30-05-2022, 02:44 PM
Wow I am really glad I brought this issue up, here, and am impressed with the really open-minded and thoughtful responses. Not everyone got the subtle but important gist of the point I am making, but some have, and it is really being hashed out... along with many associated points.
I had no idea until now that there were those who didn't accept that the Voynich was the work being discussed in these letters, but who still feel the Voynich is old, and genuine. I do think that is the most valid position to take, if one accepts the premise of my argument/observation, to "disassociate" the Voynich FROM the description in the letters. I had actually not thought of that as a possible, and this is the reason I put these ideas out there, and expose them to harsh criticism... to see what other ways they can be interpreted, if properly understood. That is one of them.
I do think that if one holds both that it is the Voynich being discussed, however, that one needs to either 1) Accept it is modern and fake, OR, 2) accept impossibly high odds it is the same work as discussed in the letters, that it survived and was found by Voynich, and is real, and old.
You've given me a third possible: It is not the book discussed in the letters, but is still old, and real. Of course this removes the value of the given provenance of the letters... but if this is so, that too is a valuable possible to explore, whatever the Voynich turns out to be.
Anyway, great conversation.
Rich.
I had no idea until now that there were those who didn't accept that the Voynich was the work being discussed in these letters, but who still feel the Voynich is old, and genuine. I do think that is the most valid position to take, if one accepts the premise of my argument/observation, to "disassociate" the Voynich FROM the description in the letters. I had actually not thought of that as a possible, and this is the reason I put these ideas out there, and expose them to harsh criticism... to see what other ways they can be interpreted, if properly understood. That is one of them.
I do think that if one holds both that it is the Voynich being discussed, however, that one needs to either 1) Accept it is modern and fake, OR, 2) accept impossibly high odds it is the same work as discussed in the letters, that it survived and was found by Voynich, and is real, and old.
You've given me a third possible: It is not the book discussed in the letters, but is still old, and real. Of course this removes the value of the given provenance of the letters... but if this is so, that too is a valuable possible to explore, whatever the Voynich turns out to be.
Anyway, great conversation.
Rich.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)