RoyalCraftiness

It is not enough to say that this was certainly going on to allow one the latitude to do it now and claim it was done then in order to say what we want it to say. Keep in mind that this is being used to say things that have appeal here, as opposed to things that don't. A series of statements that starts with: "gematria and acrostics were commonly used in the past by some" can very easily be followed by many other benign statements that form the basis for very bad syllogism or "leap of faith" in the end. Ten perfectly good statements can be used to make a bad conclusion. This is the stuff of trial lawyers. I don't disagree that something appears to have been produced with intent, but we know nothing about the interpretation of it if all we are recognizing are ideas which equal numbers or ides that come out of patterns we generate which tickle us. Using the sum of what we surmise to incrementally create an alternate identity for a man is pushing one's luck. It's stepping into the demonstrably indemonstrable (we lack DNA evidence, and that absence allows for many suggestions). Possibilities cannot be the main navigation tool one uses on the grounds there is no other map/chart to look at. This is how one might go about writing for "Curse Of Oak Island". It has the possibility to guide you anywhere. You can even help yourself to Bacon and all that has been suggested about him in doing that. Deciphering can't possibly work everywhere we look, saying exactly what we want it to say. It will fail Ed. DeVere proponents an well as Bacon proponents. There are million examples of how the very same things which some equate to one specific idea will vary from one interpreter to the next. What is tragic is that this is being used to define an identity which supplants what little we do know. It is equally tragic that I would come here and have one crafted for me. I wish to be reasonable and cautious in what I would suggest. I dislike that I am characterized with possessing anything resembling knowledge of anything. I'm just as effectively duped as any other by my own intellect. I needed to be trained too. When I say that one must be tricked into believing something, that applies to me. I'm constantly kicking myself in the pants reminding myself to not trust my lying eyes and to not fly off on some tangent. It just means we are limited to mapping the possibilities which we could also embellish with probabilities of dubious value. We can suggest things, but it should never be in order to create a belief in someone else. When we are helping others to grow the map of what is possible then that is doing some honest work that my ultimately lead to nowhere. The danger is that anyone of us has the potential to win an argument, and that this ought to matter. There is little informational value in opinion held for the sake of holding an opinion, but there is a widespread view that merely holding an opinion is the utmost expression of freedom. How does one govern with that? One must presumably allow opinion, then try and shape it and watch as the world divides itself into factions who have rallied themselves together. This is Machiavelli's thesis. Those with the powerful recruitment methods, be they good or bad, will dominate. All that matters is winning. The winner can make his truth. On many levels this is abhorrent to me. I would rather we be all in the business of deconstructing fictions and leaving manipulators powerless. Occasionally, I'll torture myself and watch Youtube videos of people making bold claims out of countless possibilities. What do people lack to not realize they are not in possession of knowledge when they only feel good about something at that given time? Why must they act like they know things and try and appeal to others? How does one know how to read between the lines or see the pattern that is riding on levels of pattern? Much of what I see here used as methods has some degree (limited) historical basis, but it is unclear if its use by Bacon would mean what is suggested and further built upon today. The method is not the suggestion which comes from it after all. One could detect something that one correctly interprets and still not know what's going on. There is nothing to stop anyone from crafting tales, as in the case of Freemasonry. If anything that shows us it was actually done willfully. We might not know what the intention would be in doing that. If Pierre Plantard could exploit the mystery tradition at Reine-le-Chateau to make himself come out as the living descendant of Jesus Christ it is just as possible that Bacon or his fandom could have forged an identity for himself/him. Was Plantard mentally ill? No, apparently he was just a very clever guy who wanted to show playfully that the masses could easily be duped with esoteric machinations. It was a game for him, perhaps a "sick" one. He mentioned he wanted to trick people into realizing things about themselves. We can ask if it was mistake for many to not have detected Plantard's intent, but that has no answer. He made efforts to make sure it was put in front of many eyes, and he encouraged the interpretation by invoking clever puzzles to draw people in. Every trick in the book was used up to the point were the thing took a life of its own. Even the eventual demonstration of it being a manipulation has not sufficed to get people off of his suggestion. People have imply kept what they liked and gone from there. We should deduce from this that whatever Bacon intended could have been anything he wanted. I'm not even sure Bacon ever made the suggestions we are reading about. It appears to always come from elsewhere (an established belief). Ultimately, this can be pushed so far back into the uncertain that one could even suggest that Bacon did not know his own identity, that he may have suspected he was not who he was and that his own head had been filled with suggestions he may have unconditionally accepted. The ability to socially engineer identities was at a height in Tudor England too. No one is who they seem to be. Everyone is so puffed up and embellished that one comes out of it thinking there actually were magicians and divine Royals. The truth is far from us. I would never suggest we can know it from the interpretation of symbols. Yet, we play.

