The Voynich Ninja

Who was the VMs's target audience, and what effect did its authors wish to have on them?

I think it is highly unlikely there was a target audience and the wish for an effect, as I have said before, I think the ms. is a bunch of private notes

(12-03-2021, 03:09 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't think that it is constructive to try to classify people based on their opinion. Everybody is free to change their opinion as they learn more, and not be forced to belong to some group. This is not politics, just an interest for a relatively unimportant historical document.

There should be no discussion like A-believers vs. B-believers.

René, I agree that the concept of "VMs skeptic", as I define it, is a tool of very limited use. I think I should clarify that I only use it to refer to the role somebody is playing in one specific discussion. I don't mean to imply that it's a static, global property of a person and their overall attitude toward the VMs. Compare the use of a term like "devil's advocate" — it's a role someone chooses to play in one debate, and says nothing about the person outside of that discussion. I think most of us here play the skeptic from time to time, when we encounter others' assumptions about the VMs that we don't hold, and are not comfortable getting on board with. That's a good thing. I am not a natural born skeptic; it's a role I've had to train myself to play. But questioning assumptions — one's own or those of others — is a valuable tool I'd encourage anyone to cultivate.

The point of my post is, I would caution anyone who chooses to play the skeptic in a VMs-related discussion, to be clear and consistent about exactly what assumption you are questioning or challenging. The same goes for anyone responding to someone playing the skeptic.

It's certainly not my intention to go off topic; feel free to spin this off into a different thread if you wish. To bring it back to the original post, Torsten Timm gives Bowern & Lindemann et al. 2020 a negative review. What comes through in his review is great frustration over the way B&L did not address, let alone rebut, the specific source of his skepticism. The nature and source of his skepticism is stated upfront at the very beginning of Timm & Schinner 2017. Torsten calls into question the assumption that forgery, by way of stochastically generated pseudo-language, is highly improbable. The goal of his and Prof Schinner's paper is to demonstrate that this possibility is still very much on the table. And to be fair, B&L's rebuttal to T&S is weak — they make a vague, un-sourced reference to somebody's attempt to produce large amounts of pseudo-language, which proved tedious and impractical. B&L give no examples of statistical tests which reliably distinguish stochastically generated pseudo-language from language.

What is striking to me, though, is the efforts B&L expend to lump together and collectively dismiss skeptics of the assumption that the VMs's text is meaningful, when this really wasn't necessary to make their case. All they really needed to do is acknowledge that this basis for skepticism exists and is justified, but that the possibility of a linguistic and/or meaningful text has not been ruled out, and is also still justified. Their treatment of this skepticism and its best known proponents makes me wonder if they're actually more threatened by this prospect than they let on.

Personally, I find the work of Donald Fisk and Wladimir Dulov, mapping the correspondences and associations between vords, a far stiffer challenge to the assumption of a meaningful VMs text than anything Torsten Timm or Gordon Rugg have published.

(12-03-2021, 04:22 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Who was the VMs's target audience, and what effect did its authors wish to have on them?

I think it is highly unlikely there was a target audience and the wish for an effect, as I have said before, I think the ms. is a bunch of private notes

In that case, the target audience was the author's future self, and the intended effect was remembering important pieces of information. 

This is my speculative answer to my own question also, except that I think it may have been written by a small group of people, for that same small group of people.

Who is the target audience? It is the cognoscenti. It is a select group of educated persons who know what the VMs creator knows. The author either writes from their own 'social media' environs, or they pretend to be someone else. The question is whether the intent was to inform or to do something else? And what else that might be?

Straight away there's the problem of authenticity? Authentic of what? Despite the potential appearance as a "normal" text from an exotic culture, that possibility is greatly minimized in the modern perspective. The VMs is not authentic, it is artificial. It is superficial in that it presents an exotic façade that disguises the presence of knowledge of real cultural, traditional, and 'social media' information, leading up to a date in the mid to late 1430s connected with the Duchy of Burgundy.

The target audience can fathom the depths of the VMs cosmos, can name the "generic" VMs mermaid, knows the tradition of the cardinal's red galero, and knows who is missing from the double rainbow throne. The target audience must include some that get caught in the papelonny pun, and who may even have seen the structure of the Agnus Dei image in the Apocalypse of S Jean  (BNF Fr. 13096).

(12-03-2021, 05:00 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The point of my post is, I would caution anyone who chooses to play the skeptic in a VMs-related discussion, to be clear and consistent about exactly what assumption you are questioning or challenging. The same goes for anyone responding to someone playing the skeptic.

@Renegadehealer, my post was not specifically aimed at you, and was meant in a general way.
Unfortunately, people presenting the MS as a fake of some sort (old / modern) have this tendency of arguing in this direction, namely that their ideas are not accepted out of some principle, rather than out of its specific merits.

This has long been fed by arguments that are subjective in nature like: "it wouldn't have made sense to do this or that".

The question is not whether the MS could or could not be meaningless. It could be either, no doubt. The question is whether it is meaningful or not.

Likewise, the question is not whether the MS could or could not be a modern fake, or whether Voynich would or would not have done this. The question is whether it is, and whether he did it.

