- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations
- Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations
-
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations
MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) > 11-03-2026, 09:39 PM
1.
Let's suppose that the Voynich manuscript is comprised only of visuals, without any texts accompanying it whatsoever. Would it be still possible to solve its puzzle, regardless of any success at deciphering its text?
I think it is possible and at some point will demonstrate it. A bird's eye view solution to the elephant can even offer a plausible strategy and focus for any later discoveries that can be made regarding its text.
2.
What will constitute a "solution" to the Voynich manuscript puzzle? Will a bird's eye view of the solution as a whole elephant suffice, or does the solution have to account for every little detail of the elephant, inside and out?
If you find an old painting, parts missing, what will satisfy your expectation that you have understood what it is and why it was created? Can you ever expect to understand its meaning entirely as a work of art? Can you expect to learn all the details of what was in the mind and heart of its creator? Or, will a bird's eye view of it suffice?
For me, a bird's eye solution to the puzzle, as I will further define it below, including of course basic findings of its evidential and reliable details in a historical context, suffices.
3.
Imagine the text of the Voynich manuscript is the insides of an animal, and its visuals its visible body. You don't know what kind of animal it is (or some may not even regard it as an animal, instead treating it, or parts thereof, as a hoax or something else, etc.) and wish to find out one way or another.
For sure, there are lots of details we can try to understand about both the inside and the outside parts of the Voynich manuscript animal.
You can aim for different levels of detail in seeing it, which can determine the extent of time you want to spend on one or another part or details, and the extent of your satisfation about feeling that you have figured out what the animal is.
In other words, you can aim for a bird's eye perspective of it, or, try to figure out every little detail of its uniqueness. Some may be satisfied with the former, others only with the latter, others of course expecting both, ideally.
I would be satisfied with the former, if I feel that based on the evidence in the manuscript itself, and its historical context, I can explain the whether, the what, the why, and the how of the VM (with parts missing) in its historical context.
4.
For sure the details of the VM are important to study. But we have different kinds of details. Some of the details are essential for distinguishing the kind of animal it is, but others not necessarily, being incidental.
You don't need to know why this particular elephant had a shorter tail, or a scratched tusk, or partly bitten ear, etc., since they are incidentals to its nature.
At the very least, when studying its details you should always ask yourself, "Is this an essential detail, or is it a secondary incidental? Is it worth my time to spend this much time and attention on this detail or is it better that I spend my time more on another detail, and also on how the details that I think are or may prove to be essential and important relate to each other."
At some point you need to decide what details to ignore, what to focus on, and how much time to spend on studying it. This is because the time spent on that detail is time taken away from exploring another detail, and from understanding how the details relate to see the whole of the animal, to discover what kind it is.
I think one of the reasons the Voynich manuscript has not been solved has had to do with the imbalance in the focus on its visual and textual aspects. Central to this lack of understanding the visuals fully has been, in my view, a lack of indepth understanding of astrological worldview prevalent in the times it was created.
As it has been pointed out in this forum regarding the reasons the Voynich manuscript has not been solved until now, the lack of awareness of the context has been a key factor.
5.
Given the way this forum's themes have been structured, it seems that an overall solution must integratively address in a plausible and coherent way the most important questions in its textual and visual constituent aspects of all its so-called "botanical," "astrological/cosmic," "balneological," "pharmaceutical," and "recipe" sections, as well as its provenance and history, plus even its marginalia to the extent relevant, and of course also its most imporant physical features.
Is it possible to consider that the reason there are visuals present in the Voynich manuscript has had to do with its author(s) having wished to tell us the text's meaning, having believed that the text will be undecipherable for others? My answer is yes.
If you have created a work of art that you know is expressed, textually, in a language that would be undecipherable for others for one or another reason, yet you wish to make it possible for them to know what meanings it contains, what would you try if you are aiming for a most universal language to translate it into?
The answer is the visual language. Whatever language(s) the text may be using, the visual language would be the most effective way to do it, and the author(s) have done it for us. If we have not understood the visuals' meaning, it is not their, but our, fault, in my view.
After all, the VM manuscript could have been just text, and no visuals. The visuals employ a more accessible and universal way of conveying meanings, in a way that the text does not (and obviously has not done).
6.
Some may say that the visuals are themselves rendered in a way that is mysterious and hard to decipher, even noting (I think plausibly) that the author(s) was trying to resort to tricks of various kinds to hide the meanings even of the visuals. But as the saying goes, not just beauty, but even perceived tricks, may be in the eye of the beholder(s).
Using tricks is not necessarily the only interpretation we can make of the author(s) intent when we see them, and even any tricks used playfully in any work of art may be decipherable convincingly based on the visuals alone and in the context of the broader solution found about the manuscript in historical and cultural context of its creation.
Just because we can't understand the visuals today does not mean it was so around the time it was created, nor does it follow that we have done the best we could in understanding the visuals in the cultural context of the times they were created.
Rather, it is possible to argue that the Voynich manuscript has visuals BECAUSE the author(s) was trying to explain the meaning of the text in a visual way, realizing that the text would not be easily decipherable by others, since the text had been written for a specific reason that was no longer essential for understanding the manuscript, given its added visuals.
If this alternative interpretation is considered, then it would be possible to conclude that by its visuals alone, if plausibly interpreted, we could arrive at an integrative bird's eye solution to its puzzle.
And one reason we have not succeeded in doing so has been that we have spent too much time on the textual aspects of the manuscript, not realizing that the very reason there are visuals in there has to do with its author(s) trying to make it accessible to others (and even more practically for themselves, when it was used as a handbook) to convey what the manuscript is essentially about.