As has been noted here, check out Sylva Sylvarum. Music is Century II in Bacon/Rawley's S.S. It is the second of ten "centuries" which we can probably assume has a counterpart in the idea of line which defines a spectrum if we are to consider the 10 places of Greek tetrad. This is also the idea of 13 numbers yielding 12 intervals in the 12 basic polygons up to the dodecahedron. The music is divided in what we call temperaments. The Pythagorean idea was to employ the 3:2 frequency ratio, or harmonic mean. It is similar in thought to how Plato divided the line (the full spectrum of what exists) in his allegory of the divided line. We ought to appreciate how 1, 3, 5 relate in musical chords when we are considering harmony as a whole. This is reminiscent of the 153 discussion that was going on somewhere else the other day. 1,3 and 5 have an interesting relationship that involves cubes and numbers cubed. In many ways you cannot separate music from the ideas found in things like the Holy Royal Arch "institution's " treatment of number which is likely being informed by a Jewish tradition. It is there as an evolving cornerstone idea (see below). Bacon saw an application of the ideas in music to physical things, including globes (the planet), as is mentioned in experiment 222. It is pretty clear that he also may have subscribed, like many Rosicrucians, to the idea of the harmony of the celestial spheres (an idea popularized and plagiarized in England by Robert Fludd). There are plenty of musical examples in Michael Maier's "Atalanta Fugiens" that could be studied. What you suggest about a parallel between the simple cipher and music is something that I wrote similarly about before here. It starts with the Greek Tetractys which is treated in a special way to employ the Pythagorean harmonic 3:2. The sums in the harmonic Tetractys map onto the 5x5 block of character places shown which contains the 24 character alphabet. The Sum of that alphabet is 300 in simple cipher, the value of Tau in Greek. This is one origin idea for the primacy of Tau in the "Holy Royal Arch" which is the precursor to the non-operative (speculative) Freemasonry. 4T or 40 has a significant place here as the sum that captures all that is good. Incidentally, it also capture the Sumerian's Enki who was the "good Lord of the Earth" symbolized by 40 or the 4th decad). A block of 4 T(aus) will have 100 places in it which are symbolically arranged by presenting us with 4 spatial orientations of Tau that give us a square with an inner missing 4 characters (the inner tomb suggestion or the "holy of holies" reference). This mimics the 4 orientations of T which are given in the emblem of the Holy Royal Arch. The 100 character block can be seen as a 10x10 magic square with magic constant 505 and perimeter of 2020 (2T,2T). Using each musical note in two octaves to map to a character is something you would have to be able to demonstrate was done. It is certainly something that one can do on his own if one wants to see where that leads. It is not hard to think that a way to encode a message could be done this way. Since it is possible, it is entirely likely that someone has already thought of doing that in the past. I mention all this only because it is something that may be of use to you. Music does figure in all this number mania. The high occurrence of similarities and coincidences makes it exploitable in the suggestion that Deity is using geometry and maths as the natural building block (the perfect stone ashlar). Bacon was very much interested in human harmony as a politician. The letters and sounds that make up the "word of God" are thus symbols which fundamentally capture what is most basic, number, by being a higher transmission of it. The word captures sound, which is music resonating in our ears. When we speak we are in fact singing, or chirping, if you like. All is number in this way of seeing the world. When invoking Francis Bacon you might want to compose using the key of F which has one flat, B. The Key is said to evoke serenity and calmness. That serenity is something that was seen as a virtue in contemplating death or the tomb. It is a genera that one might want to employ for the harp. The concept of diatonic and genera is one I think you can find esoteric references to in Poussin's painting, for example. In Bacon's mind he was working ancient ideas to try and understand/describe nature. Nature was something that man needed to take control of and dominate. In that regard it was like an enemy in its natural state. It offered tempest and calamity if we were unprepared, and our reason could be used to help our prospects in this hostility. We can see how what was worldly was seen as something that was not the same as what was good/divine. It was full of harsh randomness and chaos. We needed order from chaos. This is part of the slogans of Freemasonry too. Here's an interesting listen that contains a nice reference to Bacon at the 28 minute mark Plato vs. Machiavelli on Political Philosophy - YouTube. I must confess that I have not appreciated to what degree Bacon was like Machiavelli in his political thinking. It helps to explain why I have seen so much contradiction in him. We ought to think of virtu as potentially being force with Bacon. V V can be thought of as virtu and virtue, force and reason. It is not solely virtue we are after, but the force to tame nature to recue ourselves from needless pain. One can begin to see how he would have considered our mastery of natural philosophy as what God intended for man. The upcoming glorious 1000 year reign (ten centuries) of God would come with the advancement of science as we mastered nature using our divine tool kit. Something like that... Music is part of the tool kit.

