R. Sale > 26-10-2019, 10:59 PM
(18-10-2019, 05:30 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@R.Sale
In the negative/disturbed formation and assessment of the characteristic coherence as a symptom of disease, one speaks of incoherence or of absentmindedness or confusion of the train of thought. Thought contents that do not belong together are lined up and mixed. There is a lack of content structure and orderly flow of thoughts. An example of incoherent thought reported by Emil Kraepelin (1856-1926) is: "The girl is always unpleasantly acceptable tips on such occasions". Uwe Henrik Peters writes that, despite the deficiencies mentioned, a thematic overall context remains recognizable.[1] The formulation, which is sufficiently structured in content, syntactically correct and more understandable in terms of logical sequences, would require a longer execution of the sentence. This example shows a work of condensation as described by Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) in the dream work, see chapter Orthology[2].
* - * - *
Rather than looking to Freud or the “DSM-5”, I ducked out and went to “Webster’s”. The definition of coherent is consistent, logically connected, clearly articulated and intelligible. But, there is also the interpretation of the investigator, individual determination, as to whether the evidence achieves a cohesive status or not.
I hesitate to say much about the initial, herbal-like section of the VM. I have nothing against plants, but scientific botany just is not my thing. I gather Mr. Touwaide wasn’t a botanist either, though it could be his avocation. However, I am strongly in support of the problematic interpretations detailed in earlier posts by JKP. So, there is some difficulty in considering how much such discrepancies, the inclusion of these flawed and false assumptions, have influenced the determination of apparent coherence and incoherence in total.
Clearly there is a coherence of the first part of the VMs with the standard format of the medieval herbal, at least as far as being a sequence of folios that combine illustrated images of ‘plants’ and ‘text’. As a non-botanist, I see a few illustrations that seem probable as accurate identifications and a number that remain under investigation. There is a sort of ‘VMs’ strangeness that is stronger in certain representations than in others. It makes identification difficult. And this creates inconsistency. There is no sequence of plant illustrations to match that of the various, authenticated medieval, herbal manuscripts. There is no connection of plant identification with the linguistic text. And so, there is a notable level of incoherence.
An example of incoherence occurs when botanical elements are represented in ways that are not consistent with nature. Certain VMs leaf margins were drawn with a specific type of line pattern that cannot be found in the natural world, but the pattern occurs in three different images in the VMs.
In researching the VMs, the capacity of the manuscript to transmit the intentions of its creator is beyond our control. The old ‘It is what it is’. The presence and extent of coherence is then evaluated by the knowledge and experience of the researcher. What are the factors that are input for this determination of coherence? What happens when illustrated material is not intelligible? Perhaps something is misinterpreted; perhaps it remains unseen. What happens is that this material is not integrated, creating various gaps. And when these links of logical connection fail to materialize, the chain of coherence is broken by the absence of possible options.
This difficulty is partially corrected by the recovery of traditional terminology, by the recognition and use of specific information from the Bible, from history and from heraldry. From the Bible, for example, specifically from Deuteronomy the statement (included twice), that the establishment of truth requires two or more witnesses. From history, the Genoese popes and the early 1400 cosmic illustrations of Oresme and de Metz. From heraldry, standard armorial insignia, hats as the marks of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, traditional rules and terminology and heraldic canting.
A specific example of the recovery of traditional terminology is the naming of the nebuly line. And rediscovery of the etymology opens the possibility of the cloud-based interpretation and the connection with certain medieval representations of the Wolkenband. The cloud-based interpretation of the nebuly line clearly expands and strengthens the cosmic interpretation of VMs f68v3. Not to mention the 43 undulations.
Returning to the three VMs illustrations of leaf margins with strange patterns. These are nebuly lines. Three consistent witnesses. There are no plants with nebuly lines as leaf margins. The VMs plants, in varying degrees, are not coherent, from the botanical perspective. And here we see how an element, unknown and unnamed, such as this line pattern, can contribute a very minor amount to the relative incoherence, when unrecognized. And then, when known and named, the identification can not only contribute more strongly to the botanical incoherence, but at the same time it can set forth a new coherence based on the recovery of the example of traditional terminology – the nebuly line.
The use of nebuly lines as leaf margins is trickery, just as the use of text banners in the VMs cosmos is blatant trickery. The optical illusion of White Aries is an intentional disguise. The papelonny pun suddenly appears as a purposely built construction, once the proper, traditional name for the tincture pattern is recovered. This is where the consistency and coherence of the VMs is found – in heraldry – in the same sort of mindset that is capable of using heralding canting and intentional disguise. As an example, a family named DeLucy has a heraldic insignia showing three fish. The investigator sees the fish, that look like pike, but what is it supposed to mean? Anyone can guess. However, only with the recovery of the traditional name for this fish, a lucie, can there be a proper logical interpretation, even if it is based on a pun, that reveals the canted connections. In the VMs examples of the nebuly line and the papelonny tincture, the recovery of traditional terminology is the intermediate step that provides the logical connection between representation and interpretation. And the [intended / proper] traditional interpretation (as much as can be found) should be a necessary precursor to any determination of what is coherent or incoherent. Disguise for the author and difficulty for the investigator are then inherent in the fact that canting is part of the heraldic tradition. And the author has apparently chosen to use canting with intent - along with other tricks.
Where the VMs creator has used canting (etc.), the VMs investigator needs to use 'un-canting'. Only two problems: What is it that has been canted? How does the canting process work in specific VMs examples?