By not spending sufficient time on and applying needed conceptual frameworks to interpreting the visuals in the cultural and historical context in which it was created, used, and shared as an artifact, we have therefore contributed in a self-fulfilling prophetic way to the reasons it has remained undeciphered to this day. -
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations
pjburkshire > 11-03-2026, 09:54 PM
(11-03-2026, 09:39 PM)MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
As it has been pointed out in this forum regarding the reasons the Voynich manuscript has not been solved until now, the lack of awareness of the context has been a key factor.
Years ago when I started my journey with the Voynich Manuscript, I held the opinion that if the people trying to understand the text knew the meaning of the story in the illustrations then it would help them with their task. I no longer hold that idea. Over half the manuscript is about plants. If knowing over half hasn't helped, I don't think any more will. -
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations
R. Sale > 11-03-2026, 10:39 PM
In order to hide special secrets behind a façade, there needs to be a façade.
Trickery has several variations. If the VMs cosmos is insufficient, White Aries shows a clear duality. -
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations
Rafal > 11-03-2026, 11:11 PM
Proper understanding of pictures without the text may be tricky or even impossible.
Without the text it is just some random medieval guy, right?
You would never get the right meaning from the picture alone.
![[Image: 250px-Aristotle_in_Nuremberg_Chronicle.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Aristotle_in_Nuremberg_Chronicle.jpg/250px-Aristotle_in_Nuremberg_Chronicle.jpg)
And Voynich pictures somehow are not helpful at all. As I told in another topic about cribs you don't have good candidates for Zodiac signs, months or Sun and Moon. Although in theory you really should have it somewhere. You don't have any candidates for numbers as well.
I won't suggest anything, make up your mind yourself about it. -
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations
pjburkshire > 11-03-2026, 11:22 PM
(11-03-2026, 11:11 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Without the text it is just some random medieval guy, right? You would never get the right meaning from the picture alone.
It's not how I picture Aristotle when I think of him but I know it is not an illustration of a bear or a tree. I get the idea it is an adult human male. -
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations
MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) > Yesterday, 01:09 AM
-
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations
MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) > Yesterday, 01:23 AM
(11-03-2026, 09:54 PM)pjburkshire Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(11-03-2026, 09:39 PM)MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
As it has been pointed out in this forum regarding the reasons the Voynich manuscript has not been solved until now, the lack of awareness of the context has been a key factor.
Years ago when I started my journey with the Voynich Manuscript, I held the opinion that if the people trying to understand the text knew the meaning of the story in the illustrations then it would help them with their task. I no longer hold that idea. Over half the manuscript is about plants. If knowing over half hasn't helped, I don't think any more will.
I realize you and all of us are searching for answers and I appreciate it. I think it is not a quantitive matter of half or less or more being on this or that topic. Even a single image, if interpreted meaningfully, can answer many questions that hundred could not. So, I encourage you not to give that idea you had.
I remember recently in another thread you were saying there are no planets, or other commonly expected astrological charts in the VM.
This is one of the points I raised early in this thread, that it would be impossible and unreasonable to make such a statement without considering that there are important folios and quires missing in the Voynich manuscript. The complete VM does NOT exist. The VM is an incomplete manuscript and whoever ignores it will have more difficulty understanding it.
Therefore, when you say half of the VM is this or that, you cannot ignore the incompleteness of the manuscript. I don't know how to make this point visible in this forum. Perhaps putting it in the header or the curated threads will help.
I hope in the future I can present more material. I appreciate more patience from you and all. -
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations
MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) > Yesterday, 01:32 AM
(11-03-2026, 11:22 PM)pjburkshire Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(11-03-2026, 11:11 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Without the text it is just some random medieval guy, right? You would never get the right meaning from the picture alone.
It's not how I picture Aristotle when I think of him but I know it is not an illustration of a bear or a tree. I get the idea it is an adult human male.
This is a good point and answer to Rafal's valid question. An image can share many levels of meaning, even if some remain ambiguous. I also would add that one cannot determine the meaning by just one picture's example. The picture Rafal had, if missing the text, but found in a book with images that would point to the person could be found as belonging to a person. If an artist has tried to include a series of images, you cannot assume by looking at just one image you can identify the meaning of the whole text.
Also the images in the book can be found to be associable with other images elsewhere that could provide meaning. I could not be sure of the order of the Zodiac chart nymphs in the VM, but if I find it similar to the Lapidary, I can feel more convinced of the implied order, without even having read any text in the VM. -
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations
MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) > Yesterday, 01:45 AM
(11-03-2026, 10:39 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In order to hide special secrets behind a façade, there needs to be a façade.
Trickery has several variations. If the VMs cosmos is insufficient, White Aries shows a clear duality.
I agree with you that there seems to be a pattern of pairing or duality in the VM. I will have some explanations for it, but I am still thinking about.
What may be regarded as trickery can also be playfulness. I was thinking yesterday that the question whether the Zodiac charts counting begins from the inner or outer ring may itself involve some playfulness and variation, or what you may call trickery.
But then, one may explain it by saying one scribe started it one way and another did it the other way, while another could not fit them in two rings so had to put the rest on the top. And these variations may be interpreted as trickery, when it was not. What will pass as a trickery or not itself is an interesting question to explore and needs to be evaluate on a concrete basis.
I am not sure whether I understand your first sentence properly re. façade. Perhaps you can elaborate. -
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations
Jorge_Stolfi > Yesterday, 04:42 AM
(11-03-2026, 09:18 PM)MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have previously tried to engage with you on your preferred threads, but you simply ignored the questions I was asking.
I am sorry if that happened, sincerely. I must have missed the questions. Please feel free to ask those questions again, or link to the posts.
(One of the "features" of this forum software is that if you see that a thread has unread posts #21, #22, #23, and you read #21, and decide to reply to it, then your post becomes #24, the view of the thread is refreshed to show #24, and posts #22 and #23 are marked as read...)
All the best, --stolfi