22-02-2018, 07:53 PM
(This post was last modified: 23-02-2018, 06:53 AM by -JKP-.
Edit Reason: fixed typos: is = are; northwest = northeasr
)
Quote:Morten St George: If you do not like my theory, you should propose an alternative theory, so that we can judge how well each of them fits the available evidence.
I'm not really interested in theories, and even though I've been studying this beast for over 10 years now, I still don't feel I know enough about it to propose theories. I'm still exploring it.
The problem with theorizing too soon is that it tends to channel our perceptions too narrowly.
The only opinions I have that could be considered theories (or hypotheses) so far are:
- that some of the marginalia MIGHT be from someone who lived or grew up in the borderlands of Alsace/Lombardy/Provençal (a very multicultural region)
- that whoever drew the zodiac symbols either had traveled in northeast France or had seen some manuscripts from that general area (and probably consulted more than one source) and had probably had access to a library (which may have included books from the previous centuries), and who possibly traveled
- that most of the VMS glyphs are based on medieval Latin letters/numbers/abbreviations/ligatures (this is closer to fact than theory)
- that the radio-carbon dating is pretty consistent with other aspects of the manuscript
- that a few of the plants are naturalistic and do not appear to include mnemonic devices, while others tend to be stylized or fanciful and some do appear to include mnemonic devices
- that the illustrator had trouble visualizing in 3d
- that there is more than one set of handwriting
- that there is more than one person who painted the drawings
----------------------------
As for not liking your theory, it's not the theory I'm concerned about, it's your arguments. As I've already pointed out, they don't specifically support your theory—the same arguments work just as well for other theories.