Re: VMs: Goat vs. sheep

[Pamela Richards <spirlhelix@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, Elmar


I think we need to distinguish between "hoax" and
"charlatanery" here.  The VMs might be the authentic
work of a c. 1500 con artist--do we call that a hoax? 
It would perhaps have value as history to some (not
much to me--yawn.  Excuse me.).

Or, it might be a modern version of what could be
thought to be a medieval encrypted text.  

If we take either of the above as the first hypothesis
we are willing to explore, we will most likely miss
any other possible clues which could lead to
attributing more meaning to the text.     

If the VMs author applied the same care to the text as
you imagine he did the illustrations, no wonder we
can't make progress de-encrypting it!  We really can't
expect to see any consistency throughout.  It's
probably gibberish.

Ho hum.

Warmly,

Pam

--- elvogt@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Zitat von Pamela Richards <spirlhelix@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 
> > Hi, Elmar
> > ...
> > The difference between a sheep and a goat in
> medical
> > astrology would be more or less tantamount to
> medieval
> > medical malpractice.
> > ...
> > 
> > The goat (Capricorn) and the sheep (Aries) are
> ruled
> > by different planets.  
> 
> All true, except -- "Capricorn" is not a goat (as in
> house goat), but Ibex, a
> mountain goat. The bucks are distinguished by horns
> of about a meter length, so
> the animal depicted in the VM is still readily
> recognized as Aries, a ram.
> 
> If the VM artist drew a cougar in one of the zodiac
> vignettes, we'd still
> recognize it as a lion...
> 
> 
> >...
> > Why expose his substandard illustrations to the
> > scrutiny of those who knew better?
> 
> If it's part of a scam, usign some weird
> illustrations rather than the
> ubiquitous regular ones <yawn> for the zodiac was
> bound to attract more interest.
> 
> Why paint biologically impossible plants in the
> herbal, rather than existing
> daisies...?
> 
> > 
> > In addition, if the illustrator were truly
> careless,
> > we might reasonably expect to see less detail in
> the
> > drawings, not more.  Why carefully add dew claws
> on
> > all eight of the legs of the two goats when a lack
> of
> > dew claws is what distinguishes a sheep anyway?
> 
> Even if it's not a hoax, I wouldn't say he
> "carefully" added them. I just fancy
> the artist, drawing his images on a piece of vellum
> the size of a stamp, and
> it's the wee hours. He takes a step back and
> notices, "Wow, my Aries looks like
> a goat... bah, what the heck? Who cares?" and goes
> on.
> 
> I don't think we should seek too hard for meaning
> behind details which can be
> explained with carelessness just the same. (The
> benign version of Hanlon's
> razor... ;-)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
>    Elmar
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------
> debitel.net Webmail
>
______________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx
> with a body saying:
> unsubscribe vms-list
> 


=====
"I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing, than to teach ten thousand stars how not to dance."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list