13-01-2026, 01:49 PM
Quote:So, according to you, all the information is in the script and the imagery contains no ideas, it doesn't mean anything. Since there's no information in the script, then the Voynich manuscript means nothing.
Okay, I must be more precise.
Imagery is to some extent meaningful. It is not an abstract art, it depicts plants, stars and naked women. I guess we all agree about that.
But I believe the pictures are frankensteins.
Plants are imaginary, built of parts of another plants.
And other pictures are frankensteins too. For example the artist stole bathing ladies from a balneology treatise and put them on a zodial wheel stolen from astrological treatise. They made sense in their original manuscripts but don't make sense together.
Or he stole Diogenes talking from a laying barrel, replaced him by a naked lady and placed on a Zodiac wheel. Diogenes in a laying barrel makes perfect sense. Naked lady in a laying barrel on a Zodiac wheel doesn't make sense.
Imagery has some meaning but these are "leftovers" of the original meaning in the original sources. Then it was all mixed up by some guy who could be 18 years old and understand about 10% of the original symbolism.
It is of course interesting and enlightening to search and find possible parallels and inspirations for VM.
And does VM has any message? Well, kind of...
1) Give me your money
2) You are fools. I tricked you. Doctor bullatus, asinus coronatus. That's what you are
By the way, I am not 100% convinced about the above. But I would say something about 70%
I will write more about it in the future.