to feel what "creative will" means than to articulate it, perhaps because my intuition is strong and because of my love for the creative arts. Your question, however, is a very good and important one and so I shall endeavor to articulate as best I can. 


The "will" part is easy enough to understand. We must will ourselves to commune. There must be a level of commitment. How or when this occurs, however, will vary from individual to individual. One way I have done this is to surrender myself in goodness to spirit and Source at night in bed before going to sleep. This is done consciously and in full clarity of mind. It does not, for me, necessarily require sitting cross-legged or going into the imagination (which I also have in abundance) because the imagination may go anywhere and fantasize on anything, and if you wish to commune with the GM, ATI or Source I find grounding in reality far more helpful. Otherwise it becomes impossible to distinguish between imagination, fantasy and future vision.


Many people think they need to go really into the imagination to reach the levels of intuition, but I have found it just is not so. The mind needs stilling and that means not going into the imagination. The imagination can be a very valuable tool to used later when analyzing and reflecting upon that which has been seen or witnessed in order to view and study it from every possible angle and meaning.


Most of my visions or impressions from the GM come to me then through dreams. And I now call these particular type of dreams (and also meditation visions of the future) "visionary semiotics" (see final comment for definition). Visionary semiotics (anyone's) come from the GM, ATI or possibly even Source, though they can also ? and often are -- mixed with other imagery from just mundane dreams or the various levels within the human psychological architecture.


Many people may be missing some of these they receive in dreams. Many of these are not earth shattering in importance, and may be purely personal, but they relate to a future and as such are no more than the step of collective significance away from the GM. A recent example I had was, to simplify, a dream of a building the facade of which began to crumble and fall away. It made quite an impression on me and I was unsure whether it was a VS of an earthquake or some important building about to collapse that might have come from the GM. I realized the next day that the dream was a personal venture into the future: The building represented me, as buildings often do represent self in dreams and it was my face or facade which was lost the next day. Although an apparently simple dream, it was nonetheless a visionary semiotic; it was a vision of the future. Many people probably have these in the dream time but do not recall them or realize the meanings. Such dreams show you can and do see the future, so where is there difficulty in accessing the GM which is merely a collective step away?


And some actual images from the GM may well just be seen and lost by many people when they are not so spectacular. Do you ever dream of cherry blossoms and school children going off to school in the spring a few days before that actually happens, or some other collective yet seeming unimportant coming event? If you answer yes, are you not tuning into the social or collective consciousness of Japan and seeing the future, and is this not accessing the GM? We do not always run fast with important messages; we sometimes stroll and enjoy the view, and these latter experiences are every bit as real and necessary for our lives as the former. 


On another note, I must say that just because one experiences transformation it does not mean one will live an absolutely perfect existence from that day on. One is ever human and it is ever human to err. We never stop learning, and implicit within that learning is that at times errors will be made. In fact often it is our greatest errors that lead to our greatest successes. It is part of the human condition which changes not, no matter how advanced or experienced a person, spirit or soul is. Only the person who never made anything is incapable of making a mistake, and making nothing could equate to making an error. When my students make errors I can really teach them; what the error is, why it is an error, how the error likely came about, and so they learn a lot. When they just sit quietly and make no errors what can I say to them? What do they need to learn? What can they learn? Mistakes are not to be feared, but once occurring are to be embraced as the opportunity they present for more learning and progress.


I'd better now back up and go to the word "creative" in "creative will." Creative doesn't just mean imaginative, as for instance, in the artistic sense of being creative, though there can be overlaps. Source is the ultimate Creator or Creative element within the multiverse. Another word for "Source" that some use is "Creation". While Source is essentially organic in expression it works (if we can say that) in accordance with universal laws; it is not a free-for-all rudderless drift of imagination. This is why at night before sleeping and whenever I can throughout the day I give my attention to Source ? the ultimate Creativity.

Anyone who has ever picked up a pencil or brush to draw or paint can be creative and knows what it is to be creative. So I focus on wiling myself to creatively (a state of mind) contact Source, or the future.


