+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Provenance & history (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-44.html)
+--- Thread: Engineering (/thread-2177.html)
Engineering - Diane - 09-11-2017
I hope I'm not mistaken in crediting JKP with this - I first read it in a blogpost of his - but the idea of engineering has recently cropped up in connection with discussions of the 'bathy-' section.
As some may know I think the assumption that the ladies are to be read allegorically in the calendar but literally in the 'bathy-' section is an assumption adopted without sufficient pause for thought, and I do not subscribe to it.
However, that said, the matter of geometer-as-engineers has cropped up again in connection with discussion of the tripartite sphere motif in Latin medieval art. As I've just indicated by my recent post, Oresme settled on the negative side of the question about whether or not the earth rotates on its axis, saying it was ultimately a matter of belief or faith. And it is in that context that the image of Christ in Judgement over the world starts to have the tripartite sphere rather than the traditional book.
That there was any argument at all is interesting and even the wiki article notes that the earth's rotation about its axis was asserted within the 'Abbasid period by muhandisīn: that is, geometer-engineers.
I find this of great interest, tying in with a number of factors, not least the inclusion in the Vms of a schematic diagram of the qanat. I realise that the identification has not met much positive response, but I have no doubt that's what it is meant for - the 'starfish' motif is used consistently to mean the highest point: of earth or of heaven.
But in any case, I thought that I should mention a book in which the Greek and the classical Latin terms are given, and a clear description of the Romans' technical notations. Note that among the Latin terms are 'calix'... cf. cup... and tubuli fictiles for earthenware pipes.
(Some 'ancients' among my readers might recall my deducing that the sort of pipe we see in the 'ladies' folios, pipe marked with regular lines of dots or short dashes - is intended as reference to terracotta/earthenware pipe, though here again the imagery in this context might not have been meant to be read with utter literalism.
Technical terms in
John Gray Landels, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (1978).
At the risk of being tedious, I'll say here again that people who make pictures are thinking in words - and if one can identify the words informing the expression of an image, it can be very helpful for correct interpretation and correct identification of source culture and period.
RE: Engineering - -JKP- - 09-11-2017
(09-11-2017, 12:31 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
As some may know I think the assumption that the ladies are to be read allegorically in the calendar but literally in the 'bathy-' section is an assumption adopted without sufficient pause for thought, and I do not subscribe to it.
...
I didn't make that assumption. The two are not mutually exclusive. Things are not always black and white, but your responses often seem to assume they are.
I was simply pointing out, which you will see if you read it again, that a literal interpretation IS POSSIBLE (because bathing areas do actually look like this). I DID NOT SAY it was necessary for it to be interpreted literally. I was simply adding observations based on research and personal experience.
I don't know whether it's literal or allegorical (or both). Unlike some people, I do not expect instant answers, I expect it will probably unravel slowly, so both possibilities must be considered.
I do not appreciate my comments being interpreted as assumptions or theories or one-sided arguments because they rarely are. I work from a list of possibilities, rarely from theories.
RE: Engineering - -JKP- - 09-11-2017
Quote:Diane:
...
At the risk of being tedious, I'll say here again that people who make pictures are thinking in words - and if one can identify the words informing the expression of an image, it can be very helpful for correct interpretation and correct identification of source culture and period.
I'm not sure this is true.
When you say "people who make pictures are thinking in words" are you referring to illustrators or artists (or both)? The statement might be true for illustrators, who are expressly trying to get an idea across... I don't know how much research there is on this.
I know many artists and some of them have great difficulty expressing things in words but even if they are good with words, when one sits and draws, there's a connection between the eye-brain and the darks-lights/shapes and I don't see how words are a part of that unless one is expressly illustrating a storyline or textual passage.
RE: Engineering - Diane - 09-11-2017
JKP - I appreciate your difficulty.
I shouldn't like to have to paint the phrase "appreciate your difficulty" - very difficult bit of translation.
However, I had expected the qualifications to be obvious and perhaps I shouldn't have.
Creatures other than humans make pictures, and some humans who make pictures cannot speak, or cannot hear, or both.
Those apart... the statement stands. And yes, of course there have been studies done, as on the psychology of music, colour, music+colour, music AS colour and just about every permutation you care to name. Some people don't enjoy that sort of study, and the unit isn't obligatory, but very informative.
Perhaps to see how dependent you are on words, try acting out making a picture yourself ... - say a dog running across some grass - and so without thinking of the word for anything in the picture, any of your equipment, pigments, their colours and so on.
Did you know that the background of a medieval illuminated picture was called the 'throne'? Or that the reason the flower which the Spanish called 'estrella' has that name is said to be that it opens with the sun but remains closed if the sun is hidden behind clouds. Not exactly a logical explanation when you think about it, is it?
And since we're talking about words and pictures... what do you think.. June or Luna?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: Engineering - -JKP- - 10-11-2017
Diane wrote: "Perhaps to see how dependent you are on words, try acting out making a picture yourself ... - say a dog running across some grass - and so without thinking of the word for anything in the picture, any of your equipment, pigments, their colours and so on."
I see things as pictures, like a movie running in my head. When I want to draw it, I freeze-frame the movie and draw what I see in my head. Words don't enter in to it. Also I never look at the words on the paint tubes or colored pencils or any of the art supplies, not even when I buy them. I look at the sample colors on tubes, so words aren't part of the process when I select them or use them. In fact, I went most of my life not knowing the words for many colors (I just learned them recently and I had to make an effort to do it).
If I picture a dog running across some grass, I see grass, I see a dozen different scenes where there might be grass (simultaneously), I see twenty different kinds of dogs, but I see their shapes and colors and postures. The names or breeds or the fact that that brown galloping thing I see in my head is called "dog" does not come into my head unless someone specifically elbows me and asks and jolts me out of my frame of mind.