It's true, we have a huge problem of objectivity and of logics.
We disagree on the facts. Koen and Sam answer YES to my question. I and JKP answer NO.
YES is different from NO.
Agreement goes: YES YES YES YES
Disagreement goes: YES NO YES NO
JKP wrote: “I don't want to rule out the possibility that the tail was intentionally shaped like a tree since it resembles the kind of tree that grows in places where big cats live”. Here he is not speaking of facts. He is speaking of the possible intentions of the illustrator. His sentence implies that it is also possible that the illustrator had different intentions. I agree with JKP's statement, I guess with a huge difference in how likely we evaluate the different possibilities. And a tail shaped like a tree is not a tree.
Possibilities are not facts. Facts are observable. Possible intentions are very unlikely to ever be verified. You usually don't find medieval texts describing the intentions of the illustrator: I doubt that when we will read the text it will say "I shaped the tail of the cat to look like a tree". We have seen the kind of images resulting from the intention of representing a feline and tree: they contain a feline and a tree. Here I can see no tree (while Koen and Sam do). Since we don't share the same set of facts, I am unable to contribute anything useful to the discussion.
The “theoretical possibility that it's both a tree and the end of a tail at the same time”, disquisitions about “entities” are just not my cup of tea. I like discussions based on observable facts. It's my personal preference and I hope this is acceptable to you. I am sure that others will find such tough theoretical issues stimulating (apparently, Magritte found concepts of this kind worth exploring).
![[Image: attachment.php?aid=476]](http://www.voynich.ninja/attachment.php?aid=476)
We disagree on the facts. Koen and Sam answer YES to my question. I and JKP answer NO.
YES is different from NO.
Agreement goes: YES YES YES YES
Disagreement goes: YES NO YES NO
JKP wrote: “I don't want to rule out the possibility that the tail was intentionally shaped like a tree since it resembles the kind of tree that grows in places where big cats live”. Here he is not speaking of facts. He is speaking of the possible intentions of the illustrator. His sentence implies that it is also possible that the illustrator had different intentions. I agree with JKP's statement, I guess with a huge difference in how likely we evaluate the different possibilities. And a tail shaped like a tree is not a tree.
Possibilities are not facts. Facts are observable. Possible intentions are very unlikely to ever be verified. You usually don't find medieval texts describing the intentions of the illustrator: I doubt that when we will read the text it will say "I shaped the tail of the cat to look like a tree". We have seen the kind of images resulting from the intention of representing a feline and tree: they contain a feline and a tree. Here I can see no tree (while Koen and Sam do). Since we don't share the same set of facts, I am unable to contribute anything useful to the discussion.
The “theoretical possibility that it's both a tree and the end of a tail at the same time”, disquisitions about “entities” are just not my cup of tea. I like discussions based on observable facts. It's my personal preference and I hope this is acceptable to you. I am sure that others will find such tough theoretical issues stimulating (apparently, Magritte found concepts of this kind worth exploring).