
Codex Seraphinianus: A new edition of the strangest book - dsr12
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/codex_seraphinianus_a_new_edition_of_the_strangest_book_in_the_world
======
rspeer
I'd say the Voynich Manuscript (which the article mentions) is still the
strangest book in the world.

We can understand how the Codex Seraphinianus came about. Serafini presumably
looked at the Voynich Manuscript and said "that looks like fun, I want to
write a modern version of that". And he did so, and he made the text look
convincingly like language without being decipherable as any known language,
which would seem to require applying modern knowledge of linguistics and
information theory.

But we don't know how the Voynich author did the same thing, many centuries
earlier.

~~~
onosendai
For those who don't know what the Voynich Manuscript is, this article was on
HN a while back ([http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/07/the-
unre...](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/07/the-unread-the-
mystery-of-the-voynich-manuscript.html)) and you can view the whole thing
online ([http://brbl-dl.library.yale.edu/vufind/Record/3519597](http://brbl-
dl.library.yale.edu/vufind/Record/3519597)).

Definitely more intriguing than this book, imho.

~~~
Pxtl
Relevant xkcd:

[http://xkcd.com/593/](http://xkcd.com/593/)

------
rspeer
> For instance, [this group] discovered that the numbering system is base 21,
> and [this guy] discovered certain grammatical rules governing the script,
> and even created a sort of transliterator you can use. [This lady] claims to
> have hallucinated herself into the world of the Codex, even prior to having
> heard of it.

Clearly the writer of the article is giving equal time to bizarre theories,
which I suppose is allowed for such a bizarre book. But I'd say the second
[this guy], the one with the transliteration, should have at least been
described as " _claims to have_ discovered certain grammatical rules", just
like the woman _claims to have_ hallucinated herself into the Codex world.

The stuff you find on his page
([http://www.paleoaliens.com/event/seraphinianus/codex/](http://www.paleoaliens.com/event/seraphinianus/codex/))
is not linguistics. In fact, it's not really anything but batshit. He even
seems to be losing track of the fact that the "world" of the Codex
Seraphinianus is not real.

It's like people who read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and start
seriously looking for the number 42 everywhere, forgetting that it was just a
gag, in a work of fiction, written by a human. It's like that except more so.

~~~
Cthulhu_
> rspeer 42 minutes ago

~~~
lotsofcows
OMG! And my flat number is 42!

~~~
lotsofcows
Ooops, I tried to be funny on HN :-(

~~~
rfnslyr
Fun? On HN? 'Tis a silly thought.

~~~
corysama
Humor on HN is strongly moderated in an attempt to forestall the degradation
of signal/noise ratio that eventually will evolve it into a sea of memes and
pun threads.

------
pavlov
I have a copy of C.G. Jung's _The Red Book_ , which is also pretty strange:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_(Jung)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_\(Jung\))

I haven't bothered to try to read most of it, but it makes for a good
conversation piece, at least. It's very big and, well, red. Jung's drawings
are quite beautiful, his medieval-style handwriting is strangely intricate,
and of course everybody knows Jung by name, so it has that aura of celebrity
genius.

~~~
fsiefken
Yes, in this case the hidden meaning of the Red Book is the unconsiousness
itself. Holding the secrets to the meaning of life. My question is, are the
Voynich, Antichthon Universalis of Codex_Seraphinianus manuscripts, Valis
(Philp K. Dick), Michael J. Topper's or even Castaneda's work merely
artificially constructed fantasies (like Scientology or the Church of
Subgenius) or also pointing to or connecting with a deeper layer of reality of
archetypes rooted in our biology like in Jung's the Red Book? Is there a
deeper meaning?

~~~
fit2rule
Since when is Scientology artificially constructed? I think "thinking about
Scientology" is not the same as "the subject of Scientology" \- and after all,
who is to say that the Voynich manuscript itself doesn't contain some
seriously intersting, deep, secrets on the nature of the universe, being
overlooked by the ignorant who do not know its language. Like so many other
subjects in the world, alas, of the human soul.

