Re: Voynich research needs (automatic writing)

[Dennis <ixohoxi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Brian Moroz wrote:
> 
> -does the act of writing make
> > "automatic writing" fundamantally different in
> > content and/or statistical
> > properties then spoken glossolalia?
> >
> > -Adams
> 
> I'm new to the list, but I'm going to jump right in on
> this one and hope I don't repeat anything already
> mentioned.
> The act of automatic writing, as I have ever seen it
> performed, does not produce letters or ideograms of
> any discernable variety.  It produces a series of
> lines and curves that are almost totally random.  It
> is the act of emoting through the pen.  The mss is
> clearly written by someone who uses an alphabet, and
> sentence structure.  Statistics cannot be used to
> analyze automatic writing, unless you look at the
> ratio of curves to lines or some equally esoteric
> statistic method.

	I'm puzzled here on what "automatic writing" is.  Such
writings as Edgar Cayce's prophesies, the Course in
Miracles, OAHSPE (a 19th century book supposedly
channeled from extraterrestrials), and others are
perfectly good natural language, English, even though
they were produced in a trance state.  So they're as
straightforward to read as the newspaper.  Could
someone clarify all this?

Dennis