| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 598 online users.
» 4 Member(s) | 591 Guest(s)
Baidu, Bing, Google, JoJo_Jost, Jorge_Stolfi
|
|
|
| Theory-building and data collection: let's talk about |
|
Posted by: Diane - 21-03-2017, 12:48 PM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (5)
|
 |
Tried to start this conversation in another thread, but it got tangled with other stuff.
N.B> This is not about people; not about anyone's work; not about personal picture archives.
Given that what is being termed 'data-collection' isn't so much - more a typing in of search parameters to the catalogue of a pictorial archive - how do we ensure we don't mislead those who might rely on our work in doing their own?
Important consideration, I think. So I'd like to talk a bit about formulating a method to keep it reasonably rigorous, and avoid 'collecting data' for nothing more than providing retrospective support for a theory that might have been floating about - quite unsupported and insupportably - for decades, or even since 1912.
But if we don't already think we know what a picture is intended to say, and intended to represent, it is impossible to ask the data base to return us the matches we want it to.
It's rather like having an archive of all known language recordings - catalogued by name, date and time of recording - when the user has only English and no deep acquaintance with the science of linguistics.
Linguistics is a science in the strict sense; iconography isn't a science in that sense and putting queries into cataloguing systems like Iconoclass doesn't make the 'matches' raw scientific data. Scientific data is verifiable and thus its potential for being proven false.
There are all sorts of issues with the notion that those archive catalogues are appropriate to study of the Vms imagery, including the purpose for which those archives-and-catalogue were developed. Very limited charter; similarly limited range; categories reflecting that initial purpose...
Still, better an example of the problem, so we can start talking method for solution
f. 67v (Yep, the bearded sun again)
What parameters - what date range?
Can't say 'fifteenth century' when the task is to provide the manuscript's imagery - just the imagery - with a correct provenance and history. And those are what matter - not when the manuscript was made, but where and when the content was first made.
No date.
Subject matter? Objects?
Well, I think 'sun' is fairly general. Let's agree on 'sun'
Details.
Would you say this is a male, or female sun? Relevant or irrelevant? Image reflects language... female suns are not all that common... could be important for those working on the written text to know ..
But let's suppose we add 'male' to description of the picture.
What about the crossed eyes?
Important criterion, or not? Could be a vital indicator of some particular culture's attitude towards the sun. Could be an accident, too, just some old scribe with shaky hands.
Do we include 'eyes crossed' in the search parameters... or not?.
What about the artificial beard? Mention that? Yes/No? Why/why not?
But let's suppose you've run two or three refining searches and ended up with just
"500BC - 1912 AD"; "male face"; "false beard"' "squint-eyed"
Do we accept this? Why not?*
![[Image: img-thing?.out=jpg&size=l&tid=148780501]](http://www.polyvore.com/cgi/img-thing?.out=jpg&size=l&tid=148780501)
* ... apart from its being a modern reproduction of a traditional form.
|
|
|
| 82r: A change of plans? |
|
Posted by: VViews - 19-03-2017, 02:09 PM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (6)
|
 |
Hi everyone,
Looking at 82r the other day, I noticed a line I hadn't seen before:
![[Image: image.jpg?q=f82r-480-1732-243-212]](https://voynich.ninja/extractor/image.jpg?q=f82r-480-1732-243-212)
The reason this grabbed my attention is because this line seems to be some remnant of a former plan for the page, which would have been erased. Could the vertical line originally have been through the whole page?
Interestingly, at the top of the page there are two "arches", and if we consider all these elements together, I wonder if the original plan for the page may have been a two column text, nestled under two arches, as can be seen in many medieval manuscripts' layout. (the following is just a lazy grab from a quick Google search, I'm not trying to say it matches this one, but just to give an illustration of the type of layout I'm referring to):
![[Image: H475_canontables.jpg]](http://special.lib.gla.ac.uk/images/exhibitions/month/H475/H475_canontables.jpg) Glasgow MS Hunter 475, 12th C Sicily, 21v-22r.
I'm curious to know what others think: Could this page have been meant to be designed differently? Could the creator of the Voynich have betrayed the fact that this page was inspired by a manuscript where the layout was in a two-column format with arches at the top?
|
|
|
|
| The existence of Culture V* |
|
Posted by: R. Sale - 14-03-2017, 12:25 AM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (4)
|
|
Just as a Chinese manuscript is clearly the product of the Chinese culture, the VMs is just as clearly not a randomly surviving artifact of Culture V*. The VMs has put on an authentic appearance and would certainly seem to be a plausible artifact of an unknown origin from the time of its creation and it would retain that appearance long afterwards. But if we want to investigate the VMs and to pin it down with facts, then a decision needs to be made about the existence of Culture V*. So the modern point of view contradicts and negates the existence of Culture V*. And thus cut off from genuine cultural origins, the VMs is revealed as an impostor, a pretender and a dissimulator. It appears to be a thing that is genuine, but it is not.
So what is the purpose of the VMs, if it is all nonsense? But the VMs is something else. It is a masquerade. The VMs is a puzzle. The VMs is a facade behind which something else is hidden. And it is difficult to hide something of a sheet of parchment and still maintain the original identity. The author, as a great dissimulator, separates the illustration of the Oresme cosmos into two parts, leaves a big clue and still maintains a connection with the original through the similarity of detail - through what has been and continues to be an unrecognized level of similar detail.
Simply by separating the cosmos into two parts, the author has confounded countless investigators. The level of detail in the VMs is such that the text contains a sophisticated use of canting based on traditional heraldic designs, that have all but evaded any modern detection. Just ask about papelonny. Knowing the name and the pattern are among the essential details needed to understand how the hidden parts work. But the availability of such detailed information was probably better disseminated among the heralds of yore (if you will) than it is among any group today. The VMs author knew the details, the scallop-shell patterned cloud band for example; things that we do not know. And this is nothing to do with obscure or arcane knowledge. These are the the details of commonplace historical and scientific facts from the relevant times, and while the basic facts have been given a simple disguise, the examination and comparison of detail, once it is known which details to examine, show strong similarities in pattern, form, number, placement and structure with the original and traditional examples. And yet, at the same time, the VMs is clearly something that is not straight forward in an expositive sense. There is no Culture V*.
|
|
|
|
| The loss of detail |
|
Posted by: R. Sale - 09-03-2017, 02:07 AM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (3)
|
|
As part of the Oresme challenge, here is the question. Can we put Oresme's cosmos back together again, using VMs parts?
We need to understand the details. How well do we know the relevant details?
Can we describe or represent:
1) the structure of Oresme's cosmos and the pattern of the cloud band?
2) the pattern on the armorial insignia of the pope who started the tradition of the cardinals' red galero?
3) the traditional patterns of the heraldic furs?
Do we understand heraldic canting?
These are things that might be seen as much more familiar to a time long passed. These are things that, under certain historical conditions, may have been taken as potentially common knowledge in certain groups. There is nothing particular unusual about this information. And only the first question might be somewhat restricted, though there are a number of years of historical separation.
The VMs answers these questions. The VMs author knows the answers in illustrated detail. The line encompassing the cosmos (f68v) is a nebuly line. It matches the Oresme illustration in basic structure. The VMs corresponds with the historical examples in numerous details, but we have lost much knowledge of relevant detail from the time of VMs creation.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: smiley.gif]](http://bellgab.com/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
![[Image: TeaselVMS.png]](http://voynichportal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/TeaselVMS.png)
![[Image: 370699053caa1ed651771563b534bd03.jpg]](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/37/06/99/370699053caa1ed651771563b534bd03.jpg)