One of biggest and final hurdles I had to straddle in finding attunement with the GM was the realization that I was my own worst enemy; and this will go for most. The reason is, our own thoughts, and especially opinions, feelings and emotions, concerns and fears will be implanted on our own subconscious mind and so mix in with any image or impression coming from the GM or species subconscious. If fears of the future are held anywhere within ones being, those fearful images will come up camouflaged or encoded within one's own, the group, or species, subconscious in the dream or vision. This can make it very difficult to know what is actually from the future GM. If the dreamer has a fear of a big quake in Tokyo how will the subject know whether a received image of a big future quake is from the GM or just manifest from their own mind? How could they know? And so the true seer must be fearless. If all fears and emotions, strong opinions and ideas are set aside then it is clear when imagery comes from the GM and the future. In essence, presenting a blank slate, or state, of mind enables the GM to plant its images there unencumbered by any bias of the human mind. Being fearless doesnft mean, however, ignoring any danger; just that one has no preconceived ideas about the future. One might have hunches or questions and investigate those, but the mind is left open for any truthful revelation to come forward, and this is done by not holding any preconceived ideas of the outcome in mind.


One point to remember is that this GM contact with the future is not yet, at least for our species, available on tap. You may try 10 times or 50 times and receive no response. Just keep going. The universe, or GM, speaks when it wishes to rather than when you want it to. And it usually, in my experience, speaks when both are ready. It is not intentionally withholding itself from anyone.


If you find this difficult you could just picture the light dagger of Chamber 17 painting in your own head. Imagine it there. Feel it there. Feel the assassination of your self-importance, but not your inner voice, by the Light Dagger of Source. The feeling and consciousness that comes from doing this -- in a relaxed manner -- attunes the mind to universal energies and receptivity of higher frequencies. This is another method I use on a regular basis. It is quick, easy, convenient and effective. This can be done in 10-60 seconds at a time, standing at the bus stop, train station, on the train or bus, when a cm comes on TV, or when just looking up from a book for a momentary break, It does not necessarily bring imagery from the GM at the time but triggers an ever growing neuro-pathway through the mind to higher frequencies so that in dream or meditative states the imagery can come more easily and consciously as the neuro-pathways are being grown consciously on a regular basis.


In addition any good meditation system you have found can help attune the mind to the GM. The ginformationh coming from the GM may be in any of the forms you indicate. The most common is visions because we are predominantly a visionary species. Some, however, may find that voice or even written words, or mathematical formulas may appear. Dreams, however, are generally more visual than audible or written. One reason for this is because image can be universal in its communicative ability ? not just through time, the GM and ATI but also across universes or the multiverse -- while words and writing are culture specific and so, unless the species is highly evolved, far less universal. This could be another reason why the WM art is so powerful in its imagery.


While I have had many visions of the future I have only had one auditory "dream", which was actually in the alpha state before sleep, and one dream in which I saw the words "indicated" written in English over two throbbing volcanoes off the coast of the Japanese Izu Peninsular, one of which erupted a month later in 1989.


Again I am more visually attuned. Another may be more word, or equation tuned, or music tuned. We are all unique expressions of Source and so have our own unique contact with Source and so too the GM.


ATI will contain the words, memories, thoughts and feelings of all that have lived. It is, however, extraordinarily rare IMO for individuals to get to these levels to receive data. Most people purporting to get there IMO are actually nowhere near these levels. We are just so far removed from these frequencies that IMO it would only be an individual with a very advanced spirit that could enter these levels and pick up details of that spirit's (not that person's) "previous" incarnation's thoughts or words via the Sovereign Integral state.


Exceptions to this would be when the words, thoughts or images were so strong that they impacted or coincided with the GM of the planet or species. In this case they would essentially be available to anyone with the correct creative will to access them. The good news here is that we only really "need" those big images because they are what are so relevant to us from the past and on into the future.


