11-02-2026, 08:41 PM
Thank you for clarifying the idiom — I understand what you mean.
It’s very easy to fall into what I would call the “Voynich tunnel,” where one can get lost in small details and patterns and never come back out. That risk is real.
At the same time, my approach has actually been the opposite: I try to look at the manuscript as a whole and give it a coherent overall meaning. The interpretation I proposed — whether right or wrong — is an attempt to read it structurally from beginning to end, rather than isolating single symbols or individual scenes.
Of course I may be mistaken. But I prefer to test a global hypothesis and see if it holds across sections, instead of focusing only on micro-details.
That’s the direction I’m exploring.
It’s very easy to fall into what I would call the “Voynich tunnel,” where one can get lost in small details and patterns and never come back out. That risk is real.
At the same time, my approach has actually been the opposite: I try to look at the manuscript as a whole and give it a coherent overall meaning. The interpretation I proposed — whether right or wrong — is an attempt to read it structurally from beginning to end, rather than isolating single symbols or individual scenes.
Of course I may be mistaken. But I prefer to test a global hypothesis and see if it holds across sections, instead of focusing only on micro-details.
That’s the direction I’m exploring.