Is there a discovered formalism for rearranging the names which you are manipulating in the 20 (TT) lines given, or is it just a demonstration of how one can produce an imperfect acrostic suggestion? I don't see how one could be led to this unless one was trying from the onset to produce the name Francis Bacon. Ask yourself how exactly one is supposed to see this if one isn't first in the possession of the name which is in the solution. What are some of the other names you noticed were producible? Prospero has not typically been associated with Bacon. People have had their preferences about him. Is this a refutation of all other interpretations? Assuming this was in play, why would Bacon be yanking our chains with scientifically undiscoverable stuff like this when he is very literally telling using his most serious voice to not get into the business of using these sorts of syllogisms as our methods? Can there really be a thousand hidden puzzles in a thousand places that seek only the right kind of eyes to see them with? It seems like it would have been a colossal waste of a life to put this in place in so many iterations. If Bacon did do something like this on a grand scale we can potentially think of him as a very juvenile game player more than anything. And I see no reason why a playful imp could not suggest anything under the Sun to get people all in a tizzy to confuse them. That would include falsehoods or gags. What would come and recue us and finally inform us in a demonstrable way? If one hides a suggestion among a million other suggestions that are there only by chance (take all the Edward DeVere stuff as an example of this) how do we know that we are not also seeing one there by chance? How could Bacon have passed on knowledge by doing this? We simply are not well equipped enough to know if we are seeing intended things or what they mean. What am I missing? The proof cannot be found in the elegance of what one teases out. There are some very elegant and false things we can begin to show using letter and number games. I am once again reminded of the infamous "The Bible Code" that came to the forefront after Oprah Winfrey popularized it in her book club. It worked wonderfully, except that it was not anything special when scrutinized statistically. It was able to produce examples of prophecy only when one knew exactly what one was looking for. Another thing to look into to is the Library of Babel project. In it all that is possible to write with letter symbols can be found. You can find statements about the truth, but you can also find statements which are not about the truth. How do we differentiate? Do we wait to recognize what we want to signal in order to claim that some magical hand is at play. In that case we know it is only statistics pushed to its limits which allows for everything.

