• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

No text, but a visual code

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Analysis of the text
  • No text, but a visual code
• No text, but a visual code

• RE: No text, but a visual code

  Antonio García Jiménez > 22-08-2023, 04:03 PM

  I know that what I propose may seem a little crazy to many. But think about the principle of Ockham's razor: usually the simplest solution is the most likely.

• RE: No text, but a visual code

  Antonio García Jiménez > 26-08-2023, 12:36 PM

  It is quite possible that the glyphs have their own meaning, that they do not have to be replaced by something else. In any case, any transliteration is an adulteration of reality.
  
  I think that until this forum ends or until I die I will continue saying the same thing: It is possible that each of the glyphs is a symbol with its own meaning, be it the one I say or another.

• RE: No text, but a visual code

  Antonio García Jiménez > 02-09-2023, 04:51 PM

  I believe that an in-depth examination of each of the glyphs, of their shape, can give rise to some insights.
  
    For example, let's look at the oblique stroke that is usually transliterated as i. Why did the scribe not write it straight but oblique? It seems like a minor issue but I think that analyzing these details is how we can move forward.
  
  Let's look at this drawing that has been called the clock
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  Inside the sphere those lines are repeated. Some appear straight, others slanted. They are strokes, three by three, that exist in other drawings of the codex. Does this line of the drawing have to do with the glyph of the so-called text? Curiously, the glyph can be doubled and tripled as in the drawing.
  
  What emerges from this comparison is an insight into why the glyph is oblique and not straight. Is the scribe thinking in the sphere and that is why he writes it tilted?

• RE: No text, but a visual code

  Antonio García Jiménez > 19-09-2023, 09:45 AM

  Much of the Voynich enigma is an epistemological problem, that is, what approach to knowledge is appropriate, how to see it as an enlightened person of the same era would see it.
  
  For example, pretending that script is a complex encrypted language is completely anachronistic; It's like pretending that when the telephone was invented in the 19th century, mobile phones were also invented. The same reasoning applies when trying to find an oriental, minority or exotic language for a product of the 15th century with marked Western European characteristics.
  
  In the iconographic interpretation the errors are patent. There are many solutions that see in Quire 13 something biological related to women. One of the most recurrent medieval motifs is ignored. At that time allegory and personification were frequently used. In Voynich we clearly see this metaphorical resource when we see the sun and the moon with human faces. Why would the female figures that we see in the zodiac and in Quire 13 be anything other than a personification of the stars?
  
  At a time when we see realistically drawn herbaria, why is it so difficult to identify plants at Voynich? Could it be that the author had no interest in drawing real herbs, but rather in transmitting another type of message?
  
  For all these reasons and others, as important as studying Voynich is knowing how to study it.

• RE: No text, but a visual code

  Antonio García Jiménez > 25-09-2023, 09:32 AM

  In my previous post I forgot to mention the enormous importance of astrology at the time. Without being aware of it, I believe that one cannot think about Voynich.
  
  I will only give one example so that you can reflect on it: a cardinal of the Catholic Church like Pierre d'Aylli thought that the dates of the main events in History could be determined by astronomical calculations.
  
  Astrology was not something marginal but was part of the official culture of the time.

• RE: No text, but a visual code

  Antonio García Jiménez > 01-10-2023, 01:04 PM

  Although very original, the VM is a product of the medieval European culture of its time. In this culture, an incipient science disputed with religion and magic the explanation of nature and even supernatural forces. I think that without being aware of this it is very difficult to understand this book. 
  
  The efforts that many people make to understand the script in terms of a natural or encrypted language seem reasonable to me, although I do not agree with them.
  
  What doesn't seem reasonable to me is to think that the VM is something fake or that the script is nothing more than gibberish. The only thing that this opinion shows is that it is not known what medieval culture consists of. Delving deeper into this culture is what I believe will advance VM research.

• RE: [split] University of Vienna Voynich Manuscript seminar

  Antonio García Jiménez > 05-10-2023, 04:08 PM

  merrimacga I agree with what you say.
  
  I am skeptical about the impact that an art historian can have on this forum. With all my respect to Martina Pippal, I don't think she has the level of international recognition that Erwin Panofsky enjoyed. I think I am the member of this forum who has cited him the most times. I have sometimes been annoying saying for years that Panofsky's ideas are fundamental to understanding the iconography of the Voynich. It has been useless.

• RE: [split] University of Vienna Voynich Manuscript seminar

  Koen G > 05-10-2023, 04:27 PM

  Unfortunately though, Panofsky has never presented a thorough analysis and argumentation, so we only have his superficial remarks based on limited observation of the MS. I would have loved to have more from him, but we don't. 
  
  Often, when people without any experience in iconography publish about the manuscript's imagery, the results are embarrassing. We need art historians on board. So let's please not scare them off or dismiss their views before they've even said anything.
  
  
  

• RE: [split] University of Vienna Voynich Manuscript seminar

  Antonio García Jiménez > 05-10-2023, 04:45 PM

  Sorry, but I'm not dismissing anyone's opinion. You are the one who just disqualified Panofsky's opinion.
  
  

• RE: [split] University of Vienna Voynich Manuscript seminar

  MarcoP > 05-10-2023, 05:58 PM

  (05-10-2023, 04:08 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think I am the member of this forum who has cited him the most times. I have sometimes been annoying saying for years that Panofsky's ideas are fundamental to understanding the iconography of the Voynich. It has been useless.

  
  Yes, it does not matter how many times you type "Panofsky". Contributing something useful requires a little more effort.
• Next Oldest Next Newest