The great inventions and breakthroughs like the discovery of DNA e.g. are so impactful to the species that they can be and were picked up by some making access to the GM through the dream state. The private thoughts of those making that discovery are of no consequence to anyone else or humanity, make no such impact and so were not picked up with the imagery. The imagery is that which made the impact on the GM and humanity in this, and most cases, though there can be words glyphs, sounds, equations or other data forms present.


The GM then, as far as I know it, consists mostly of images that have impacted a species, culture, group, nation, or planet. They are there as images, or whatever form, because they have been strongly imprinted. This is rarely due to the act of one person or person's thoughts alone; but what one person does could impact a culture so that the culture imprints a message from that person in the GM. Remember the GM is an essentially shared consciousness; it is not unique to one person alone. The image of cherry blossom e.g. is imprinted upon the GM of Japan, but it is not the work of one person, though one person may have made a large contribution.


Sen no Rikyu might be the person to be most accredited for the imagery of macha and Sado into the Japanese GM because of his enormous contribution to making it a part of Japanese culture, but it was the Japanese people and culture being receptive of his (and others') work in this regard that really deposited it in the GM of the Japanese populace.


I would not be at all surprised, though to find that in Europe, Austria or Germany there are significant aural elements within the GM due to its famous musical geniuses. The GM may have a greater musical component there. Many European composers seem to have accessed the GM while creating their masterpieces. Music is, after all, a universal language too, that speaks to the heart and spirit.


shima: James recommends us to go without comparison for a period of time while we are immersing our consciousness in these materials. I could understand what he is saying, but all the same I feel confused. Because our minds have been taught at schools that comparison is an essential tool for understanding things.


Dr: It also depends what we mean by comparison. Some may see what I have written in my papers as making a comparison between WM paintings and other art forms. But this is not the kind of comparison James is talking about. Comparing A with B in order to come to understand what A is saying is fair enough as long as it is rewarding. It is comparisons leading to no real artistic insight, or the making of or coming to, some form of judgment that is fraught with danger. To illustrate this let's look at an example.





I have always loved Gauguin's work perhaps none more so than his "Where do we come from? Who are we? Where are we going?" I have had the pleasure of standing in front of this painting. It would have been so easy for me to make a comparison between this and WingMakers Chamber 6 painting, but I didn't even mention it in my Chamber 6 paper. Why? Because such a comparison doesn't reveal to us anything at all about the WingMakers cosmology or throw any light on the meaning or content within the Chamber 6 painting. It would merely be an intellectual or academic exercise, merely titillating the interest in a mediocre way.


Compositionally, by comparison, it can be said there are many similarities: An outside scene; The slightly off-centered central female figure standing central within a mythology; a central golden figure arching first left then right as it reaches up, perhaps heavenward; individual elements or figures surrounding the central figure detail the mythology. Gauguin appears to be painting the mythology of the Tahitian cycle of life complete with symbolism from birth on the right to death on the left with the ever present religion in the background; James is painting a mythology circling from right to left of the Wingmakers as a vision of life from a higher perspective, complete with symbolism surrounding the central figure on a backdrop of spiritual philosophy. But where does this comparison get us? These parallels, and there are other mythic paintings of a similar vein, of course, don't validate either painting or reveal any hidden details or content of either.


Each painting ever painted stands or falls on its own merits and these are seldom revealed in mere comparisons. What is critical to know about the WingMakers art is what the paintings are saying; to crack the codes, so to speak. Unfortunately, as magnificent as Gauguin's work is it cannot help us there, because if it can be said Gauguin is painting the Tahitian mythology, it is a completely different mythology about the cycle of earthly life and the burning questions that come up in its title. It was a product of its time; and the WM painting is a product of our times ? and most importantly -- from another currently unknown culture. The cultures and respective messages are too different to equate in meaning, and the simple act of making comparisons can overlook this because it is basically only about listing similarities or differences.


