15-08-2016, 05:38 PM
Two points:
Rene,
I'm not quite sure how to phrase this diplomatically, but you have mentioned that "well known expert on zodiac imagery" many times, and in every Voynich forum or blog that I've seen.
So I think everyone knows about the letter you received and what it said.
Perhaps now you could tell us something about your personal opinions, from your own study of this section. Or, better still, perhaps you could consider the points, and the examples that Sam is making?
Just a thought.
Sam,
If you study the manuscript for the sake of understanding the manuscript and nothing more, then you must be prepared for silence, since you will be a minority of perhaps four or five.
There's also a problem unrecognised by many Voynicheros: imagery isn't self-evident and requires the equivalent of natural talent for music.
Thing is, that a great many people when asked to match the image of a feline that has a spotted hide, crossed eyes, an uplifted paw, a tail that looks as if it turns into a fan or a palm-tree, and withers like a greyhound..
... will present a nice picture of a lion.
You happen to be one of those with an 'eye' for this sort of work. But you may have to cope with silence, or with those whose response to a new idea is either (or both) to shut you up, or to persuade you to agree with a favoured theory.
Just the way it goes. In treating the imagery, people who would explode if one said that the letter "B" and "D" and "T" were just forms of "P" are perfectly happy to call a sheep a goat, or to compare red 'wild bull' with the antelope-horns to a nice, white domesticated bull.
But every now and then, we get good news.
I think your mosaics are good news. Good to see.
Rene,
I'm not quite sure how to phrase this diplomatically, but you have mentioned that "well known expert on zodiac imagery" many times, and in every Voynich forum or blog that I've seen.
So I think everyone knows about the letter you received and what it said.
Perhaps now you could tell us something about your personal opinions, from your own study of this section. Or, better still, perhaps you could consider the points, and the examples that Sam is making?
Just a thought.
Sam,
If you study the manuscript for the sake of understanding the manuscript and nothing more, then you must be prepared for silence, since you will be a minority of perhaps four or five.
There's also a problem unrecognised by many Voynicheros: imagery isn't self-evident and requires the equivalent of natural talent for music.
Thing is, that a great many people when asked to match the image of a feline that has a spotted hide, crossed eyes, an uplifted paw, a tail that looks as if it turns into a fan or a palm-tree, and withers like a greyhound..
... will present a nice picture of a lion.
You happen to be one of those with an 'eye' for this sort of work. But you may have to cope with silence, or with those whose response to a new idea is either (or both) to shut you up, or to persuade you to agree with a favoured theory.
Just the way it goes. In treating the imagery, people who would explode if one said that the letter "B" and "D" and "T" were just forms of "P" are perfectly happy to call a sheep a goat, or to compare red 'wild bull' with the antelope-horns to a nice, white domesticated bull.
But every now and then, we get good news.
I think your mosaics are good news. Good to see.