Re: VMs: Re: T-maps later than thought?

["Jeff" <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

http://www.nmsu.edu/~honors/TOmaps.html

For anyone still arguing start here. Rock on Babs!

Jeff


----- Original Message -----
From: "Barbara Barrett" <barbarabarrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 12 February 2004 16:29
Subject: Re: VMs: Re: T-maps later than thought?


> >Elmar Elucidated;
> >I'm not quite sure if there's really anybody interested in the argument
> except
> >for the two of us... sorry if we're wasting bandwidth.
>
> Barbara Blithers;
> Other have interest, and some of those even join it. Observing Thesis vs
> Anti Thesis to reach synthesis it a function of this forum.
>
> Besides, don't deny an old lady one of her few pleasures in life ;-)
>
> I'm sure that when and if we're the only two left and either when the rest
> of them get board with us or we start going around in endless circular
logic
> our moderators will intervene ;-)
>
> >> Barbara Babbles;
> >> Perhaps if you've got the English name of the map I can look it up on
the
> >> net; most of the significant medieval maps are one line somewhere.
>
> >It was just a page in a book (oh which I don't know the title anymore);
> anyway
> >I don't think it's spectacular enough to warrant an exhaustive search.
>
> Everything teaches if you open yourself to it: that's my philosophy
anyway.
> You said the exhibition had a catalogue; perhaps the mss was mentioned
> therein?
> I'd really like to chase it down. Pretty Please?
>
> > I wasn't attacking the fingerprint technique, but your assumption of "6
> > matches make a proof".
>
> Not my assumption at al dear heart. Medievalists identify a T-O map by 6
> features which in combination are unique to T-O maps, and the one on f68v3
> has them all: Ergo 100% match; a positive identification.
>
> Getting into statistics and their relevance to fingerprint ID isn't
germane
> in itself to the T-O map ID.
>
> >What you have in the alleged T-O-map is... three strokes of the quill.
>
> Incorrect, the inner and outer circles, and the strict placement of the
> straight strokes are of vital importance, as are the areas they enclose
and
> the shapes they form.
>
> >Yes, but f68v3 is _not_ specific. All you've got is a circle with two
lines
> >running through it. I could show you the exact same shape from my last
> >PowerPoint presentation. It's a pie chart with percentages -- does this
> prove >I  was actually drawing a T-O map?
>
> >No, what it proves is, that the shape of a T-O can occur in various
> >circumstances, and to precisely identify it we have to have context
> >information -- like from the labels.
>
> As what you draw does not have all the necessary points of identification,
> it can not be a T-O map, but I'll give you that it could bear a
superficial
> resemblance to one. But the major objection is that it would be out of
> context, and in all examination of the past Context is King. An original
T-O
> can only be found in context. In the context of a modern financial report
it
> is very unlikely to be a T-O map (although it is possible in a thesis on
> cartography), in the context of a medieval manuscript it is highly
unlikely
> it is not a T-O map.
>
> As I said in the last post a T-O map is positivley identified before the
> labels are taken into consideration. That is the way it is done.
>
> > > Ah, but you're making the assumption that the labels on a T-O map
always
> > > identify its constituent parts, which is not true. <snip>
> > > Furthermore the f68v3 isn't just a circle with two lines; ...
>
> >What you have is a circle, divided in a 180° and two 90° segments.
> >Everything else is your interpretation. Orientation is arbitrary, and
there
> is
> >only one  way to arrange these segments, so there's not really a whole
lot
> of
> >information in there.
>
> Incorrect. It isn't my interpretation but that of medievalists (as was
> pointed out to me); the details are in D'Imperio. And in a *basic*
schematic
> the whole point is to reduce the information content to its fundamentals
> anyway. Simplicity was the goal. So the fact the basic unadorned T-O
> contains "little information" while a statement of truth, in no way makes
it
> become something else!
>
> >You corroborate your interpretation by the second circle running around
it,
> >saying "it's the great ocean, and that fits in the T-O interpretation."
At
> the
> >same time you ignore the four spirals running outward -- arbitrarily
> dividing
> >the image in parts which belong to the suspected T-O, and parts which do
> >not
>
> On the contrary petal. The first outer circle is an integral part of T-0
map
> identification; it doesn't corroborate the identification, it is an
integral
> part of it.
>
> And the question wasn't what does the whole page represent but; is that a
> T-O map at the centre of the drawing?
>
> As for the spirals they fit the pattern of an 8 wind "wind rota". It was
not
> uncommon to place a world schematic of some type at the centre of a wind
> rota. The far outer pair of circles from which the spirals connect to the
> "world" make sense, make medieval sense, in terms of a wind rota - but
that
> identification is less sound than that of the T-O map, but only because of
> the stars and wigglly lines which are very uncommon and cast doubt on the
> wind-rota interpretation - if they are meaningful and not just decoration
or
> prettyfictaion of some sort. With the possible Wind Rota ( a very high
> possibility) we can not say definitely unless the stars and wiggly lines
> prove to be decorations only - and that will take much work.
> .
> >What you're doing is: You show that the interpretation as T-O is
> consistent.
> >(You found no contradictions.) This is not the same as proof.
>
> Just as a mater of interest, out of curiosity, how do you determine a
> geometric proof?
>
> Taking a flat surface as a given; an enclosure made up of three straight
> sides whose internal angles sum to 180 degrees would be considered a
"proof"
> that the enclosure is a triangle rather than a rhombus, square, circle, or
> any other geometric figure. In my Geometry classes that was a proof.
>
> Therefore the medieval identification of a circle enclosing a circle, the
> inner one of which was bisected across its centre, and one of the halves
was
> further bisected into two equal halves (quarter circles) by a straight
line
> running from the centre to the circumference (all of which the centre of
> f68v3 conforms to in both the positive and negative space created) is a
> geometric proof.
>
> Also the context. In a medieval document any person drawing or looking at
> this figure would see a T-O map as there was no other motif that met all
> those criteria. Certainly an educated contemporary could not see it as
> anything else.
>
> Really we are left with no other alternative but to explore the
> ramifications of the motif being a T-O map, (including looking for
> circumstances confirmed within the vms which would exclude the possibility
> of it being a T-O map). But in all good conscience I can not simply
dismiss
> it, the evidence that it is one is just too strong for that. And as I've
> said before, to dismiss or ignore it, or rationalize it to oblivion so
that
> it didn't contradict pet theories, would just be bad science. We must
> explain the presence of the T-O map before we can go any further. I could
> just pretend it wasn't there and give loads of logical reasons why it only
> "seemed" to be there, but that'd be dishonest, and calling everything I
did
> into question.
>
> I realize that emotionally the ramifications of a T-O map in the VMS are
> unacceptable to some points of view and opinions on the vms. But good
> science is all about doing U turns when contrary evidence presents itself,
> and being just as excited by being wrong as by being proved right ;-)
>
> Regards
>
> Barbara.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
> unsubscribe vms-list
>

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list