I am never quite sure what to post next on this blog, with several ideas I would like to tie into what I have written already. But in this case, Michael Johne posted a link to a comic on the VMS-net list:
A very funny and insightful comic. It struck a note with me, but really, or probably, in a way different from most other Voynich researchers. The root of humor is irony, but often the irony is different for different people, and maybe not always that which is intended by the author. I cannot speak for the author, but I will guess in this case: The point to the comic is that “wouldn’t it be ironic?”, if, after all this, the Voynich is really just a fantasy… in the form of a role playing game, in this case.
And therin lies the irony for little old me. That this concept is still considered absurd… because, of course, we “know” this is a real document, with a real intent, with real content. So I find it ironic that such a concept as the “absurd possibility” that is a fantasy, or in this instance, a fantasy game, is still considered off the board.
There is little I am convinced of with the Voynich. It’s date, it’s purpose, it’s author, or even, if it is gibberish or not. But that it contains fantasy, and is on the whole a fantasy document, I am fairly assured. That might seem to those not initiated into the world of Voynich research to be a fairly innocuous statement, but believe me, it is like a sacrilege of biblical proportions to the status quo. I have not gotten more grief over this premise than any other I have proposed… even among those who began to accept my optical premises… than I have for my “artifact of a fiction” position.
I’m not sure of all the reasons for this. I have some ideas, chief of which would probably be the sense that if it is based on fantasy, then all the previous and current attempts have been, and are, in vain. The concept of fantasy would slip the anchor of the mainstream researchers, who believe the way in to the secret is through a meaningful herbal or pharmaceutical and so on.
But then the hard part is, and has been: if it is real, you have to explain it as real. The buildings must be real, the plants must be real, the people must be doing real things, or representing real things. Honestly, I was down that road a long time ago, and tried to fit my optical observations into the concept of a real notebook of Drebbel’s. And I can tell you, it is a tough row to hoe. There may be real influences from all over: Optics, botanical, astronomical, astrological, etc…. but to hold the position that this is all accurate to some doctrine, discipline, time or culture, is, to me, the harder path. But believe it or not, it is the true path of the majority.
One “classic” argument I made, which is to me most representative, is my Tower in the Hole argument. On the rosettes page there is a tower, in a hole. I called it a “visual oxymoron”, because who would ever build a tower in a hole. I mean, researchers have endlessly tried to match up the rosettes castle to a real castle somewhere, and never found it, or anything close. But they did not touch the Tower in the Hole. Why?
And then, in response to my posting this image, and making the point that the Voynich must contain fantasy, there was a flurry of responses. The Ethopian churches carved in rock, another church with building built around them, some castles down a hill from a road in Europe, and even a cartoon rocket in a gantry was shown… all to point out just how common it was to find such a concept as a Tower in a Hole. All of course, making my point, although inadvertently: A Tower in a Hole would be an accident of geography, a bad match, or a fantasy. And it would look nothing like the Voynich tower, which is simply, a tower built in a hole. It is almost the definition of fantasy, much like a screen door on a submarine, or an ice cube in hell.
Well when I got my head around the fantasy issue, I have to say it all falls into place. The bizarre imagery and text which has been mostly impossible to match to the real world, ceases to be a problem, and becomes supporting features to my theories. Is it a game, like the comic jokingly implies, or a fake Bible of Bensalem? I cannot know. But I think that the joke in the comic would be funny in an entirely different way than many are probably taking it, if the author, and readers, could see it from my vantage. Rich SantaColoma.