Quote: I'm starting to realise that any eventual "solution" of this book is likely to be philosophical, not analytical. 
I've argued in the past that the transcriptions are worthless for the sort of mathematical decryption being looked at by the uninformed net. But without them, we're lost, so it's a catch 22 problem. What comes out is only as good as what went in....

The basic problem, as I see it, is that we are too analytical. We are used to reading that everything can be broken down to quantifiable molecules and processed via mathematical models to produce an answer.

The Voynich is becoming the exception that proves that rule! 

But it's not an alien object - we do have access to the mentality of the era that produced it. We just have to "unlearn" our modern preconceptions.

There are clues in the imagery that show a certain mentality, but they're not obvious until you start learning about late medieval / early Renaissance mentality and knowledge. Hence the constant "wild theories" when people try to project their own preconceptions onto the book.

Notwithstanding that, a re-examination of the core concepts, bearing in mind the historic epistemology, is, I hope,  capable of producing some interesting new nuggets of information.