The Voynich Ninja

Searcher, you wrote:

For example, the image of the lower figure (woman) with incomprehensible objects is too ambiguous to be able to interpret these objects with confidence.

So you contest that it's a woman with cane and rosary belonging to a sequence as it was discussed here?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(12-02-2025, 01:03 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Searcher, you wrote:

For example, the image of the lower figure (woman) with incomprehensible objects is too ambiguous to be able to interpret these objects with confidence.

So you contest that it's a woman with cane and rosary belonging to a sequence..?

Of course I don't mind. This is an interesting idea and comparison. But taking into account the direction where the humans face, the lower figure should mean summer, after spring to the right. From this point of view, summer and old age don't look compatible. Assuming that the figure with a flower depicts summer and the lower figure is autumn, we also have a small problem: 1) if this is a cycle of seasons, with a reflection of the direction of their order with a designation of the end of the cycle, then it is necessary to understand why winter is depicted as a man with a vessel, and spring - as a man with a ring; 2) it would also be strange why the cycle begins with summer and ends with spring.
Here the question arises: Should we ignore such indication as direction, or change our minds about certain interpretations? Or connect them somehow?!

The current paradigm for VM imagery research is this: assume that everything is intentional and meaningful, and that this meaning can be recovered through speculation.

This approach, to which I also contributed, is not likely to ever lead to any broadly shared insights or consensus.

(12-02-2025, 03:00 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The current paradigm for VM imagery research is this: assume that everything is intentional and meaningful, and that this meaning can be recovered through speculation.

This approach, to which I also contributed, is not likely to ever lead to any broadly shared insights or consensus.

And who said that consensus will lead anywhere? None of us knows what is truly meaningful in the MS and what is not, and where everyone's path will lead. I'm talking about image analysis, of course.

If meaning can be recovered through speculation, let's speculate about the VMs cosmos. If the two major parts of this cosmic representation are identified with their historically equivalent comparatives, the combination is at best a manufactured visual oxymoron. The uncommon cosmos crimped inside the lunar wheel. It's a joke. It is an indicator of intention and meaning of the VMs artist.

Likewise, White Aries has a built-in visual duality. And a disguised connection to a religious tradition. The meaning and intention were disguised and obfuscated to some extent but were also confirmed by various structural factors.

How do meaning and intention deal with disguise, duplicity and trickery?

(12-02-2025, 03:00 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The current paradigm for VM imagery research is this: assume that everything is intentional and meaningful, and that this meaning can be recovered through speculation.

This approach, to which I also contributed, is not likely to ever lead to any broadly shared insights or consensus.

Can we say that any approach wrong in a situation where we do not know much anything about the VMS? There is a lot of analysis and data, contradictory and not, but we do not know what they actually mean? IMO, what is left is speculation. The whole VMS is a speculation. It is difficult to anyone say what is meaningful in the MS and what is not, so all we can do is try to find meaning, fail and succeed. I agree that many details seem to be unintentional and without meaning, but that is just one view - I do not know much of anything about medieval symbolism. While pursuing to resolve a mystery, one does not build consensus, but insights which then may become a consensus.

(12-02-2025, 03:00 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The current paradigm for VM imagery research is this: assume that everything is intentional and meaningful, and that this meaning can be recovered through speculation.

This approach, to which I also contributed, is not likely to ever lead to any broadly shared insights or consensus.

Speculation, if considered carefully, could and should be used as a means of beginning new research, not as a means of ending it. New insights, speculation or not, may unlock avenues of thinking that do eventually lead to a breakthrough. Speculation on the meaning itself however will not lead to consensus. It would need to be a "I speculate this.. so maybe we can research that" situation. 

Speculating that swallowtail merlons may have some use in narrowing down author locations led to valuable research being done in that area, for example. If the speculation was simply "I think these are swallowtail merlons, therefore the author hated the pope" it wouldn't really lead to anything beyond discussion.

(13-02-2025, 02:28 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Speculating that swallowtail merlons may have some use in narrowing down author locations led to valuable research being done in that area, for example.

I wouldn't call that speculation. It was a research question: where do we find swallowtail merlons before 1450? It's a question that can be answered. That answer can then be used in speculation, of course. But the map of swallowtail merlons itself offers us something solid that speculation cannot offer. It's concrete, evidence based. That doesn't mean it's all set in stone. Someone might revisit the map and discover a mistake we made. Or someone could discover a group of outliers, reshaping everything. But the consensus of the map exists and can be interacted with. It can be used in support of one's research, added to, revised...

(13-02-2025, 03:36 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I wouldn't call that speculation. It was a research question: where do we find swallowtail merlons before 1450? It's a question that can be answered. That answer can then be used in speculation, of course. But the map of swallowtail merlons itself offers us something solid that speculation cannot offer. It's concrete, evidence based. That doesn't mean it's all set in stone. Someone might revisit the map and discover a mistake we made. Or someone could discover a group of outliers, reshaping everything. But the consensus of the map exists and can be interacted with. It can be used in support of one's research, added to, revised...

You're right, my example wasn't really a good example of speculation and for some reason I said that the research part was the speculation, which doesn't make sense. 

I suppose the speculation I meant in that scenario was that those depictions were indeed deliberate portrayals of swallowtail merlons (such as those seen in 15th century italy). However, as it seems so clear that its the case (I doubt its a wall with MMMMM written on top), that might not be a good example either.

Regardless, my point generally is that someone may speculate "I believe that this image depicts "X" ", leading them or others to research such speculation and perhaps find something. Most of that will at this point be re-hashed theories but its possible someone may come up with new, unique ideas. Those ideas may then lead to valid research questions, and then concrete research data like the data you mention.

Consensus can be built when independent insights start pointing in the same direction.