20-01-2020, 12:34 AM
Vviews it is true that what we name things doesnt matter so much to our understanding of same, and i can certainly live with things as they are, but there doesn't really seem to be a reason to continue calling things by names of things we don't think they are, just because someone in the past thought that might be what they were, beyond the history of people having referred to it as such in the past because of that historical idea. Doesn't seem like a good reason to continue what was bad practice to begin with. Is there any background to the recipe idea beyond someone once thinking it might be? (I don't know) At least my quire 13 and zodiac ideas are based on actual commonalities between them and Quire 20.
For anyone new, it gets them going in the wrong direction to hear things described as recipes and bilological sections. For anyone who has been looking at it for awhile it still puts inferences in one's thinking. In absence of one's own concrete ideas about something, one will revert to the past input of others. Don't imagine a pink elephant right now...oops too late...
You mentioned Nick's blog re Q20, he did the same recently re quire 13 and balnealogical manuscripts, but i think these assumptions will just get in the way of progress, since i think they are wrong and will likely just waste time. Not standing in the way of it, just stating my case. By the way i am fine with the zodiac section terminology, mostly because it is spread across a bunch of quires and mixed in with other stuff, and i think still easier to figure out which pages are referred to than by calling it a calendar.
For anyone new, it gets them going in the wrong direction to hear things described as recipes and bilological sections. For anyone who has been looking at it for awhile it still puts inferences in one's thinking. In absence of one's own concrete ideas about something, one will revert to the past input of others. Don't imagine a pink elephant right now...oops too late...
You mentioned Nick's blog re Q20, he did the same recently re quire 13 and balnealogical manuscripts, but i think these assumptions will just get in the way of progress, since i think they are wrong and will likely just waste time. Not standing in the way of it, just stating my case. By the way i am fine with the zodiac section terminology, mostly because it is spread across a bunch of quires and mixed in with other stuff, and i think still easier to figure out which pages are referred to than by calling it a calendar.