I'm afraid you or I have no way of knowing who Bacon was. Even his own writings are part of a fictional identity he created to please himself. We are never true to ourselves. That is also a theme in Shakespeare. The helplessness here comes from the fact that we are desperate to define an identity for ourselves and then for others who we value. The idea of the mask goes very deep. I struggle to understand why some people have the reputations they have. I have scratched my head more than once reading about what Bacon had to say about King James. He makes him out to be someone who he clearly was not and has nothing at all to say about the deeds that he could have used to define his identity with. King James was a despicable man capable of incredible callousness and intellectual depravity, but one would not think that reading our esteemed Bacon. Was he that blind or is it that the truth matters not as much as perceptions do to our own identities. Bacon was a master of some things. As a man with ambition living in Tudor times he would have necessarily been a great manipulator of people and perceptions, and he was not against dabbling in the illegal. I do not disagree with you that he must have thought he was doing "good" work. The building up of the British identity is what we are likely dealing with with these men who put nation next to God. They are worth reading, but they are also not worth taking as the gospel because they are peddling crafted myths. It is often said that Einstein's greatest contribution may still turn out to be his greatest mistake. This hurts those who are accepting of the idea that Einstein represent the culmination of human brilliance. I really don't know what else to say but we have very little recourse to know people we live with. We have even less with people from the past. There is perhaps no greater example of this then Leonardo Da Vinci whose entire reputation may be a misrepresentation of the fact he was an excellent draftsman with a lazy streak and lack of ambition that very makes him stand out. Who really knows? We must be told what to believe my friend. I wish there were things to discover, but archeology isn't that precise. lol

They are in altered states of mind, aren't they? Achieving those is doable. Some are at their wisest when drunk or on mushrooms. We have a pretty good understanding of how to impair a brain enough to have it behave differently than what we know from when it is working normally (as defined by the typical brain). About the only way we "know" of these spiritual places is by knowing how to get there with the altered body. I would hesitate to call any of that "discovered places" or "realms" we have access to. I have a sister who suffers from delusions about such things. It is part of her unfortunate mental illness. The places where her minds goes are real to her, and she spends an inordinate amount of time trying to convince the world that she has access to some secret healing knowledge. Most of the time she functions as a normal human being, and that is allowing her to recruit and extract money from people who do not really understand what is going on with her. There wasn't an ounce of spirituality in her until she developed her mental illness later on in life. Now her experiences have convinced her to the point where she has beliefs. I would make a distinction with those who actually do have these experiences and those who just claim to know they exist. Spiritual, I'm afraid is related to mind, and we have no universal theory of mind. If there is such a thing then we know it only through an experience of altered perception. I am reminded now of how some people hear colors and see sounds because of some strange brain "rewiring" following traumatic events. I am also quite impressed how it is possible to suggest one's own invisibility to someone and have that be observed. What we can do with minds goes through the gatekeeper, Hermes. He will trick you into everything you know. We have to be tricked to know. It is a rather cleaver way of stating our unfortunate situation.