You will also find that today art is assessed as to its value pretty much in terms of how it relates to other art out there today i.e. as a comparison. Given our knowledge and understanding of the development and history of art this is inevitable and understandable.


Since the Renaissance ? at least -- artists have been aware of the latest developments in both art and science and, with a few exceptions, their work has invariably commented to a lesser or greater degree, consciously or otherwise, on the current art or science of the time (Naive art being one exception). This is because things progress in stages; or to paraphrase Newton "We are great only because we stand on the shoulders of those who went before us." This is why in academia comparisons are made with things that have gone before ? and especially with what is contemporary. It enables us to see to some degree where the new artist has come from and where s/he is going and to contextualize the work in the social milieu or culture; his/her work has a context, namely the society and culture s/he lives in. The work is then accepted or rejected upon its own merits.


In the WM's case James's art is not related to our culture but a far distant and or future culture and time. Hence the benefits of comparison break down. There is no existing cultural context in which to insert it. There is no compass with which to perform the comparison until the content and message is discovered or revealed.


One problem with comparing when it comes to art is that people tend to judge a piece by comparing it to some other movement in art, but unless the movements relate this is a fruitless exercise, as we saw above; and unless the intent of the painter and his/her message is known it is virtually impossible to judge a painting fairly or accurately.   


Then there is technique. Some people think the technique displayed in James' paintings is vastly inferior to other masters' works. This is IMO a callously bold statement given we do not even know the medium of James's original paintings. All we have are "miniature" computer renditions. This makes it impossible to really judge on technique, the whole area of which is best just left until we have more knowledge about the actual technique/s involved. The vibrancy of his color palette, however, hasn't IMO been seen since Matisse or Patrick Heron. But don't go comparing these paintings; the artists' mediums, goals and intents are totally different. I say it merely because it suggests a rare degree of capability with respect to the technique of rendering hue. Mark has mentioned that there appear to be about 60 different shades of blue in Chamber 17 painting. Remember we have merely poor online reproductions. We have no access to the originals.


This is an e-letter I wrote to an artist who wrote me unable to appreciate the artistic content of the WM paintings:



    "When judgment is made without knowing the artist's intention it is a speculation at best and totally irrelevant and incorrect at worst. Such a judgment will be based upon preconceived ideas of what are important criteria in paintings not on how well the painting achieves its objective and/or how creative or original that objective is, or how well the artist has achieved his/her objectives. The artist may be judged for example on technique visually depicting mastery, because that can be easily recognized and understood, but if visually evocative technique is next too irrelevant because other factors are primary considerations (e.g. the meaning and message) then judgment will be completely awry. We just have to know what the artist is attempting to do in order to judge his/her works, because a major merit is in how well the artist achieves his/her objective and what that objective is together with the message the painting conveys irrespective of how easy it is to understand it or even create. Any other judgment is preconceived irrelevant opinion supplanted from other works bearing possibly no relation to the one under consideration, or mere hubris, or even self-important ego. It would be like judging Beethoven from a baseline of The Beatles music or vice versa.


It is true that there are universals open to judgment like notes and composition, playing and/or singing in all music forms; and color, form or line in painting, but each art form needs to be judged on its own merits to a very large degree.
      Imagine the world knew nothing of Mondrian or any of his paintings. Up until now they have not existed. Now someone finds one, just one. How is it to be judged and assessed? It couldn't possibly be assessed in the way we assess Mondrian's paintings today. It would just be a simple canvas that any high school student could paint and judged as near worthless. What makes Mondrianfs paintings so precious is what he was doing with his art and paintings, and the message (in this case neo plastic) conveyed within them and the subtle energies at work that were so expertly controlled and conveyed. Not knowing anything of Mondrian or what he was doing in his painting would make the message unknowable and the painting virtually worthless. It is true that someone might somehow uncover the message, but what are the odds of that if there is no artist to talk to and explain them and no written record or information from or about him or the work?
     This is precisely why so many want James to say something about the paintings. Art's value is in its meaning or statement and usually includes the artistry with which that is expressed. When the meaning or statement is unknown the art is generally without value (both socially and in academia) apart from its mundane pictorial technique and attraction. But the value of James's paintings lies elsewhere.



