This essay proceeds in three stages, following the programme of workshop on \u2018Museum Charges: Curating Spiritual Presences\u2019. In the first stage, a general synopsis of the exhibition was provided, a selection of ten objects, samples of analysis, and a draft plan of exhibition were the results of two early sessions, when I did not have the chance to present. The latest session, on which I took the opportunity\u2014particularly with the support of Valentina Gamberi\u2014to develop my plan based on other participants\u2019 creative and inspiring comments. They shared with me references and ideas based on which I could elaborate my theoretical approach as well as my curatorial project. Consequently, I interpreted the relationship between inscription and objects in both the mind-body concept and the Sufi\u2019s interpretation. Moreover, the exhibition plan evolved into a honeycomb-like structure based on Ipek Mihrac Sur.<\/p>\n
Theoretical Framework<\/b><\/p>\n
The framework of this study is built on two theories: Gill Deleuze\u2019s theory of difference and Baruch Spinoza\u2019s concept of the Body-Mind. For analyzing the differentiation of ten selected objects, the study focuses on the representation of both repetition (contraction, passive synthesis, and active synthesis) (Deleuze 1995, 71) and difference (conceptual identity, predicate opposition, judgmental analogy, and perceptual resemblance). Moreover, investigating the mystical aspects of objects, it demonstrates how Spinoza\u2019s tripartite ontological systems, namely substance, attributes, and modes, play a role in creating various spiritual expressions.<\/p>\n
Gill Deleuze\u2014a French Post-World War II thinker of the late 1960s\u2014reintroduces the difference as a concept that cannot be thought in itself, so long as it is subject to the requirements of four iron collars representation: \u2018identity in the concept, opposition in the predicate, analogy in judgement, and resemblance in perception\u2019 (Deleuze 1995, 262). From the ontological view, he exemplified difference as the univocity of Being in all of individuating differences or intrinsic modalities. He emphasized that \u2018Being is the same for all these modalities, but these modalities are not the same\u2019. In fact, he believes that univocal Being \u2018is immediately present in everything, without mediation or intermediary, even though reside unequally in this equal being\u2019 (Deleuze 1995, 36\u201337).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Baruch Spinoza (b. 1632) also described God as a being absolutely infinite, free, and eternal as he believes that \u2018God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things\u2019, he added that \u2018God is not only the effecting cause of the existence, but also of their essence (Spinoza 1910\/1941, 18\u201321). Three definitions of Spinoza are particularly implemented in my proposed exhibition: substance, attribute, and mode. He defines substance as that which is conceived through itself, explaining attribute as the essence of substance, and considering mode as a modification (affection) of a substance. He added that \u2018two or three distinct things are distinguished one from the other either by the difference of the attributes of the substances or by the difference of their modifications\u2019 (Spinoza 1910\/1941, 1\u20133).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Considering Spinoza a pantheist philosopher\u2014who believes in the singular nature of Reality\u2014some scholars draw a connection between Spinoza and Sufism, in particular Ibn \u2018Arabi, since they cannot see God and the world as distinct from each other. While Spinoza attempted to express his ideas in discursive rationalistic arguments, Sufis and particularly Ibn \u2018Arabi \u2018often employ the terminology of theology to describe the nature and attributes of God\u2019. Furthermore, Ibn \u2018Arabi called this single Reality \u2018Existance\u2019 (wahdat al-wuj\u016bd<\/i>), and it is \u2018Substance\u2019 in Spinoza\u2019s words. Spinoza proposes the divine attributes to define God, constituting God\u2019s essence. Likewise, Ibn \u2018Arabi puts divine names (similar to divine attributes) forward to state how the essence of God can be manifested through those names (Kamal 2017, 409\u2013410, 417).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Analyzed the first principle of difference representation, it is recognized that testimonial (figs. 2, 3, 5, 8, 10), divine names (figs. 1, 7, 9), and blessing words (figs. 4, 6) are the conceptual identities of these objects. In this study, since the second principle, namely predicate opposition, is considered mainly in relationship with conceptual identities and actually in contrast to those concepts, it can be defined as the atheism (fig. 5), mundanely (figs. 4, 6, 9), and punishment inscriptions (fig. 9).