14-06-2017, 01:14 AM
> 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..
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..