The Sator Square (or wheel) is the preeminent expression of the potency of palindromes.
1. Glyphs, curves, lines
My first approach to the Voynich language was to examine the glyph set. I encountered the Curve-and line hypothesis of Brian Cham, and this shaped my view of the underlying mechanics of the language. I came to the view the language was founded upon some "primal duality" in the glyph construction.
2. The search for a paradigm
Next, I joined the search for a Vord paradigm: a single pattern that can model all Voynich words, a common structure.
My work here was informed by many previous studies but especially those of Stolfi and also Emma May Smith. I drew upon many previous attempts to model a paradigm for Voynichese words.
3. The dual paradigm
The frustrations of searching for a consistent model for Voynich words eventually led to the realisation there was more than one. I had identified one as: QOKEEDY. But there was obviously something distorting or influencing it.
Here I encountered the phenomenon of ‘Feaster loops’ and the studies of Patrick Feaster.
Following Feaster’s pursuit of glyph probabilities, I identified the second paradigm as: CHOLDAIIN.
The words of Voynichese are derived from a dual paradigm system. This explained the phenomenon of Currier A and Currier B. Currier A is largely based on CHOLDAIIN and Currier B on QOKEEDY.
4. Verbum Potentiae
Rather than being merely mechanical, I understood the two paradigmatic words as: verbum potentiae. The whole language, it seemed to me, had been extracted, extrapolated, from these two words.
They are, in some way, words of power, potentiality.
The language has been created by setting up two paradigms: QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN.
Feaster showed how these glyph configurations are the line of least resistance in the text, and how all words culminate in those words.
My work here was informed by many previous studies but especially those of Stolfi and also Emma May Smith. I drew upon many previous attempts to model a paradigm for Voynichese words.
3. The dual paradigm
The frustrations of searching for a consistent model for Voynich words eventually led to the realisation there was more than one. I had identified one as: QOKEEDY. But there was obviously something distorting or influencing it.
Here I encountered the phenomenon of ‘Feaster loops’ and the studies of Patrick Feaster.
Following Feaster’s pursuit of glyph probabilities, I identified the second paradigm as: CHOLDAIIN.
The words of Voynichese are derived from a dual paradigm system. This explained the phenomenon of Currier A and Currier B. Currier A is largely based on CHOLDAIIN and Currier B on QOKEEDY.
4. Verbum Potentiae
Rather than being merely mechanical, I understood the two paradigmatic words as: verbum potentiae. The whole language, it seemed to me, had been extracted, extrapolated, from these two words.
They are, in some way, words of power, potentiality.
The language has been created by setting up two paradigms: QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN.
Feaster showed how these glyph configurations are the line of least resistance in the text, and how all words culminate in those words.
If the text can be reduced to these words, it can also be extrapolated from these two words.
This, at least, was a convenient way of reducing the densely complex problem of the language to a simple problem.
It is a system of keywords. Every word in Voynichese can be explained as a permutation or combination of the two primal words.
This amounted to a reconceptualizing of the language. I now understood it as something quite different to a natural text of any kind.
The focus of my studies became QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN.
My first assessment of them was in terms of curves and lines in the hope of understanding the patterns exposed by Brian Cham.
4. Coincidentia Oppositorum
The question arose: how are the two paradigms related? How do they interact? What are the rules?
QOKEEDY, I noted, is all curves. CHOLDAIIN is curves and lines. A point of (intentional) contrast.
This suggested the idea of ‘coinciding opposites’ and the (contemporary and historically appropriate) philosophical doctrine of the coincidentia oppositorum.
I examined the verbum potentiae in this light, studing the sundry relations between the glyphs of the two words.
My conclusion was that the two terms had been chosen (or designed) and set up as coinciding opposites. This is their relation.
I realized then that Voynichese is a demonstration of, or expression of, and is based upon, the coincidentia oppositorum.
The way to understand the two paradigms is as coinciding opposites. By design, this is at the core of the language.
The formation of words, as well as the rules of the language, arise out of the coinciding opposites – that is the samenesses and differences – of the two keywords.
5. The Problem of Labels
The paradigms (verbum potentiae) explained most aspects of the language well enough, including the distinction between Currier A and Currier B.
But, as many studies showed, the Labels in the text were somewhat different. The two paradigms were far less convincing applied to Labels.
There are really three versions of the text: Currier A, Currier B, and the Labels. How to explain Labelese?
I found some useful work on this by Nick Pelling and others and profited from their observations and statistical studies. But the problem, I thought, was conceptual.
The problem of the Labels proved to be very difficult. My dual paradigms didn’t quite work with the Labels.
This, at least, was a convenient way of reducing the densely complex problem of the language to a simple problem.
It is a system of keywords. Every word in Voynichese can be explained as a permutation or combination of the two primal words.
This amounted to a reconceptualizing of the language. I now understood it as something quite different to a natural text of any kind.
The focus of my studies became QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN.
My first assessment of them was in terms of curves and lines in the hope of understanding the patterns exposed by Brian Cham.
4. Coincidentia Oppositorum
The question arose: how are the two paradigms related? How do they interact? What are the rules?
QOKEEDY, I noted, is all curves. CHOLDAIIN is curves and lines. A point of (intentional) contrast.
This suggested the idea of ‘coinciding opposites’ and the (contemporary and historically appropriate) philosophical doctrine of the coincidentia oppositorum.
I examined the verbum potentiae in this light, studing the sundry relations between the glyphs of the two words.