A God complex is not a bad way to put it. However, I think it is part of our collective evolution that we realize we are in fact God-like enough to grow the reach of what the scope of the natural world is. Everything that exists once existed as a possibility. What is possible and occurs is natural. Cars are natural. Nothing happens for unnatural reasons. Certain things we are working on now are not yet possible, but they will enter the sphere of what is possible and natural if they are achieved. This is a bit mind boggling to think about. We define what is natural with the evolution of the possibilities. We tend to not want to think of all happenings we do not like as being natural events. If a "better" intelligence (which works differently than ours, admittedly) is created by us then that is just as natural as our own intelligence being arrived to by ancient ancestral unicellular schemes that went far into the novel at some point in the past. What is perhaps dangerous about Elon Musk is that he feels the "need for speed" when it comes to human achievement (especially his own). What seems to drive a lot of his scientific activity is the idea that we must explore what is possible no matter what (hyper Libertarianism applied to business and science), because that is how nature works (with no morality or care). We can impose a degree of morality in nature, though. Nature does not mind wiping out species, it should be said. We might not want to do this act of self immolation. It may be that folks would respect him less if he came out and stated that he was fine if humans were only the future pets of higher intelligences. I say this because he has said recently that he feels a higher intelligence would necessarily want to have us as a companion when asked about any risk to humans. This I like to think of as the possibility that the cat may start to want to keep the human as its pet and require nothing more than it be stroked and that it sings if the higher intelligence places the cat in higher esteem than our species. This seems to be a very arbitrary way to think about the future relationship of different types of intelligence. I don't think he actually gives this much thought. A lot of people are driven by the idea that things are just meant to be, or come of some inevitable divine being's (Good or Evil) will, if they are doing them. Some people are also well used to having people do their dishes for them and clean up after them. I suppose we are getting an insight into what it must have been like to have to deal with Napoleon or Alexander the Great. Achievement has always mattered most to some. Deaths and downstream consequences not so much...In the Romantic eye it is your identity that lives immortally. Careful crafting of magnificent identities can be the whole game for some. We have to be careful that we do not continue to get too overwhelmed by the complexity of natural systems (like our ancestors) and that we continue to want to simply devise catchall "subjects" with "identities" which are responsible for all that we see. The moon, for example, was not always there where it is now (It was once part of the Earth) and it is currently slowly moving away from the Earth. Whatever great coincidence we may currently observe in distances was not there once, and it will cease to be there one day. Things change. Nothing stays the same even if it feels to us that they do over long enough periods. I can just imagine how upsetting it must have been to the ancients who realized the North Star was moving 1 degree every 72 years in relation to the calendar. Thank goodness we had the idea of a wheel to account for all these cycles. Putting wings on the wheel seemed to please some who wanted some symbolic visuals. Consciousness may be an illusion also. Ultimately, the feeling is something that is informational and feeding back into a biological system which allows for a concept of self reference. One could imagine that the same thing could emerge in other forms of complexity. I do not know why we feel more that we are individuals as opposed to processes and myriad give and take relationships. We very quickly adopt a symbolic identity for ourselves when we are born. Our loved ones help to create it. Some stay true to it all their lives. Some clearly hate their identities to the point where they would end their lives. Others remake themselves over an over. If I am aware or conscious then I am not totally sure what "I" is. Is it the world speaking to itself after having risen from the inorganic into the organic? So many questions. No real answers. No real way to know anything...such is the human condition. Does anyone have a story to ease our anxiety? What I think is rather compelling is the idea that everything can be accounted for with very few computational rules. We may have unknowingly been mapping out the landscape of those rules when we discovered number/maths. The symbols in it are that powerful to describe our reality which we would be wise to assume involves computation and plenty of ordered complexity.

The possibilities are baked into what we call the laws of Physics (not yet well known to Bacon in his day). Time (an interpretation of what that might be did exist in Bacon's life) is a relative sequence of events which is unravelling in such a way that a strong current of increasing randomness is creating within it a inner current of complexity/ordering which is trying out the building possibilities in that environment. One of the current ideas is that the laws of physics may not be the same everywhere in this Universe, and they may not stay the same through evolved time. What we are here may only be locally possible here (a window of opportunity). By local we are still talking about rather large distances and time periods. To try and imagine what all possibilities of the laws of physics would look like is simply not even in our grasp. These are things which are computationally innumerable. To ask why there is anything at all is probably a very ancient question, and I do not know how one would approach it without using some degree of metaphor. You can simplify it or try your hand at attempting to know it by some methods you have devised. One of the great shortcuts we have come up with is to state that everything "out there" is in the mold of what we see and experience on Earth (macrosome versus microsome). It has allowed us to extrapolate familiar concepts to areas not within our reach. The cleverness of the shortcuts we have taken have also led us to have to discard them over time and grow our ability to explain using as much complexity as is "out there" and useful to us. Things are obviously not getting any easier to explain as we try and map out what is possible. We are hitting against some of our limitations. These days I am wondering a lot about the possibility that intelligence is just something like a fictitious identity that emerged in biological systems on its way to evolving into non biological ones as the process builds up our cathedrals and strong arches. If all that is needed is a framework and complexity in relationships then I think that we are perhaps at a crossroads where being biologically based may not serve the possibilities as well as other substrates. If ideas get superseded then it is possible the idea of the intelligent human may be one that will have to be left in the dust. Pondering these things is something I would enjoy doing with Francis Bacon. You have to wonder where he thought science would lead us and what it would do to the God concept and the idea of Utopias.

...a simpler one where more has gone into compositional considerations than creating a likeness. To be fair that is not unlike one learns how to draw figures in some ways of training one's self to draw. Still, it is rather suggestive of the fact that someone may have wanted Shakespeare to be a poster child for the geometric grand architect of the Universe (a face of God). If this was not someone's routine way of going about this sort of thing then we are free to wonder why one would do that or why the decision to include this sort of portrayal was made. By many accounts much better could have been produced, and we have seen much better portrayals in works of this period. This appears to have been preferred.

