+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Voynich Talk (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: The value of imperfection (/thread-1944.html)
Pages:
1
2
The value of imperfection - R. Sale - 12-06-2017
Imperfection, though frequently unavoidable, is generally seen as a detriment. In VMs investigations it is often problematic in the comparison of images. But the VMs is also something like a topsy-turvy world where things are not what they seem, but they are what they are.
I have been wondering, from the perspective of the VMs composer, who would be the person most likely to make sense of the contents? And in the medieval era the majority of people were still illiterate. Those who could read were often associated with and educated through the church. It might be assumed that it would take a determined individual to even attempt to make sense of VMs contents - a person that is devoted and meticulous.
And the VMs itself is extremely problematic. Is it a natural 'foreign' document of unknown origin? Is it encoded, encrypted? Does it make sense at all? Without being able to read the text and given the strange botanical, astrological, balneological, pharmacological illustrations, the VMs is like an intentionally weird haystack in which a few useful needles have been hidden - such as the Oresme cosmos and cloud band, in two parts.
So if the VMs is an intentionally covert document, who is it hiding from? Not from the illiterate majority. It needs to hide from the determined, inquisitive, meticulous minority. How can that be done? One technique is the use of imperfection. Take the example of the 4 by 17 symbol sequence of VMs f57v. It might be a potential candidate for a VMs alphabet or numerical sequence, *but* not all four sequences are identical and there are other glyphs found in the text. Those meticulous investigators who require consistent detail as a criterion for further investigation will be deterred. That which was hidden remains hidden (the existence of positional relationships in the glyph sequence).
It is not necessary that every correspondence is perfect. What is needed is to show the existence of this complex construction is intentional. And it can only be intentional because it is too complex and contains multiple, independent factors that accord with history and tradition which provide verification. In a manuscript where little makes much sense, there are subtle, obscure and ambiguous inclusions of normal, standard, traditional, historical information for the prospective reader's potential discovery and subjective interpretation. The challenge put forth by author/text is one of recognition and understanding of this *normal* information in a strange environment. Does the reader pass or fail? Is the investigation derailed by minor discrepancies rather than seeing the evidence as a whole. Are the potential, subjective interpretations denied even before the existence of objective, positional confirmations is discovered? Are there intentional discrepancies and imperfections intended to divert and deter those who require everything to be totally nailed down and verified in detail? Part of the purpose of these complex constructions in the VMs is that they are hidden.
RE: The value of imperfection - -JKP- - 12-06-2017
I've often wondered how long it took to create the manuscript.
If the pages were created on a tablet or some other temporary medium and then transferred to skin, then the extra time for two iterations has to be considered.
If the plants were gathered and dried (at least some of them appear to have been drawn from dried specimens), that takes time also, at least a few days.
If the cosmo pages are based on reality (or based on myth recorded in other sources), it takes time to research them and get familiar with and find a way to organize and record all the info.
There is a certain organizational feeling to the pool and "bio" pages that appears symbolic and this would take time to work out, as well.
Just going through the manuscript and LOOKING at each page takes considerable time and creating a transcript takes a long time with a keyboard, imagine how long it took to write each character with a constantly-having-to-be-dipped quill, so this was not a small project.
If one made a conservative estimate of two hours per page and three hours a day (few people in the middle ages would have the luxury of working on this full time) and six days a week, it would take about half a year. This is under ideal conditions where one is not pulled away by work, bad lighting conditions in winter, children, illness, etc. I suspect it probably took longer. I wouldn't be surprised if it were one to two years if one included the time to research the material. But, as there were at least two scribes and possibly a different person illustrating it, it might be possible to create this in seven or eight months.
I'm still of the opinion that it was never finished. There are many small details that appear to be left undone. Maybe the creator(s) died. There was a great deal of war and plague, and plague-like illnesses in those days. Whole towns were sacked and burned.
RE: The value of imperfection - R. Sale - 13-06-2017
Certainly a fair amount of time would be necessary to lay down the pages of the VMs. And it also seems some time was devoted to the structure of certain complex constructions like the three way interpretation of the fifth symbol of the 17 symbol sequence of f57v, with each interpretation having an objective positional confirmation of that interpretation. That's pretty clever to build that into the sequence. Likewise, the papelonny pun is built into the first three pages of the VMs zodiac. I think that the prospective author was already a well-educated person at the time that these complex constructions were conceived as elements in disguising hidden information. The author knows the use of heraldic canting. And if the text contains a readable commentary, then the author may be a master of languages as well.
There is a certain difficulty involved it the use of imperfection as one of the techniques of disguise, because it may be seen as contradictory. And there is certainly a problem of what to do with something that appear contradictory or ambiguous. Some will surely say that contradiction will invalidate the investigation. And some may feel that potential contradiction and discrepancy have no place in the development of a consistent and functional research theory and abandon such investigations. That does not take the nature of the imperfection into consideration. What is the significance of one minor discrepancy, whether valid or ambiguous in comparison to a number of objective, positional confirmations based of traditional facts. Does one imperfection necessarily invalidate all the other evidence or does the weight of evidence predominate? Assuming the investigator now perseveres to discover the more positive factors. Or does imperfection prove its value to maintain the VMs facade?
