11-01-2017, 04:50 PM
I believe that the discourse should be developed from simple to complex - namely, the form should be taken as the starting point. What we see in botanical section are plants by form; otherwise there would never have been plant identification attempts, and the section would not have been dubbed "botanical".
In philosophy, if a philosopher sees a chair, s/he may develop the trail of thought quite deeply, musing over whether this is a real chair, after all, or just a fruit of imagination of the individual, then, if real chair, whether it is material or immaterial, whether it is a chair or some other thing (e.g. a table), and whether, even if a chair, it is cognizable or not, etc.
The same thing one can do with Voynich. But in all cases we have the percepted form, regardless of the substance and the meaning beyond. And mnemonics, as well as plant identification attempts, deal primarily with the form.
In philosophy, if a philosopher sees a chair, s/he may develop the trail of thought quite deeply, musing over whether this is a real chair, after all, or just a fruit of imagination of the individual, then, if real chair, whether it is material or immaterial, whether it is a chair or some other thing (e.g. a table), and whether, even if a chair, it is cognizable or not, etc.
The same thing one can do with Voynich. But in all cases we have the percepted form, regardless of the substance and the meaning beyond. And mnemonics, as well as plant identification attempts, deal primarily with the form.