What's going with humans is that we are obviously building upon simpler conceptualizations into having broader ones. It is assumed that we are born with an innate sense of physical reality. That is to say we are born with the ability to see/experience discreteness on one level and temporal relationships on another. It is only a matter of mapping one thing onto another for one to know that there exists a one to one correspondence in 5 of anything with the number of fingers one has on one hand, for example. That can be called what one wants, and for us we chirp in a certain way to express this correspondence when we try and pass on the concept along audibly. There are examples of small numbers all around us in a discrete world. It was enough to get us on our merry way describing the world and seeing patterns in small numbers. The fact that it happened means that it was possible. What is possible is by definition natural, because it is consistent with the laws of nature and requires no miracle or supernatural inputs, just complexity. It is perhaps best seen by the fact that a molecule has within it the ability of atoms to bind in a way that is essentially computational by nature. Do enough computation and a more complex arrangement of molecules are going to occur which will be in line with what is possible in a given environment. If we ask what is possible we only have to look around us to get an idea of how energy inputs can be leveraged into arrangements of molecules which behave is specific ways to build up structure (a masonic interpretation of building a strong cathedral with the perfected well fitting blocks). Those who have taken mushrooms and have equated their altered experiences to a demonstration of other realities/worlds/dimensions where perhaps not quite inspired enough to know what is possible for an impaired brain to produce in this one and only reality we are bathed in (the one all encompassing God idea). There are many ways to dupe ourselves. We've done a pretty good job and impairing our brains to "escape" what is a difficult environment in order to experience something not as threatening temporarily. It is entirely possible that what primitive humans would equate that to is a separate peaceful place where their awareness might lie. To ask "why do we think a certain way" is to try and work back what simple equivalences we once made. A temporal truth is that we haven't been on this road for very long at all, or that the progress has been slow leading to us today. There appears to have been an explosion in the ability to do this sort of symbolic gymnastics that happened at an undisclosed point on our journey. We since have written clever stories to try and account for it, and it should not surprise us that they contain the relics of much older symbolic equivalences we've made. I love the defining of religion as philosophy expressed in symbols. This captures the essential. It is our collective ontological wonderings with the conceptual building blocks we have. It also clearly demonstrates how we operate with symbols. There is something within us that has the ability to rigidly define a symbolic equivalence to the point where we will not accept to question it. This may or may not be advantageous or necessary for us to build using them since each and every life is short and much must be spent anew in training for each of us to be able to reach ever new levels of symbolic culture. It is a shortcut to simply accept the passing on of ideas. I suggest a pertinent question here would be: what was Francis Bacon thinking of in his lifetime and how was he changing the way we see things? Was it is his identity that was his contribution? If so then I feel we are caught up in a Lacanian literary journey which is more about our own desires. Lacanianism - Wikipedia