Actually James has said a lot about his "paintings", it is just that people are not finding it because it is subtly hidden, and this is his intent. I suspect one reason is because the unveiling of the meanings and his message through imagery triggers transformation, and he does not want to deprive any of that magnificent opportunity. This after all seems one purpose of his work. Any judgment about James' "paintings" without knowing what he is saying ? what the message and intent is, with respect to each one ? is essentially facile or amateurish, and any artist worth their salt should know this.
     Take any artist with whom photo realistic technique is not important and it is the same. Pollock, De Kooning, Picasso, Stella, Gauguin, Van Gogh: If you don't know the philosophy or message and intention of the artist behind the painting then the art is meaningless when such philosophy is all important. If an art expert, let alone some run-of-the-mill artist, found a small Pollock in some old attic and no one knew anything of Pollock or his art, and he had never been anybody, to all intents and purposes never existed, that art expert would be most unlikely to judge the painting a work of art. Upon closer examination ? if he bothered -- he would gain some realization that this was unlike anything else and there was a unique technique here that had not been seen before and possibly find it interesting; but comparing it with "works of art" it would almost certainly be judged mediocre because the message and context of its great import is non-existent and these are the base upon which stand other distinguishing qualities.


     Some may take issue with me here saying they'd just sense something about it, because when you stand next to a Pollock or any other great painting you can just sense its importance and magnificence. I put it to you and them that this is because the painting has been imbued with consciousness from the viewing and respecting public and the artist himself. These subtle energies are absorbed over time and become, in a sense, part of the paintings aura. We all know this is not present in book illustrations, let alone online versions. In the example I gave there would be no special subtle consciousness energies absorbed and it would transmit nothing like that to the finder in the attic.


     This does not mean that one could not find an unrecognized painting in the attic or studio that had master qualities and that they couldn't be felt. We know from the first ever totally abstract painting (by Kandinsky) that that can and did happen when he returned from a walk to discover the brilliant work just lying there in his studio previously unrecognized. But that is quite different as we can clearly realize. He understood its message and eloquently communicated that to us -- and that was all important.


     Certain paintings can, of course, be seen to be masterly irrespective of anything known or unknown about the artist or his/her philosophy. This is when certain aesthetic properties are present to an expert degree. They could be aesthetically pleasing or dynamic in design, counterpoint, composition, scale, recognizable technique or many other qualities. This is when the artist wants to produce something visually stunning ? where just the visual of the painting says it all -- rather than being message oriented.


     Again take a Paul Klee work. The world knows nothing of him. He is nobody, essentially never existed, and there are no known works by him. Now you come across three of his works in an attic. What would you or any artist make of those works? They would probably just be regarded as kind of cute, certainly not a work of art. What makes Klee's art brilliant is his ideas, philosophy and creativity expressed in his art at the point of time that he was active, and that on one level he, a grown man, could produce enchanting child-like innocent and poetic imagery by overcoming adult sophistication. Subtract the context and you subtract the value of content.


     IMO James's art will not be accepted mainstream until it is clearly understood and shown to represent what he intends it to represent ? until its context and content is fully understood and proven effective. In short, until we all know precisely what the paintings mean and we are able to judge how expertly or otherwise he expressed what he wished to express, and how they can and do trigger transformation. James is, at least as I see it, not trying to create something visually stunning per se, though I do, personally, find the pictures so. IMO it is the message, the philosophy, and meaning of content that is all important -- and that this content has the functional capability to transform human consciousness. He seems also to be introducing us to a completely integrated pictorial post modern mythological art form that straddles symbolism, psychology, mythology, a new language for future communication between the human personality and its psyche, the genetic mind, and eventually Source itself.


