No text, but a visual code

[Antonio García Jiménez]

There are hardly any things that the members of this forum agree on. Where I think there may be some unanimity is in the design of the script glyphs. There is no doubt that the author or authors have chosen the glyphs intentionally. Many of them show a strong polarity. There are two gallows with one leg and there are two gallows with two legs. And likewise there are two gallows with a loop and two others without it. The same can be said for benched gallows. There is also a bench with a sign on top and another without it.

Polarity is also manifested in the glyphs that are repeated up to three times: [c][cc] [ccc] and [\][\\][\\\]. Both sequences are incompatible and there are glyphs that show a preference for one or the other. This strong polarity is such an intrinsic feature of the script that it is lost when converting glyphs to letters of the alphabet. What is lost is the intention of the design.

For me, since the codex has such extensive cosmological content, that polarity is the partition of the sphere of the cosmos into two halves.