Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 10:16:35 EST
Quoting John Cowan <email@example.com>:
> firstname.lastname@example.org scripsit:
> > 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).
> The intention of secrecy is not the same thing, obviously, as actual
> secrecy, as too many have found out to their cost. But surely the reason
> for using Theban, as a practical matter, is to keep the cowans (:-)) out?
Yeah, but these days any cowan whose seen Buffy the Vampire Slayer is likely to
identify a black-handled knife with Theban on the hilt as an athamé. If they've
half a brain and access to google they can work out the rest sooner or later.
My point however is not that Theban is cryptographically poor (though it is),
but rather that there is little intention of secrecy in its use; its use is
more comparable to the use of ecclestiastic scripts in some other religious or
occult practice. I'm happy to dismiss it as a "mere cipher", but once we start
(as people did earlier in this thread) examining this description more closely
in an attemt to produce a firmer guideline for when scripts will or will not be
encoded it begins to fall down. Michael's suggestion that the definition is one
of whim is correct I think. It's a whim of concensus though, and I for one am
happy enough with such whims ruling in edge cases (and half the point of Theban
is to be an edge case).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 11:08:23 EST