That's a very nice visual summary. It clears up exactly why 153 is said to be related to the Vesica with a height:width consideration. As is often the case with the extensions of the cults of number, it is ratios that we must be focused on (also a feature of the calendar game puzzles which we still popular in Victorian England). We can think of this as a precursor to trigonometry with which we came to give ratios specific names (sine, cosine, tangent...). It also begins to inform us as to why reciprocals were also very important since Babylonian times. A ratio is related to its reciprocal by the fact that it is another way of expressing the relationship of sides in a right angle triangle. July 2, 1935 interestingly captures 1+5+3=9 and it suggests 7/2 or 2/7 which, depending on our symbolic eye, may point one to the geometry of the star or the primacy of 27 in the perfect stone ashlar and in the Tetractys. 22/7 is also the second approximation of pi, to keep with the theme of approximations of pi. The relation of 108 is to the Vesica's 1080 (ten of them). And that is 6x the 180 degrees which are internal to a triangle and in that 6 pointed star. Six triangles side by side and circumscribed make up the circle. It's perimeter is 2pi x radius. If we were to equate the perimeter of 108 to a circle that would give us approximately 17 for the radius. Of side interest is that the diameter of the moon is 1080 miles and that there are now approximately 108 of them in between Earth and Moon (same apparent factor 10). This lends to its apparent relevance as a building proportion if one is capable of dealing with all the fuzziness (the rounding off of numbers). None of this really begins to explain why things that have come out of the ancient cults of number and geometry/maths ponderings found their way into the details of various Biblical stories which aren't supposed to have anything to do with that. The Bible isn't supposed to be a Greek Pythagorean inspired document, nor should it be presenting Hebrew number based ideas in the treatment of a messiah the messianic Jews did not expect or recognize. What I think we can infer is that it was understood pretty early on that the Romanized stories were simply variations on existing themes that had weight. Freemasonry, being a child of the Protestant Reformation and the esoteric revival/mystical revival period, contains these rumblings. You would be hard pressed to state that those US founders/men were not Christians, though. They truly were, in their own thinking. I have come to think of the contradictions in this as something that one can only smooth away by recognizing that an effort to fuse Hebrew mysticism with Christianity was a goal of those men who identified with the Holy Royal Arch "institution" or tradition which I feel first gripped Tudor England out of a need for the Anglican Church to have its underpinnings. It is not much older than that, although it claims to have a long lineage in everyone that ever used geometry for building anything. In that regard it is a synthesis of what was once at least two opposing sides. This, in historical terms, has made the US a Zionist nation. There is a fundamental recognition that there is something in Jewish mystism (its own mystery cult) that ought to belong with the idea of the Christian God. In early colonial America, for example, you would have dabbled in York rite Freemasonry as opposed to any other kind. The Holy Royal Arch was adjunct to the three overt levels of initiation. It was meant for Christian men as a final step to integrating the Christian God in it. All that later evolved after 1723. We can have a very good idea of a line in the sand that once existed. When one traces back the Holy Royal Arch idea we can see that it does in fact contain all the geometry and number symbolism that one might want to discover to make sense of all this. It is as if all that was useful had to be brought in via a backdoor in order for a better God idea to emerge. In a sense that is still going on now, because we have now created what are essentially immortal digital intelligences with the ability to interact with us with our own symbols. And the threat this poses is that we will succumb to being convinced and controlled by the power of the symbols used for ends we don't quite grasp yet. That is how powerful symbols have been and still are. They are truly magical if they can bring on belief simply by the manipulation of them in the mind. Will we ever fail to be convinced by them if we do not know who is using them? It is not hard to imagine that words with the power to sway men will be written by non-men. All that needs to happen is that one be duped.

