13-08-2017, 08:29 PM
Another interesting discussion, which ties in with the prior consideration of 'Conventions'. Surely some use of 'conventions' is necessary for current research. I mean, what a surprise to find out that two investigations using different terminology really are dealing with the same topic. Conventions are necessary for communication. But then there is the problem of whether conventions can be modified and allowed to evolve, or they need to held in a static tradition.
However, beyond their use in current research, conventions are necessary for communication between author and reader. If author and reader share no common conventions, there can be no communication. Of course, the reader is free to embark on a process of exploration and self-education in regard to the author's use of conventions. And such a venture, for various individuals, will result in a variety of outcomes - all over the place. Thus we have Voynich theories and Voynich solutions - or, shall we say *proposed* solutions.
This is a forum for general VMs discussion and that includes the introduction of proposed solutions and their consideration by other forum participants. It is the intended and perceived purpose of the forum to discuss and evaluate the proposed solutions - and that is where the problems start.
What does one say to a person who insists on using the EVA as an actual, infallible guide to the phonetic interpretation of VMs glyphs? One might explain that the suggestion of a relationship is invalid. And what they do after that is their business. But I also tend to behave in the manner Koen suggested. If I am uninformed or I have no interest or opinion on a particular matter, I do not participate. And apparently I am much less widely informed and diversely interested on all things VMs.
Voynich theories are intended to produce Voynich solutions. However this is where a fundamental, procedural truism applies and that is: Garbage in; garbage out. If the theories applied are flawed, the resulting solution will be faulty as well. So this is where the discovery and investigation of conventions comes to the fore. In the effort to develop a valid theory, it is necessary to understand and to explore the conventions used in the VMs. And it is necessary to validate those conventions based on cultural history and tradition. All the more so in the VMs because clear indicators have been suppressed in order to create a situation where more subtle examples of conventional images can be placed in a manner that is less than glaringly obvious. Examples include the inner part of an Oresme version of the cosmos, the use of the nebuly line, the presence of a scallop-shell patterned cloud band, the use of heraldry in both its armorial and ecclesiastical forms and so on. These are all historically and traditionally validated, chronologically appropriate conventions contained in the VMs. Unfortunately, these same examples, familiar to and used by the VMs author, have escaped the notice of many investigators.
What happens when the reader does not share the author's knowledge and familiarity with these conventions? What happens to Voynich theory when valid conventions are omitted or subjectively excluded from consideration? It would be nice to say something like that was then and this is now. However, it seems to me, for the most part, that we're still stuck with then.
However, beyond their use in current research, conventions are necessary for communication between author and reader. If author and reader share no common conventions, there can be no communication. Of course, the reader is free to embark on a process of exploration and self-education in regard to the author's use of conventions. And such a venture, for various individuals, will result in a variety of outcomes - all over the place. Thus we have Voynich theories and Voynich solutions - or, shall we say *proposed* solutions.
This is a forum for general VMs discussion and that includes the introduction of proposed solutions and their consideration by other forum participants. It is the intended and perceived purpose of the forum to discuss and evaluate the proposed solutions - and that is where the problems start.
What does one say to a person who insists on using the EVA as an actual, infallible guide to the phonetic interpretation of VMs glyphs? One might explain that the suggestion of a relationship is invalid. And what they do after that is their business. But I also tend to behave in the manner Koen suggested. If I am uninformed or I have no interest or opinion on a particular matter, I do not participate. And apparently I am much less widely informed and diversely interested on all things VMs.
Voynich theories are intended to produce Voynich solutions. However this is where a fundamental, procedural truism applies and that is: Garbage in; garbage out. If the theories applied are flawed, the resulting solution will be faulty as well. So this is where the discovery and investigation of conventions comes to the fore. In the effort to develop a valid theory, it is necessary to understand and to explore the conventions used in the VMs. And it is necessary to validate those conventions based on cultural history and tradition. All the more so in the VMs because clear indicators have been suppressed in order to create a situation where more subtle examples of conventional images can be placed in a manner that is less than glaringly obvious. Examples include the inner part of an Oresme version of the cosmos, the use of the nebuly line, the presence of a scallop-shell patterned cloud band, the use of heraldry in both its armorial and ecclesiastical forms and so on. These are all historically and traditionally validated, chronologically appropriate conventions contained in the VMs. Unfortunately, these same examples, familiar to and used by the VMs author, have escaped the notice of many investigators.
What happens when the reader does not share the author's knowledge and familiarity with these conventions? What happens to Voynich theory when valid conventions are omitted or subjectively excluded from consideration? It would be nice to say something like that was then and this is now. However, it seems to me, for the most part, that we're still stuck with then.