[split] Verbose cipher?

[geoffreycaveney]

Hi Geoffrey. I think I understand better what you're trying to do, and who your audience is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your intention is largely Promethian: you'd like to take a body of specialized knowledge, by and for specialists, and create something that allows laypeople to use and apply that knowledge. On the one hand, I can't not respect that, because this is basically what I do for a living. People who've hired me present me their problems, I translate these into technical terms, manipulate these terms logically to determine a course of action, and then translate these available courses of action back into plain English for the client. During all of this, I have to be unfailingly reassuring to this layperson who has hired me as an expert. I have to reassure him that I understand why this problem is important enough to motivate him hiring me. (In other words, I have to validate his concerns.) I have to reassure him that I have the expertise to understand and solve his problem. And finally, I have to reassure him that I understand what his end goal is, that is, what sort of outcome he would consider an acceptable solution. Falter at any of these steps, and I run the risk of the client being profoundly dissatisfied with my services.

I've found this a very transferrable skill; in my free time, I like to keep up with the work of the heavyweights in Voynich Studies, and I like to try to see if I can interpret their scientific findings in layman's terms. This is to make sure that I understand what they're saying, as well as helping other laypeople understand.

The difference is, on my day job, the Promethian fire I'm carrying down the mountain is my own specialized knowledge, not someone else's. As I have an expert's level of knowledge in none of the areas immediately relevant to the VMs, I'm not in a position to determine if my interpretations of this information are accurate, helpful, or even welcome. What this means in practical terms is, if an expert here gives me feedback on my interpretation of their work, then as far as I'm concerned, that's the last word. I'm not really in any position to argue with it. And so, when an expert here has given me the gift of replying to a nobody like me at all, I always try to make it very clear that I recognize and defer to their expertise, and am only trying to be playful and helpful, not challenge them.

I'll leave you with one other thought. It may or may not apply to you, so feel free to ignore it if it doesn't. I'm naturally a very emotionally intense — and sensitive — individual. But I'm not naturally good at reading people. Many times I've approached groups of people who are into something I'm into, and my excitement (coupled with my articulate and longwinded verbal style) has been misinterpreted as a lack of appropriate humility. People have been quick to call Dunning-Kruger on me: "He does not know what he does not know." This hurts, because this was not at all what I intended. Things got better when I started asking myself, "What could I do that still feels like 'my style', but is less likely to accidentally give this impression?" All any of us want is to be accepted, and to be effectual and relevant. And as you said, we all bring different things to the table.

I understand your points, and I appreciate what you're saying. Thank you for expressing these thoughts. 

I will note, however, that sometimes different specialists will give me very different feedback on and evaluations of my work. For example, Koen has expressed a lot of interest in my VCI work and the readings of lines and labels with it. Rene seems more dismissive of VCI altogether. As long as there are some serious people -- not necessarily all leading specialists -- who find my work interesting, I will continue to be motivated and encouraged to proceed with it. As in the tale of "The Man, The Boy and The Donkey," no one can please or satisfy all of the people all of the time. 

The other thing to keep in mind is that I don't know of anyone who is a "professional" Voynich ms researcher. Certain people have more knowledge and expertise in certain areas that may be useful in studying and analyzing the text. But as far as I am aware, we are all amateurs in the sense that none of us is paid to analyze the Voynich ms for a living. So it is up to each of us as individuals to determine which other researchers we respect the most. We may each form our own opinion about who else we consider an expert or a heavyweight, and to what extent. There is no pre-ordained or officially established hierarchy or pecking order of authority among Voynich researchers. For example, I do not disregard Koen's interest in my work just because Rene is dismissive of my work. Rene may have better knowledge, insight, and judgment about Voynich ms research in certain ways, and Koen may have better knowledge, insight, and judgment about Voynich research in other ways. Each of us has to form these opinions, evaluations, and judgments of other researchers on our own. 

Just my two cents about these matters.