30-07-2017, 09:14 PM
The VMs has often been characterized as intriguing, confusing, puzzling, and so on - particularly by those who expect it to make sense in the same way that other texts of the alchemical-herbal/hausbuch of standard comparison are expected to make sense. Of course, there is the problem with the language, which doesn't make sense, but then, it is the expectation that a bit of effort will solve that problem. Even if the text is encrypted, it is expected that the result will make sense. But then, that is yet to happen.
We expect the VMs to be constructed as a normal text, putting forth information in generally plain and consistent manner, as best one might expect from a person of that era. And yet the VMs is confusing, puzzling, equivocal and ambiguous. What is the problem? Perhaps the problem is in the basic assumption that the VMs was constructed as a method to communicate according to a standard expository model where the purpose is to make a series of statements and discussions. Perhaps the VMs is constructed in another manner, one in which the VMs poses a number of perplexing questions, which, of course, are predominantly visual initially.
Where did this book come from? Where is the land of the inverted violets? The matters, questions, difficulties and problems of interpretation go on and on. Why is the VMs so puzzling? Because it is a puzzle; because it is *constructed* as a puzzle? What this does is to free the content of the text from the limits of factual constraints. It now allows the content of the text to be influenced by elements of obfuscation, deception, illusion and disguise. Ambiguity and equivocation are allowed. What is not allowed is contradiction - well, validated contradiction, that is. Ambiguous contradiction is fine, that's just obfuscation. Behind this, however, there must be a valid truth. Blue stripes *cannot* be red or green. They can only be blue.
If the VMs is a puzzle, where is the evidence? We have seen some of it already. In addition, the bisection of Oresme's cosmos, the optical illusion that disguises the orientation of the striped patterned tubs on White Aries, the papelonny pun, the subtle, yet plain as day, introduction of the concept of bisection and pairing in astronomy, astrology, tub patterns, heraldry, and historical tradition . These are all related to the illustrations. And on the linguistic side there is the surprising set of interpretations and interrelationships within the seventeen symbol sequence. None of these constructions is unintentional. These are examples of puzzles contained within the facade of the VMs. This is valid, factual, traditional and historical information hidden on the pages of the VMs. Do we still expect the facade of the VMs to be valid, honest and straight-forward? Perhaps that is the problem?
We expect the VMs to be constructed as a normal text, putting forth information in generally plain and consistent manner, as best one might expect from a person of that era. And yet the VMs is confusing, puzzling, equivocal and ambiguous. What is the problem? Perhaps the problem is in the basic assumption that the VMs was constructed as a method to communicate according to a standard expository model where the purpose is to make a series of statements and discussions. Perhaps the VMs is constructed in another manner, one in which the VMs poses a number of perplexing questions, which, of course, are predominantly visual initially.
Where did this book come from? Where is the land of the inverted violets? The matters, questions, difficulties and problems of interpretation go on and on. Why is the VMs so puzzling? Because it is a puzzle; because it is *constructed* as a puzzle? What this does is to free the content of the text from the limits of factual constraints. It now allows the content of the text to be influenced by elements of obfuscation, deception, illusion and disguise. Ambiguity and equivocation are allowed. What is not allowed is contradiction - well, validated contradiction, that is. Ambiguous contradiction is fine, that's just obfuscation. Behind this, however, there must be a valid truth. Blue stripes *cannot* be red or green. They can only be blue.
If the VMs is a puzzle, where is the evidence? We have seen some of it already. In addition, the bisection of Oresme's cosmos, the optical illusion that disguises the orientation of the striped patterned tubs on White Aries, the papelonny pun, the subtle, yet plain as day, introduction of the concept of bisection and pairing in astronomy, astrology, tub patterns, heraldry, and historical tradition . These are all related to the illustrations. And on the linguistic side there is the surprising set of interpretations and interrelationships within the seventeen symbol sequence. None of these constructions is unintentional. These are examples of puzzles contained within the facade of the VMs. This is valid, factual, traditional and historical information hidden on the pages of the VMs. Do we still expect the facade of the VMs to be valid, honest and straight-forward? Perhaps that is the problem?