My conclusion was that the two terms had been chosen (or designed) and set up as coinciding opposites. This is their relation.
I realized then that Voynichese is a demonstration of, or expression of, and is based upon, the coincidentia oppositorum.
The way to understand the two paradigms is as coinciding opposites. By design, this is at the core of the language.
The formation of words, as well as the rules of the language, arise out of the coinciding opposites – that is the samenesses and differences – of the two keywords.
5. The Problem of Labels
The paradigms (verbum potentiae) explained most aspects of the language well enough, including the distinction between Currier A and Currier B.
But, as many studies showed, the Labels in the text were somewhat different. The two paradigms were far less convincing applied to Labels.
There are really three versions of the text: Currier A, Currier B, and the Labels. How to explain Labelese?
I found some useful work on this by Nick Pelling and others and profited from their observations and statistical studies. But the problem, I thought, was conceptual.
The problem of the Labels proved to be very difficult. My dual paradigms didn’t quite work with the Labels.
Backtracking, I found that previous systems of word paradigms ran afoul on Label words too. Again, Stolfi's studies were often helpful.
6. No [q]
The clue to understanding Labelese was that the [q] is (almost entirely) missing from Labels.
I took this and other characteristic “anomalies” of Labelese and mapped them to the two paradigms. What changes needed to be made to the paradigms to make them paradigmatic of Label words?
For a start, [q] is dropped from QOKEEDY and [ch] is dropped from CHOLDAIIN.
What we find underneath the Label words are stripped down versions of the paradigms used to create Currier A and B.
Following this process we arrive at two modified paradigms. This required a study to expose the underlying structures.
7. Palindromes
But the modified paradigms, I then understood, might in fact be primitive forms of QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN.
I realized that the Labels show us a primitive, unadorned version of each verbum potentiae. The underlying structures are the deepest layer.
An important fact emerged: in their primitive configurations the paradigms have symmetries otherwise obscured by the glyph system.
Moreover, these symmetries are palindromic. The basic form is: the prefix and suffix are a mirror image of each other.
My conclusion: at its very deepest levels, Voynichese is founded upon a set of palindromes.
The words in Labelese are derived from the primitive paradigms. But those primitive paradigms have been dressed up, adorned, as QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN and the main text, Currier A and B, has been extrapolated from those adorned paradigms.
The primitive paradigms are plainly palindromic.
Palindromes are, in their very nature, an expression of, emblematic of, an embodiment of, the coincidentia oppositorum.
Other than some stray comments in old mailing lists, I could not find any Voynich researchers who could supply studies relevant to this approach.
The difficulty is to put the data into a coherent meaningful order, and that is largely a matter amenable to reflective rather than quantitative methodologies.
My method has not been to generate new swathes of statistics, but to reduce the problem to its simplest components.
6. No [q]
The clue to understanding Labelese was that the [q] is (almost entirely) missing from Labels.
I took this and other characteristic “anomalies” of Labelese and mapped them to the two paradigms. What changes needed to be made to the paradigms to make them paradigmatic of Label words?
For a start, [q] is dropped from QOKEEDY and [ch] is dropped from CHOLDAIIN.
What we find underneath the Label words are stripped down versions of the paradigms used to create Currier A and B.
Following this process we arrive at two modified paradigms. This required a study to expose the underlying structures.
7. Palindromes
But the modified paradigms, I then understood, might in fact be primitive forms of QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN.
I realized that the Labels show us a primitive, unadorned version of each verbum potentiae. The underlying structures are the deepest layer.
An important fact emerged: in their primitive configurations the paradigms have symmetries otherwise obscured by the glyph system.
Moreover, these symmetries are palindromic. The basic form is: the prefix and suffix are a mirror image of each other.
My conclusion: at its very deepest levels, Voynichese is founded upon a set of palindromes.
The words in Labelese are derived from the primitive paradigms. But those primitive paradigms have been dressed up, adorned, as QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN and the main text, Currier A and B, has been extrapolated from those adorned paradigms.
The primitive paradigms are plainly palindromic.
Palindromes are, in their very nature, an expression of, emblematic of, an embodiment of, the coincidentia oppositorum.
Other than some stray comments in old mailing lists, I could not find any Voynich researchers who could supply studies relevant to this approach.
The difficulty is to put the data into a coherent meaningful order, and that is largely a matter amenable to reflective rather than quantitative methodologies.
My method has not been to generate new swathes of statistics, but to reduce the problem to its simplest components.
The objective, always, is to find the most plausible explanation, the best fit to the facts, fully consistent with the realities and mindset of the relevant period - the simplest account, no copious bandaging or deus ex mechina required.
These studies – this path into the swamp of Voynichese – leads me to conclude that the language is an artificial, philosophical construction demonstrating the coincidentia oppositorum.
To this end, the author has started with two primitive paradigms – two sets of palindromes – and has then equipped them (adorned them) with a glyph set that will allow these Ur-words to be expanded into a language.
* * *
These studies – this path into the swamp of Voynichese – leads me to conclude that the language is an artificial, philosophical construction demonstrating the coincidentia oppositorum.
To this end, the author has started with two primitive paradigms – two sets of palindromes – and has then equipped them (adorned them) with a glyph set that will allow these Ur-words to be expanded into a language.
This means that the verbum potentiae derive their power from being palindromes.
Voynichese is essentially palindromic.
R.B.
R.B.
No comments:
Post a Comment