     What of the artist's persona? Social interaction by the artist greatly assists in the comprehension of his/her work. James is unique in shying away from this. Our society, because it is so largely ego-based, demands the person, and artist, stand up and present their case. This is necessary for developing courage and character and in painting greatly assists understanding, but it can also, when practiced consistently, lead to ego-centeredness. IMO James refusal to stand up is one reason why he is not accepted and unless he comes forward is unlikely to be accepted in his lifetime.


     I, however, respect James decision to remain anonymous. IMO the world could do with an artist like this to finally remove the social ego from the art and artist scene so that his art can stand as an expression of the sacred reality -- that most have no inkling exists -- unencumbered by the dross of ego (I believe that's a phrase of James'). There are too many artists IMO parading and performing on the stage vying for everyonefs attention. Meanwhile a post-modern mythological art lays waiting for all and any who care to unveil its sacred message, and I would not be surprised if the profane among artists are among the last to realize this message.


     But not all artists are profane, of course, and some so-called or "recognized" experts will eventually come to realize just what James has achieved. I consider what I am doing by writing the papers on the Chamber "paintings" to be one part of the process of bringing that understanding to all who can see and comprehend."





In answer to this email the artist just replied that being a huge fan of Pollock and De Kooning the WM paintings come nowhere close to them. This underscored to me how artists sometimes think merely in terms of gross comparison. I replied that they are just not to be compared. They are completely different. The artist seemed unaware that his appreciation of Pollock and De Kooning is predicated upon his understanding their cultural context and message conveyed, including how that message was conveyed. Lacking such awareness how could he set it aside in his judgment of a work from an unknown culture message and even medium? This is one danger of comparison: it assumes incorrectly how to judge a work that bears no relation to another.


I wonder sometimes how many artists out there are content to just float forever safely along on the fruitless raft of comparison with the familiar, never diving into and immersing themselves in the greater sea of real knowledge and understanding surrounding them on every side by coming to appreciate the true nature of unfamiliar works.


shima: As for me, my mind seems to think of WMM as a kind of ology or learning, although I already have been studying the WMM more than seven years. In short, my mind wants a comparison continually. I don't know myself if I have passed the period (to go without comparison), but do you think there is any indication that shows the period has passed?


Dr: I concur fully with your first sentence. It being a new "ology", as you put it, or subject of learning, I consider myself in a new term at university to study it. I harbor no preconceived ideas or assumptions and devote myself to this subject alone. At university do we compare math with history to better understand math? Compare economics with English to better understand English? If you knew a little Russian, would you compare it to French when learning French? It might help at times, but nowhere near as much as studying French alone intensively. Immersion courses are always exclusive and this is one reason for their quick and notable success. Do we compare a Constable with a Mondrian? Or do we accept them as different and judge them according to their own merits, context and content? In the same way I would advise to forget the other subjects when studying WMM; this is something new and different.

Productive comparison can be helpful; comparing the mask in Chamber painting 6 to others around the world can help generally imply its contextual meaning in the painting. It is more a matter of what comparisons are productive and which are not. Perhaps the forgoing has helped clarify this for you. If not:

When you no longer need comparison the period has passed, just as the musician and artist can break the rules once they know them so well that they no longer need to refresh their mind of them, know why the rules exist, how they work, and what the consequences of breaking them are.


shima: Do you have any supplemental message for readers?


Dr: I think my answers this time are probably too long for the supplement already. So I'll finish here by adding the definition I have given to visionary semiotics mentioned earlier, because you may be hearing more of this term in the future:


The subject of Visionary Semiotics covers the impactful images and signs witnessed in visions and dreams that signify a future.
A visionary semiotic (VS) is any such image or sign, or collection of images or signs in any dream or vision.



This is a new branch of semiotics that I have started researching into with my seminal paper on the subject this year in Osaka University of Arts Junior College journal. It is planned to constitute part of a book that I am currently working on.

Thank you for your interest and enquiring minds.


shima: Thank you for commenting.
End of Session