~~~
fsiefken
Hi fit2rule, a good question.... i assume Scientology's metaphysical subject
was articulated by L. Ron Hubbard in "Scientology: A History of Man" (1952)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology:_A_History_of_Man#T...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology:_A_History_of_Man#The_book.27s_role_in_Scientology)
I am not sure if L. Ron Hubbard actually believed in the things he wrote as
it's so far out and contradicting scientific insight, or that he wrote it to
create an artifical overarching framework (a sacred canopy) to hold dianetics
together by rooting it in the transcendent (as such I think Scientology is a
religion). The same uncertainty I have while evaluating Castaneda's work. The
underlying question remains the same - do they (and I was explicitly including
Voynich) seriously interesting, deep, secrets on the nature of the universe or
do they remain a fantasy and dream meaningful only to their respective
authors?

~~~
fit2rule
What we think about Scientology, and what Scientologists think about
Scientology, are two different things - are they not?

Jung theorized that the collective human consciousness had many archetypes
that could not be explained through environmental means, and Hubbard seems to
have capitalized on that idea and attempted to push it forward, which is what
I understand "History of Man" and Hubbards' common Time Track theory to be all
about. While I am not a Scientologist - I do believe that collective
unconscious and conscious 'reality about _something_' is what Scientology
_really_ attempts to dissect. But this is based on a naive investigation of
the subject beyond the tabloid 'everyone knows the subject is bullshit'
collective agreement ..

The point I wish to make is that there are two versions of Scientology - and
indeed, other esoteric topics - what "everyone knows about" the subject, and
"what only the true practitioners know about" the subject. These two points of
view are often diametrically opposed. Maybe Voynich is the result of a cargo-
cult that observed some other, greater subject? Same could be true of a lot of
subjects dealing with metaphysical esoterica ..

------
Umalu
In 2007 The Believer ran what I think is the definitive account of the Codex
Seraphinianus:
[http://www.believermag.com/issues/200705/?read=article_taylo...](http://www.believermag.com/issues/200705/?read=article_taylor)

The Codex was likely inspired by the Borges story "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius"
which involves encyclopedia articles about an imagined world:
[http://art.yale.edu/file_columns/0000/0066/borges.pdf](http://art.yale.edu/file_columns/0000/0066/borges.pdf)

~~~
samatman
Which, in turn, is one of the inspirations for urbit:

[http://www.urbit.org/2013/09/25/continuity.html](http://www.urbit.org/2013/09/25/continuity.html)

------
kh_hk
The style reminds me to some of H. Bosch's paintings, which also give you
vibes of symbolism and complexity

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights)

[http://imgur.com/FaYLjTm,CFxmjNN,flVaZbz#0](http://imgur.com/FaYLjTm,CFxmjNN,flVaZbz#0)

------
batgaijin
It's weird... a lot of the stuff around this talks about Borges' story but
it's a total misinterpretation. He was talking about memetics and the need for
us to bring our fictions into reality through drastic means that blend it with
our history.

This is different. Also, can anyone tell if J.P. Harding posted his/her
translation anywhere?
[http://www.codexseraphinianus.org/](http://www.codexseraphinianus.org/)

------
elliptic
Probably like all books that are meant to be strange and mysterious, it's
actually quite boring. The strangest books to me are those the authors meant
to be understood. One example (for me) is Valis, by PK Dick.

~~~
samatman
...no. My copy of the Codex is among my most treasured tomes.

It is so far from boring that I have agreements with myself about when and how
I peruse it, to keep the pleasure and wonder of discovery going for as long as
possible.

If you're not a fan of incredible, surreal, self-consistent art, then the
Codex is not for you. The text is kinda hard to read. ;-)

~~~
cormullion
The artwork is consistently wonderful: baffling, amusing, worrying,
imaginative, and surprising, not to mention beautiful and incredibly skilful.
And there are nearly 400 pages of it. (And that's just the PDF...)

------
Hermel
I bought it. Quite fun to have it laying around on the coffee table when
having guests. Some don't get it at all, some find it hilarious.

------
Pitarou
Leafing through it, I'm kinda' reminded of the first time I had a copy of
Knuth's _The Art of Computer Programming_ in my hands.

Just me?

Yes, I thought so.

------
teawithcarl
A book reminding us all that we thought, and all that we think, and that what
we create may be underwhelmingly backminded.