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Fig. 1<\/strong> Nishapur Ceramics, circa the 9th-10th C., The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 38.40.118, 38.40.142<\/p><\/div>\n Judging the analogy between the aforementioned three inscription categories, it is implied that testimonial inscriptions were placed in the prominent part of objects, for instance, middle, top, etc., as well as in square\/rectangular shapes, each of which is differently composed and stylized in the artworks. On the contrary, the divine names were designed in diverse shapes, usually following the shapes or patterns of the artefacts. Moreover, the blessing inscriptions were decoratively and rhythmically scrolled around the objects.<\/p>\n Ultimately, the other principle of difference representation, resemblance of perception depends on the similarity of inscriptions both in forms and compositions to the Islamic symbols, for instance, the composition of trinity words \u2018All\u0101h, Muhammad, \u2018Al\u012b\u2019<\/i> in the form of cypress refers to the Sufi\u2019s concept of perfect human (fig. 8). The cypress tree was frequently used as a metaphor for God\u2019s presence in the medieval poetry of Hafiz (1325\u20131395), a Persian poet. For instance, in the opening of the poem 223, \u1e24\u0101fi\u1e93 referred to the Sufi who remembered \u2018the eternal covenant that was made between God and man\u2019, utilizing the metaphor of \u2018strutting Cypress\u2019 to illustrate God: \u2018Thy from shall never leave the tablet of my heart and soul; that strutting cypress tree shall never leave my memory\u2019 (Nasr 1972, 41).<\/p>\n Fig. 2<\/strong> A Samanid Dinar – Nuh II ibn Asad; 892 AD, Stephen Album, 2011, C1442<\/p><\/div>\n Focusing on the testimonial inscriptions, the Sama<\/i>nid Dinar<\/em> (fig. 2) displays one of the earliest instances of such inscriptions, carrying a square composition of testimonial words \u2018All\u0101h Muhammad Ras\u016bl All\u0101h\u2019<\/i> in the middle. Furthermore, on the back of this coin, other testimonial words were cast in the form of a square, representing \u2018l\u0101 il\u0101ha illa all\u0101h wa\u1e25dahu, l\u0101 shar\u012bka lahu<\/i>\u2019. The Rectangular form of these kinds of inscriptions shows that there might not have been an alternative extension for the core Islamic belief. This inconsistency between form and content seems to have continued in the following centuries. About two centuries later, a testimonial inscription appeared in a horizontal rectangular form on top of a Seljuk<\/i> tombstone with the name All\u0101h<\/i> placed in the middle of both the rectangular frame and the middle top of the tombstone (fig. 3).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Fig. 3<\/strong> A Seljuk Tombstone, Yazd, Iran, Dated 516\/ 1122 AD, From this source<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n Two centuries later, the <\/span><\/span>Mihr\u0101b<\/i><\/span><\/span> represents an opposition in both the form and contents of the testimonial inscriptions. The content of the testimonial inscription was broadened to include three other pillars of Islam, namely prayer, giving alms, pilgrimage, and fasting, in addition to believing in God and Muhammad. Additionally, the form of the inscriptions follows the pointed arch of the <\/span><\/span>Mihr\u0101b<\/i><\/span><\/span>. It is worth mentioning that rectangular inscription was devoted to the Qur\u2019\u0101nic verse describing the values of belief\u2019s level ranging from atheism to faith <\/span><\/span>(fig. 5)<\/span><\/span>. From the 14<\/span><\/span>th<\/span><\/span><\/sup> century onwards, it can be seen that these two trends of compositions have been synthetically implemented in the ways that sometimes rectangular compositions were dominated <\/span><\/span>(fig. 10) and some other times, the form of frames were remarked (fig. 8). Even though, two trends have frequently been presented simultaneously in the same artwork. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Fig. 4<\/strong> A Saljuk pen box. 13th century (1210-11), National Museum of Asian Art, F1936.7<\/p><\/div>\n In the realm of divine name inscriptions, figure 1 is considered among the earliest bases on which this kind of inscription was written. As it is obvious in the picture, the words \u2018al-mulk lill\u0101h<\/i>\u2019 (sovereignty belongs to God) refer to the Qur\u2019\u0101nic name of God \u2018M\u0101lik al- Mulk<\/i>\u2019 (the Owner of the Kingdom) (Qur\u0101n, 3, 26; Sam\u2019ani 2011, 444). Likewise, the name of \u2018All\u0101h\u2019<\/i> in the other Samanid<\/i> ceramic (fig. 1, right), which was elaborately designed and floriated, was repeated twice around the rim of the bowl. These two Samanid<\/i> bowls display how these divine name inscriptions are more flexible both in decoration and composition, in contrast to testimonial inscriptions. It will be even more tangible if Figures 7 and 9 are included, since in the prayer rugs, divine names were substituted with patterns on the medallion design-corners. Moreover, the inscribed words on the signet ring (fig. 9) are \u2018H\u016bwa al-N\u0101ser<\/i>\u2019, which means \u2018he is champion (supporter) originating from the Qur\u2019\u0101nic divine name al-Fatt\u0101\u1e25 <\/i>(the All-Opening). A notable feature of this inscription is the name N\u0101ser,<\/i> which was the name of the