Re: Ciphers (Was: Berber/Tifinagh)

Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 08:58:03 EST

  • Next message: Jill Ramonsky: "RE: Hexadecimal digits?"

    > I fear that all this talk of signifiers and signifieds (a very un-English
    > construction, that "signifieds") misses the point of ciphers. A cipher
    > of the relevant type (a "substitution cipher", technically) is a mapping
    > of the usual symbols in a text or set of texts to other symbols WITH
    > THE INTENT OF SECRECY. That is why Theban is a cipher, and so is the
    > venerable "pig-pen", and Masonic Samaritan; but the ecclesiastical use
    > of Samaritan is not, nor are

    That would not describe the current use Theban (when it offers no real secrecy,
    and when most occultists are aware of modern computer-based encryption). To
    what extent it describes earlier use of Theban is unclear. It wouldn't describe
    Enochian script (since there was an attempt made from the beginning to claim it
    was the real script of a real language and no attempt made to keep it secret).

    I don't believe that these scripts need to be encoded, but I'm not happy about
    the definition of cipher we are using to bar them, and how this definition will
    relate to other proposals.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 09:41:51 EST