RE: The value of imperfection - ReneZ - 13-06-2017
I also strongly feel it was never finished.
Maybe the creator's eyesight gradually declined or he turned completely blind.
This is known to have happened to numerous people, and would explain a few things.
RE: The value of imperfection - Helmut Winkler - 13-06-2017
It is obvious that the the VMs is a Sammelhandschrift, the different sections are not related, I dont even feel sure any more that glyphes in one part of the ms. mean the same thing as in an other part (which would explain a lot of things) and I feel quite sure that things like the vesselsi in the small plants section have nothing to do with the plants
RE: The value of imperfection - R. Sale - 13-06-2017
Most certainly, it does *appear* to be unfinished. Just as it does appear to be an alchemical herbal that might come from an undiscovered culture, if we see it from the appropriate medieval perspective. However, as I understand it, there is no known, corresponding, historical culture for the VMs document. So, this appearance is false. It has been invented by the document's creator. And a damn good job it was.
So just as the apparent provenance of the VMs is not based on actual, cultural reality, should we consider the question as to what is the state of completedness. Is it 100% finished, or maybe only 80% - or whatever? And does it matter?
Suppose in some illustration, certain details might have a definitive cultural identification, and it is the author's desire to avoid all overt connections, and yet the use of some alternative creates a contradiction, what to do? Well, if you consider the techniques of disguise, there are several options - imperfection being one, omission being another. Nothing creates ambiguity better than omission. It neither confirms or denies any sort of identification. Omission creates the appearance that something is unfinished, even if it is the author's intent *not* to provide anything further. So some pages of the VMs may appear to be unfinished because of intentional omissions. Why is White Aries so well painted and the rest of the zodiac sloped over or skipped?
In part, the reason is designed in; the later nymphs have neither clothing nor tubs. Nothing to paint. But the painted efforts were focused on White Aries for two reasons; to disguise the necessary presence of painted blue stripes and to emphasize that White Aries is white - (paint intentionally omitted).
Perhaps the VMs was not completed and it also contains intentional omissions.
In contrast it would it would seem that much of the document is finished - that the ink work is mostly finished in contrast to the painting. The ink work provides the structure, and most of the important details (Oresme's cosmos in two parts, the triple identification in the 17 symbol sequence of f57v, the papelonny pun, etc.) are built into the structure and therefore presumably they are finished.
RE: The value of imperfection - davidjackson - 13-06-2017
A Sammelhandschrift is a "composite manuscript" or an anthology of discrete works, if I understand the term correctly?
RE: The value of imperfection - voynichbombe - 14-06-2017
> a "composite manuscript"
Does "bookbinders synthesis" meet "Buchbindersynthese"? I'm slightly uncertain. Something that would be noticeable, though.
I find @R.Sale's thought compelling and wonder if it corresponds to something I've been mulling over:
Given a covert document, hiding it's contents (if cipher or cleverly generated nonse, textually or in imagery, is irrelevant in this case), while successfully obfuscating this fact in appearing in a cloak, or disguise of a set of more or less known cultural references, how does the author/creator/editor get away without being caught?
The idea of a very specific intended audience is striking, but also complicated. Again, for the purpose of obfuscation there is no difference between nonsense and cipher, just that the latter reduces the group of "opponents". The required amount of far-sightedness seems mind-boggling, in any case.
Omissions and incompleteness seem much safer measures of obfuscation than the addition of things, which could easily be identified as a breaking point to uncover a machination or a hidden message. Still, a lot of care seems needed not to exceed the "standard faultiness" of contemporary documents.
Sometimes the VMs as a whole appears to obey to some sort of "uncertainty relation". It mimics comprehensiveness, with a few "regrettable" omissions. Under close inspection of a specific feature set, at any stage things can suddenly turn murky, not leaving one without the feeling that more study could clear things up. But on return there appear more problems in relation to something else, which in itself is not unusual for medieval manuscripts, etc.
"Mimicry" could meet it, if it weren't done so well that it remained totally unnoticable until today..
RE: The value of imperfection - Helmut Winkler - 14-06-2017
(13-06-2017, 06:28 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A Sammelhandschrift is a "composite manuscript" or an anthology of discrete works, if I understand the term correctly?
This is correct
RE: The value of imperfection - Helmut Winkler - 14-06-2017
(14-06-2017, 01:14 AM)voynichbombe Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.> a "composite manuscript"This is correct. The 'Buchbinder' could have been the author or a later owner, of course
Does "bookbinders synthesis" meet "Buchbindersynthese"? I'm slightly uncertain. Something that would be noticeable, though.