Qajar<\/i> king, the owner of this signet ring. It also draws a connection between the divine name and blessing inscriptions since both of them were formed with regard to the owners of objects. The Seljuk<\/i> pen box (fig. 4) is one of the first examples of these relationships, as it consists of two inscriptions, one in honor of Majdul-Mulk al-Muzaffar<\/i> (d. 1221), and another was devoted to the owner for receiving glory, good fortune, power, good health, etc. The Turban<\/i> helmet (fig. 6) shows a similar memorial inscription on the glory of Abu al-Mu’azzam,<\/i> the greatest Khaqan (Sultan), as mentioned in the inscription. Back to the signet ring, there is another inscription, which is a poem on the instability of the kingdom and the crown. This inscription, in contrast to the divine name \u2018H\u016bwa al-N\u0101ser<\/i>\u2019, which placed the king on God\u2019s throne, exposes a predicate opposition as Deleuze mentioned in the representation of difference.<\/p>\n Fig. 5<\/strong> An Ilkhanid Mihr\u0101b (prayer niche), 1354\u201355 (A.H. 755), Isfahan, Iran, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 39.20<\/p><\/div>\n To display the representation of differences between the collected objects on the diagram, two groups of inscriptions, namely Testimonial and Divine Names\/Blessing, are extracted, and then it is multiplied by the number of times it is repeated. Diagram 1 demonstrates the frequency of the presence of the testimonial and the divine names\/blessing inscriptions in the collected objects.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n From then on, this study investigates what expressions (based on Baruch Spinoza\u2019s concept of mode) each diverse epigraphic object might have given to the Iranians in the spiritual sphere of the time. First of all, it is noteworthy to know that in view of Spinoza’s mind-body parallelism, every mode of Thought and its relations is connected with a mode in Extension and its relations, and vice versa. It can be said that attributes come in pairs; for instance, each object-like attribute is coupled with a thought-like attribute (Shein, 2023). The contents of inscriptions are assumed to be the attribute of Thought, and the compositions of inscriptions and their relationships with the objects are supposed to be the attribute of Extension.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n As a consequence, the inscriptions of divine names on objects not only allow us to conceive the expression of God\u2019s essence but also enable us to recognize the relationship of contents and forms in the representation of the spiritual meaning. Take the Nishapur<\/i> ceramic for example (fig. 1, left), the content of inscription (highlighted the Kingdom of God) <\/i>in association with a bowl that might have been used for donation in religious rituals, can be interpreted as another expression of the mode of the King, generosity. The baseline of the inscription was formed based on the circular bottom of the bowl, and it covers one-fourth of its edge. In contrast to the free baseline of benedictory\/divine names inscriptions, the testimonial inscription conveys the negative affirmation of God like \u2018La ilaha illa All\u0101h<\/i>\u2019 (there is no god but All\u0101h<\/i>) on the Samanid<\/i> coins (fig. 2), was composed in more rigid forms, e.g., a squared form of inscription in the Qajar<\/i> amulet (fig. 10) or a rectangular baseline of inscription on Ilkhanid<\/i> Mihr\u0101b<\/i> and a Seljuk<\/i> tombstone (figs. 3, 5).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Fig. 6<\/strong>\u00a0Turban Helmet, the 15th C, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 04.3.211<\/p><\/div>\n As Deleuze pointed out, negative theology \u2018combines the negative method with the affirmative, and claims to go beyond both\u2019. He explained that \u2018negative theology can therefore only be defined by its dynamics: one goes beyond affirmations in negations, and beyond both affirmation and negations in a shadowy eminence\u2019 (Deleuze 1992, 54). In Sufism, these two directions (negativity and positivity) are reflected in the implication of taw\u1e25\u012bd<\/i> (the Unity), particularly when a person must give a testimony to convert to Islam. The assertion of God\u2019s incomparability and God\u2019s similarity are called tanz\u012bh<\/i>and tashb\u012bh<\/i> in Sufi tradition (Sam\u2019ani 2019). Benedictory inscriptions, which were more compatibly adopted to the objects, are the example of Spinoza\u2019s univocal being; while the square and formal use of scripts on the socio-political objects might originate from a negative theological viewpoint.