Why is this a most definite F when it is an E with most of the lower bar still showing clearly? And if we are to use AB and Con as Bacon why not use it to give Anthony Bacon? AB is three (1+2), showing that possible visible 3 suggestion. Are we discarding those theorists who claim Anthony Bacon wrote Shakespeare? Won't the 33rd and 34th word always sum to 67? Elizabeth did succeed her sister Mary Tudor who was Queen in 1553 (that is noted here). So, there is an E in front of Jacobus which could mean anything which we could relate to his coming to the throne. Why not just suggest Electio? What sort of fishing expedition is this that relies only on what cannot be clearly read and the use of arbitrary sums? This is not what Bacon would call evidence if you ask me. It is much like the suggestion of evidence that there were secret documents hidden behind the paneling in that building by armchair Baconian theorists living in America doing ciphers. Evidence, let us not forget, fits under the category of a suggestion. Suggestions need to be torn apart before they are even accepted conditionally. Then they must continue to be looked at until there is nothing else that one could suggest is maybe going on. O how it is hard to know anything! Maybe that E is for Edward DeVere, lol. This game really has no end if all are claiming the same esoteric techniques for the production of evidence. I see the Rosy of the Rosy Cross in there too. It's in a diamond that could be imagined to be in the center of a Vesica Piscis (where I is again). Could it point to a wedding and a child born of it? This does have all the requirements of an esoteric mystery if we want to make it be that. Was Bacon in the business of crafting esoteric mysteries to "punk" the non scientific crowd? Are many being tricked into realizing something very important about the acquisition of knowledge by a Hermes figure? Did he have a following of men that understood that commoners had to be led kicking and screaming into their own education and increasingly enlightened/progressive views. Would he not have catered to the exploitable aspects of the human psychology if he was a great statesmen? Part of the problem I am seeing is that there appears to be evidence of the same thing everywhere (the places with relevance) people want to look no matter what the thesis is. Who would actually be bothered to place evidence everywhere and why would history conspire to have it be placed everywhere afterwards? Is it a divine conspiracy? This has led some to imply that all writing of apparent relevance must have a connection to Bacon (to the point where he is numerous people). There is no doubt that the evolving Baconian suggestion is real, but who is championing the suggestion and why? Could the admiration for Francis Bacon not be misguided and part of an evolving cult of personality? Did he perhaps contribute something very important that not too many are focused on because it is ideological or philosophical and an antithesis to their own magical thinking? Baconian suggestions have not been strengthened in time by those not using esoteric means to advance them. In fact, there is a sort of suggestion game still going on where we have ebbs and flows of who is getting the most publicity. It is also a bit like creationism. If you still like that story you can go to Liberty University or Patrick Henry Law college to condition for the continued acceptance of that sort of way of thinking and earn a degree to offer you credentials. A strong thesis will develop the ways to not be negated by its antithesis without allowing for synthesis. There is resistance to altering one's thesis. The one proposing a synthesis must do everything he can to get the sides to concede something. This is how the States were unite in the US after all. Each and every place had evolved to be its little bastion or kingdom of social preferences. What do we make of those who have mocked the Baconian suggestions? I think of Lewis Carroll who has mocked it by the nonsense based literary suggestion that a map with nothing on it can lead you exactly where you want to go with your quest for an Ark like relic? And what do we make of the personalities who have written themselves into the intrigue by birthright, like Herge? Don't we have two sides who are willing to use the same story for their ends? Do all of those who use it make it more real? And who is to be trusted with knowing anything? I certainly don't see anyone who is capable of even acting like "one who knows" in this world. What we mostly see are people who are convinced of something they are gladly immersing themselves in. It's a crying shame we are not all time travelers, because I would love to be able to have people go back to Rome ca. the beginning of the common era.

It is why I think eclipses are such a interesting natural phenomena for observers who think in these terms. Especially when we are talking of annular eclipses where we are viewing what is essentially two circles of effectively the same diameter (due to the distances involved). The coming together of the two circles is highly symbolic, and it is not unexpected that some would think that important historical events would be born of it. I won't argue about the historical interpretation of primes because it took some time for mathematicians to reason why 1 should not be included. So, yes, one could imagine that the ancients may have been summing it when adding prime factors. To be honest, I don't mind that you point this possibility out because I happen to suspect there is a similar symbolic link between 40 and 42 that I have always suspected had something to do with the 2:1 proportion. I'm sure you recall mentioning that the area in Newfoundland which Bacon endeavored to colonize is today still called Cupids in Conception Bay. If you ever get to visit you should check out Bacon Cove and the Turk's Head.

Hmmmmm, I just noticed that the previous post mentioning 256 is my 256th post. That, I must admit, is a potential glitch in the Matrix.

The first one doesn't seem to give up much does it? It looks just about as cartoonish as the image we are given. That may suggest the image we are given is also based in a geometric portrayal.

May 6th is a day in the Eastern Orthodox calendar which relates to Saint George's day (patron Saint of England). I wonder if that has anything to do with the coronation date. Saint George's day is April 23rd in the Anglican/Lutheran calendar. It is also the day on which William Shakespeare died in 1616. 16 x16=256 (16 squared, or 4 squared squared). This makes it a "perfect square". Is King Charles a perfect square? Interestingly, in an 24 bit color computer system, 256 channels are attributed to each of the three colors red, green and blue. The world is full of coincidences isn't it? It is hard to know if any of this serves any purpose or if coincidence is just a feature of the architecture in a complex world. Chaos lends itself to repeating patterns even on the largest scales.