Helmut Winkler > 12-03-2021, 04:22 PM
RenegadeHealer > 12-03-2021, 05:00 PM
(12-03-2021, 03:09 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't think that it is constructive to try to classify people based on their opinion. Everybody is free to change their opinion as they learn more, and not be forced to belong to some group. This is not politics, just an interest for a relatively unimportant historical document.
There should be no discussion like A-believers vs. B-believers.
RenegadeHealer > 12-03-2021, 05:03 PM
(12-03-2021, 04:22 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Who was the VMs's target audience, and what effect did its authors wish to have on them?
I think it is highly unlikely there was a target audience and the wish for an effect, as I have said before, I think the ms. is a bunch of private notes
R. Sale > 12-03-2021, 06:59 PM
ReneZ > 12-03-2021, 08:52 PM
(12-03-2021, 05:00 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The point of my post is, I would caution anyone who chooses to play the skeptic in a VMs-related discussion, to be clear and consistent about exactly what assumption you are questioning or challenging. The same goes for anyone responding to someone playing the skeptic.
Aga Tentakulus > 12-03-2021, 09:47 PM
Aga Tentakulus > 12-03-2021, 09:52 PM
proto57 > 13-03-2021, 03:11 PM
(11-03-2021, 08:00 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.proto57, I agree with you: I've seen valuable discussions started by VMs skeptics get prematurely derailed on semantics. When I get involved with these discussions, I try to define exactly what I mean by the terms I use, especially when the thread already has plenty of friction between users who are clearly using the same term to mean different things. I recommend this approach to anyone; it avoids a lot of misunderstanding.
My working definitions for a bunch of terms I use:
- VMs skeptic {noun}: somebody who questions an assumption that the VMs is what it appears to be
- fake {noun}: something that is not what it appears to be
- forgery {noun}: a fake crafted for the purpose of deceiving a target audience. Synonyms: hoax, ruse, counterfeit, sham
- (non-)linguistic {adjective}: (not) created for the direct storage and retrieval of human speech
- pseudo-language {adjective}: non-linguistic patterns created for deceiving a target audience into the mistaken perception of language
- code {noun}: patterns created for the storage and retrieval of information besides direct human speech. Synonym: symbolic language
- meaningful(/-less) {adjective}: (not) created for the storage and retrieval of information
- stochastically generated {adjective}: of a pattern, as mathematically complex as meaningful data from a complex system, but in fact generated by a simple loop of mechanistic processes
- random {adjective}: not part of a larger pattern, despite any appearances to the contrary
- incoherent {adjective}: linguistic but meaningless
- gibberish {noun}: pseudo-language made of linguistic syllables, with no meaningful words or grammar. Synonym: vocable(s)
- glossolalia {noun}: spontaneous gibberish generation as a mystical practice and/or divination technique
(12-03-2021, 03:09 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This thread has been going OT for a while now.
I would just like to repeat a comment I made earlier, and applies to the recent discussion.
Quote:VMs skeptic {noun}: somebody who questions an assumption that the VMs is what it appears to be
I don't think that it is constructive to try to classify people based on their opinion. Everybody is free to change their opinion as they learn more, and not be forced to belong to some group. This is not politics, just an interest for a relatively unimportant historical document.
There should be no discussion like A-believers vs. B-believers.
I am known for being skeptical. Not about the MS but about proposed theories. I need something really good before I am convinced.
There is really good evidence that the MS is original early 15th century.
There is really good evidence that it is of European origin.
Much else is a matter of opinion and remains to be seen.
ReneZ > 14-03-2021, 10:01 AM
(13-03-2021, 03:11 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.point out that you cannot be skeptical of an object, but only of a theory about the object. Now that might sound like an abuse of semantics, but bear with me please: First of all, "genuine 15th century European cipher herbal" is a theory like any other.
Quote:... being skeptical. Not about the MS but ...
Quote:VMs skeptic {noun}: somebody who questions an assumption that the VMs is what it appears to be
Quote:"genuine 15th century European cipher herbal" is a theory like any other.is just rhetoric.
proto57 > 16-03-2021, 06:32 PM
(14-03-2021, 10:01 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Now for me:
Quote:"genuine 15th century European cipher herbal" is a theory like any other.
is just rhetoric.
There are no "theories like any other". There are solid theories, i.e. based on solid information, there are those based on shaky information and there are those based on no information at all.
Just saying that one has a theory, and thereby it is as good as any other, doesn't work.
(14-03-2021, 10:01 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In this specific case, "genuine 15th century European cipher herbal" is several things combined:
- genuine
- 15th century European
- cipher
- herbal
and this combination is certainly a theory, not more.
"Herbal" really only describes part of the book so it is probably the weakest part