<\/p>\n Fig. 7<\/strong> A Safavid Niche Rug, Iran, mid-16th C, From this source<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n Regarding figures 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, more personal objects can be tracked. These objects, including a bowl, a pen box, a helmet, a prayer rug, and a signet ring,<\/span><\/span>carry various inscriptions directly or indirectly related to divine names. What can be comprehended is the expression of generosity which the owner of the <\/span><\/span>Samanid<\/i><\/span><\/span> bowl (fig. 1) connoted through considering the world (bowl) as the kingdom of God. The guests might, thus, feel free to eat or drink from the bowl. The pen box (fig. 4) is indirectly referred to god, as the divine names <\/span><\/span>al-Kab\u012br <\/i><\/span><\/span>(the great) and <\/span><\/span>al-Al\u012bm<\/i><\/span><\/span> (the knower) are attributed to the owner. This content, in addition to the inscriptions written on the edges of the objects, reminds us of another divine name, <\/span><\/span>al-\u1e92\u0101hir <\/i><\/span><\/span>and <\/span><\/span>al-B\u0101\u1e6din <\/i><\/span><\/span>(the Outward and Inward), since the object will be recognizable through the forms and the contents of the inscriptions, even if the object is eliminated. Accordingly, the expression of internal and external respect is therefore given to the knowledge of both the owner and God. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Figure 6 is a <\/span><\/span>Turban<\/i><\/span><\/span> helmet decorated with a blessing inscription, particularly for bringing good fortune to the owner (<\/span><\/span>Sultan Ya’qub of the Aq Quyunlu<\/i><\/span><\/span>, White Sheep Turkoman, ruled from 1470 to 1490). The divine name ‚<\/span><\/span>al-‚Aziz<\/i><\/span><\/span>‚ (the Exalted) is attributed to the owner, which, in association with the form of inscriptions written around the edge as well as on the pointed top of the helmet, brings to mind the time of battle in which the owner expresses the divine privilege granted by the Lord. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Fig. 8<\/strong> A Safavid Cut-Steel Processional Standard (‚Alam); Iran, Mid-17th C, From this source<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n Figure 7 is a Safavid<\/i> prayer rug consisting of 36 divine names in addition to the throne verse (\u0100yat al-Kurs\u012b)<\/i>, which illustrates the time of prayer when the Muslims stand side-by-side facing toward Mecca and reading the opening verses of the Qur’\u0101n. This rug can be considered an expression of what Muslims mention in their prayers.<\/p>\n Figure 9, similar to the figures 3 and 6, carries an inscription in which a non-Qur’\u0101nic divine name, N\u0101ser<\/i>, is loaded with double entendre: it simultaneously connotes as the king (Nasir al-din Shah<\/i>) and God. As N\u0101ser<\/i> means the all opening, the helper is equivalent to a Qur’\u0101nic divine name, al-Fatt\u0101\u1e25<\/i>, used frequently in the epigraphic objects (see figs. 8, 10). This content corresponds to the function of the signet ring, particularly for sealing contracts or decrees. It can be interpreted as an expression for the requirement of God’s help\/support in opening doors, particularly for the management of official affairs.<\/p>\n The other groups of objects are those related to socio-political production more than personal ones. The Samanid<\/i> coin (fig. 2), the Seljuk<\/i> tombstone (fig. 3), the Ilkhanid<\/i> Mihr\u0101b<\/i> (fig. 5), the Safavid<\/i> ‚Alam<\/i> (fig. 8), and the Qajar<\/i> amulet (fig. 10) were produced for commercial, cultural, and political purposes of the governments. For instance, the Samanid<\/i> coin carried a testimonial inscription that implied the Islamic tradition in business, where false swearing in selling is disapproved. In fact, there is a belief in Islamic commercial tradition that ‚false swearing will cause the loss of the blessing‘ (Haji Hasan 2007, 27).<\/p>\nTopology of Differences between Epigraphic Objects\u00a0<\/span><\/b><\/h3>\n
![\"Nishapur](\"https:\/\/boasblogs.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Figure-01-920x492.png\")
![\"A](\"https:\/\/boasblogs.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Figure-02-920x492.png\")
![\"A](\"https:\/\/boasblogs.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Figure-03-920x492.png\")
![\"A](\"https:\/\/boasblogs.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Figure-04-920x492.png\")
![\"An](\"https:\/\/boasblogs.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Figure-05-920x492.png\")
Expressions of Iranian Epigraphic Objects Based on Spinoza\u2019s Mind-Body Concept<\/b><\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/boasblogs.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Diagram-01-F-920x538.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"Turban](\"https:\/\/boasblogs.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Figure-06-920x492.png\")
![\"A](\"https:\/\/boasblogs.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Figure-07-920x492.png\")
![\"A](\"https:\/\/boasblogs.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Figure-08-920x492.png\")
![\"A](\"https:\/\/boasblogs.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Figure-9-920x492.png\")
![\"A](\"https:\/\/boasblogs.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Figure-10-920x492.png\")
![\"Two](\"https:\/\/boasblogs.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Figure-11-920x492.png\")
![\"The](\"https:\/\/boasblogs.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Figure-12.png\")