If one looks at the discussions on these topics with this in mind, it is easy to see which discussions have no chance of leading anywhere...

If the papers by Bowern and Lindemann do not actually prove that there is linguistic content in the MS, then I don't see this as anything to be overly excited about. We simply don't know either way and it is good to see new arguments in either direction.

How am I supposed to judge something.
Someone writes something in 19xx. Today I have the internet and can easily retrieve data. It is remarkable that one can make a statement, even if one has to wait 60 days for an answer to a request. ( By mail )
Today we rather have the problem of receiving too much information, and how should I use it properly ?
What was considered one way yesterday is different today.
I have to respect the fact that someone changes his mind no matter what education he has.
Example, anonymous botanist Finland ( page Bax )
It used to be interesting, but I have not read any further contribution from this person. What he writes is of no importance today. On the contrary, did Bax try to lend weight to his assumptions in this way?
Even if you write something a thousand times, it still doesn't become right.
One can rewrite many things, in this sense and out of respect for the last riddles of humanity.
I will not tell you what is written in the Vm manuscript.
Have I solved it now ?


Translated with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (free version)

What I want to say is that I have to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff.

(11-03-2021, 08:00 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.proto57, I agree with you: I've seen valuable discussions started by VMs skeptics get prematurely derailed on semantics. When I get involved with these discussions, I try to define exactly what I mean by the terms I use, especially when the thread already has plenty of friction between users who are clearly using the same term to mean different things. I recommend this approach to anyone; it avoids a lot of misunderstanding.

My working definitions for a bunch of terms I use:

• VMs skeptic {noun}: somebody who questions an assumption that the VMs is what it appears to be
  
• fake {noun}: something that is not what it appears to be
  
• forgery {noun}: a fake crafted for the purpose of deceiving a target audience. Synonyms: hoax, ruse, counterfeit, sham
  
• (non-)linguistic {adjective}: (not) created for the direct storage and retrieval of human speech
  
• pseudo-language {adjective}: non-linguistic patterns created for deceiving a target audience into the mistaken perception of language
  
• code {noun}: patterns created for the storage and retrieval of information besides direct human speech. Synonym: symbolic language
  
• meaningful(/-less) {adjective}: (not) created for the storage and retrieval of information
  
• stochastically generated {adjective}: of a pattern, as mathematically complex as meaningful data from a complex system, but in fact generated by a simple loop of mechanistic processes
  
• random {adjective}: not part of a larger pattern, despite any appearances to the contrary
  
• incoherent {adjective}: linguistic but meaningless
  
• gibberish {noun}: pseudo-language made of linguistic syllables, with no meaningful words or grammar. Synonym: vocable(s)
  
• glossolalia {noun}: spontaneous gibberish generation as a mystical practice and/or divination technique
  

I like your list of terms... and I'm also gratified when I see others have noticed this effect. Of course this isn't a problem that is new, it goes back to the origins of language, and crops up in any discussion with different opinions being presented. In fact in some, if everyone used the same definitions, they might find they actually agree when they thought they didn't at first.

There are many more that can be added to your list of course, and I've seen discussions ended or distorted because of them. Another would be the distinction between a "theory" and an "hypothesis", which are technically different of course. And I was criticized for using the word "believe", as in, for instance, "I believe these are representations of microscopes". A friend who disagreed with my theories refused to discuss this topic, because he told me that "believe" is an absolute term, rising to the level of blind faith religiosity. He said he could not discuss a topic I thought of as a "religion", which of course I do not. And so on...

But here is an overall gauge I use: Is the person genuinely confused by a use of a word, because of improper or nebulous definition; or do they know what you mean by it, and are using semantics to dismiss the concept behind them. For the former, I explain myself. For the latter, there is nothing I can do, because it is always possible to argue against concepts with sophistry as opposed to the realities of behind the arguments.

Which leads me to:

(12-03-2021, 03:09 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This thread has been going OT for a while now.

I would just like to repeat a comment I made earlier, and applies to the recent discussion.

Quote:VMs skeptic {noun}: somebody who questions an assumption that the VMs is what it appears to be

I don't think that it is constructive to try to classify people based on their opinion. Everybody is free to change their opinion as they learn more, and not be forced to belong to some group. This is not politics, just an interest for a relatively unimportant historical document.

There should be no discussion like A-believers vs. B-believers.

I am known for being skeptical. Not about the MS but about proposed theories. I need something really good before I am convinced.
There is really good evidence that the MS is original early 15th century.
There is really good evidence that it is of European origin.

Much else is a matter of opinion and remains to be seen.

I agree with some of that, but point out that you cannot be skeptical of an object, but only of a theory about the object. Now that might sound like an abuse of semantics, but bear with me please: First of all, "genuine 15th century European cipher herbal" is a theory like any other. Whether or not it is popular, or one thinks it the best or worst, or with the most evidence, or least, or whatever...

