I believe, from what I remember of Rene's site some time back, not finding it now, that the cut page was at the end of the VMs Zodiac sequence as currently arranged.
Also, IMO, Pisces was meant to be first - to initiate the pairing phenomenon, which continues through the Cancer medallion, which transfers to the tub patterns and the male and female occupants at the top of Pisces outer ring and carries on to White Aries and the obfuscated pairing of the Fieschi insignia.
The phenomenon of pairing - the pairing paradigm - is established and set forth in the Zodiac sequence to guide the investigator, if the investigator is aware and willing to follow the traditional path to discerning validity as set forth (twice) in Deuteronomy, that the facts must be established by two or more witnesses. Leading again to the intentionally disguised, paired representations of the Fieschi insignia - validated first by the cardinal's red hat.
Visually flawed?- yes, but traditionally, historically and structurally valid. That's the thing about ambiguity, it sticks around, it offers a path of interpretation, unless it can be absolutely eliminated, which it can't, because it is ambiguous. The test is whether the path leads forward.
Also, IMO, Pisces was meant to be first - to initiate the pairing phenomenon, which continues through the Cancer medallion, which transfers to the tub patterns and the male and female occupants at the top of Pisces outer ring and carries on to White Aries and the obfuscated pairing of the Fieschi insignia.
The phenomenon of pairing - the pairing paradigm - is established and set forth in the Zodiac sequence to guide the investigator, if the investigator is aware and willing to follow the traditional path to discerning validity as set forth (twice) in Deuteronomy, that the facts must be established by two or more witnesses. Leading again to the intentionally disguised, paired representations of the Fieschi insignia - validated first by the cardinal's red hat.
Visually flawed?- yes, but traditionally, historically and structurally valid. That's the thing about ambiguity, it sticks around, it offers a path of interpretation, unless it can be absolutely eliminated, which it can't, because it is ambiguous. The test is whether the path leads forward.