... it is still just a theory, as unproven as any other, until it is proven. So by stating you are "Not [skeptical] about the MS but about proposed theories.", you are in effect saying you do not question, are actually not skeptical, about the theory it is a "genuine 15th century European cipher herbal", but only those theories which oppose it. Which is also fine, there are many things in life we have settled our opinions on, but it is the antithesis of "skeptic".

I believe it is important to always challenge our own assumptions, too, and not just those of others. I am a skeptic about all of it, since it is still an open question. And you know I have, and do, continue to challenge all ideas, including my own. Two major hypotheses, and several minor, I have tested and rejected. I test this new one constantly, through research, discussion, and listening to my critics and supporters alike. If I didn't, I would and will never know when I am wrong. And above anything else, I don't want to believe, support, conclude, whatever, "wrong things".

If one is selectively skeptical about only those ideas which challenge one's own beliefs, there will never be a way to know whether they are right or wrong.

(13-03-2021, 03:11 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.point out that you cannot be skeptical of an object, but only of a theory about the object. Now that might sound like an abuse of semantics, but bear with me please: First of all, "genuine 15th century European cipher herbal" is a theory like any other.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding, when I wrote

Quote:... being skeptical. Not about the MS but ...

I was just referring to the meaning provided by @Renegadehealer:

Quote:VMs skeptic {noun}: somebody who questions an assumption that the VMs is what it appears to be

This basically suggests a subdivision between people between people who are, and people who aren't.
However, I prefer to think of a human trait, which can apply more to some things and less to others. So I am skeptical about theories, hypotheses, opinions that are not strongly, or even barely, based on facts or clear observations.

Now for me:

Quote:"genuine 15th century European cipher herbal" is a theory like any other.

is just rhetoric.
There are no "theories like any other". There are solid theories, i.e. based on solid information, there are those based on shaky information and there are those based on no information at all.

Just saying that one has a theory, and thereby it is as good as any other, doesn't work.

In this specific case, "genuine 15th century European cipher herbal" is several things combined:
- genuine
- 15th century European
- cipher
- herbal
and this combination is certainly a theory, not more.
"Herbal" really only describes part of the book so it is probably the weakest part.

Now "genuine" isn't part of the earlier list of definitions. It could be the opposite of several different terms in the list. In the frame of the present thread, it would fit with the question of "meaningfulness". In that case it is also doubtful and unproven.

(14-03-2021, 10:01 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Now for me:

Quote:"genuine 15th century European cipher herbal" is a theory like any other.

is just rhetoric.

There are no "theories like any other". There are solid theories, i.e. based on solid information, there are those based on shaky information and there are those based on no information at all.

Just saying that one has a theory, and thereby it is as good as any other, doesn't work.

Of course I didn't come close to saying every theory "... is as good as any other". Clearly I was not referring to the relative merit of one theory over the other, nor that any theory is as good as any other. Every theory is valued differently by different people, and that is wonderful. My only point is that the "15th century European Cipher Herbal" is often NOT presented as a theory at all, but as a reality, as a known identifier for the Voynich, and is a problem which stifles discussion, and hinders progress in understanding the Voynich. And further, if one is not introspective about their own theories, is not skeptical about one's own ideas, they will stop moving forward and only look within their bubble of acceptance for validation, rejecting any alternate possibles. If the answer is not within that bubble... that paradigm... they will never see that answer, never acknowledge it.

(14-03-2021, 10:01 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In this specific case, "genuine 15th century European cipher herbal" is several things combined:

- genuine

- 15th century European

- cipher

- herbal

and this combination is certainly a theory, not more.


"Herbal" really only describes part of the book so it is probably the weakest part

One can quibble about the ingredients of the "1420 Paradigm", which is fine. But you know well what I mean here, Rene, and this is exactly the case I was referring to earlier in this thread: Semantics being misused to stop discussion in its tracks. An element of discussion is picked apart, in this case my general description of the given, baseline, [projected as] reality of the Voynich. One will say "herbal" is inaccurate, and should not be in there, another might say "genuine" because it could be an old fake rather than a new one. Someone else might end the discussion because I use, for convenience the date "1420", and claim it can be 1421 or 1407, therefore the reference is without merit. And so on, like above... and then the obvious premise of my point is not addressed, and is side stepped.

So to make it clearer, that thing you believe the Voynich to be, however you want to describe it, or whatever you want to include in it, or remove, is a theory. It is not fact, it is not proven. It is not, as nobody's theory, conclusions, speculations, ideas, hypotheses, what have you, are known. All are speculative, and should not be presented as or considered settled.... but often are. 15th Century is a theory. Genuine is a theory. European is a theory. Meaningful is a theory.  None of this is known.

However, and unfortunately, these unknowns stated as facts permeate, stifle and slow the entire Voynich discussion. An object or the writing or possible code or whatever is never seen in and of itself, as is done in other investigations, but in this instead: "What genuine 15th century European thing is this representing?" "What genuine 15th century genuine writing, hairstyle, zodiac, cylinder, animal, person, architecture, plant, constellation...", and so on, "... are we seeing here?".

If it is anything BUT 15th century genuine European, it is discarded, not properly considered. And that is my point, and yes it is arguably on topic, as it should be on topic for any discussion with anything Voynich.