RoyalCraftiness

Philips' Lodge was certainly the first. He came from Boston where he had achieved York Rite Master Mason status in ca. 1742. His Lodge eventually became King Solomon Lodge #54, Digby, NS. He left an original copy of Anderson's Old Charges to this lodge which later burned. This Annapolis Royal Lodge #33 is only located at that first placement (which is why they say they are the home of NS Freemasonry). That lodge was made of officers of the 40th regiment of foot garrisoned at Annapolis Royal. The specifically numbered regiment had been petitioned for by the Governor of the colony Richard Philips at the request of his nephew Erasmus. Why he preferred 40 is not discussed, to my knowledge. A fellow officer with the 40th was Charles Morris who was the man behind the surveying of many of the fledgling colony's first townships. Philips also created, by dispensation, the first Masonic Lodge in Halifax (1750) where Governor Edward Cornwallis served as Master. This was Cornwallis' second lodge. He was first associated with the 20th regiment of foot (Grand Lodge of Ireland) in Europe. Morris surveyed the grant which contained what is today called Oak Island in 1762. He is the first to have charted the waters at Chester Bay for the British in 1751 and to suggest the evicting of the local French. Erasmus James Philips died quite suddenly in 1760. There are monuments to Philips in various locations in NS. At the time of his death NS was a colony governed entirely by military Masons. It was almost impossible to raise one's self to any prominence in this British colony without being a Freemason. There are very compelling reasons to search out the story detail links between NS Freemasonry to the OI story. It is echoing that same old symbolic story of 20 and 40 that has been represented in other places (Holy Royal Arch). 54, the number of Philips lodge, corresponds to two side lengths of the perfect stone Ashlar, suggesting the half that gets polished in life. The OI story, in its first incarnation, is likely part of a storied tradition in Freemasonry to present or lay out some of the foundational myths. In the mid 1890s the story had evolved to include ideas that had been suggested by Constance Mary Fearon Pott which relate to Bacon having written Shakespeare. It's unclear why Bacon would have followed to OI unless someone had believed that there was a greater common secret that ties Bacon to Freemasonry also. IMO, that is far fetched, but it is possible to suggest it merely by playing number association games. Should we play number association games? I'm more of the opinion that Bacon's role has been created after the fact. For something like Freemasonry, which has no verifiable and traceable origin story , it is useful for one to anoint one individual as its creator to not have to admit that there are nothing put contradicting invented histories (and no lineages) prior to 1717.

Is that printed for Sir Henry Featherston(e)? The family name is printed using two Taus. The second one, the 33rd letter, has more prominence. The "Signe of the Rose" is the name of a publishing house in Saint Paul's market. The globe in the Advancement of Learning (Mundus Visibilis) is just as well rendered as these two "halves". I'm a bit puzzled why the Mundus Intellectualis looks so different. In Sylva Sylvarum it is depicted as a stereographic flat map projection of the globe.

The five pointed star, it's 72 degree relation and the larger star polygons created by bisecting the hard angle: The large 40 pointed star shows the 9 degree separation of points. All the interesting Masonic angles are on this wheel. I will call attention to 153 and it's opposing 333 degree value. There's no way to keep bisecting to get to one whole degree. By building the nonagon one accesses these angles: The 36 pointed star arrived to by repeated bisection of the 9 pointed star would have its points separated by 10 degrees. By overlapping the two circles one can represent the 9 and 10 degree gradations which give 1 degree of arc difference. A square limits you to 45 and 90 degree subdivisions of the circular quadrant. A pentagon and its subdivisions allows 9, 18, 27, 36, 45...90. A hexagon gives 15, 30, 45, 60, 75 and 90. An octagon to 45, 90. A nonagon to 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35,40, 45....up to 90. The difference of one degree can only be achieved using the pentagonal geometry and the nonagonal one. That one can very closely estimate the nonagon's 40 degrees with the help of a 5 x 8 rectangle is kinda neat since 5x8=40. It' s one of the eerie coincidences that arise in the decimal numbering system where we define a circle to have 360 degrees. Tan (5/8)=32.005. That's quite fortuitous. It may fortuitous enough for some to suggest a special meaning in knowing the unknowable 40 degrees.

There's an almost limitless way to interpret the dedication if everything on that page is taken to be a potential symbolic clue in an almost infinite amount of possible manipulations of them. What is shown that is most basic is even debatable. It's on one hand a very overt representation of 81 (words) BY 64 (words) 81 x 64 =25920 which is the ancient length of the precession cycle (great year) in solar years that is echoed in the Dwapara Yuga unit of 2592 which was used for Indian astronomical calculations. It is extremely close to the 25960 that is generally used today (differing by one additional period of 40 years which itself is echoed as a of feature Daniel's Biblical End Times prophecy). A prescribe repetition of Tau cycles + one 40 year addition is the basis for that calculation. Both 81 and 64 are squares, of 9 and 8. 9x8=72 which is necessarily evocative of the 5 pointed star geometry. 9 is the most crucial of the pointed stars in the subdivision of the circle. We have seldom spoken of it except to mention that it (and its jewel) is associated with the ritual of the elevation of the 33rd degree Mason. There is no way to construct it by compass and straight edge alone. It would yield 40 (4T) degrees geometrically prcisely if one could. This is a property that is shared by the trisecting of an angle and the squaring of the circle's impossibility. This is what makes these have a flavor of being "other worldly". Unattainable keys to unlocking the master geometrical plan to a mind hell bent on including a geometrical architect as a creator... The nine pointed star is necessary for the creation of a circle divided in 360 one degree units. Since the angle between each point in that polygon can be bisected, the 40 degree hard angle can be reduced to 20 and 10 geometrically (10 degrees in the 36 pointed star). The five pointed star's hard angle of 72 degrees bisects into 36, 18 and 9 degree angles (9 in the 40 pointed star). The difference between the 10 and the 9 degree angle when the two geometries are superimposed upon the same center is the representation of one degree of arc which can be used to adjust the compass and walk around the circle to produce 360 subdivisions. The smallest polygon which unlocks the 360 degree circle is the nonagon, and it can only be approximated in construction methods by using the 5x8 rectangle's diagonal (built geometrically with the Fibonacci spiral). That rectangle's diagonal has a elevation of 32.005 degrees. It can be geometrically bisected twice to give 16.0025 and 8.00125 degree angles. The 32.005 and 8.00125 can then be added by setting the compass to each. That yields 40.00625 degrees. It allows for the construction of a very approximate nonagon that will allow for an indexing which is precise enough to visually satisfy anyone's desire to be able to measure in units of one degree + an estimate of one half degree. This is essential for precise navigation and celestial measurements. Almost all of Masonry measurement is based in 9, with 81 being of the utmost importance. The geometry is something we've discussed. The angles in the compass and square all sum to 9, and they are all coming out of the square of side unit 27. At the core, this is all developing from 3. One could say that this is about 3:4:5, but that doesn't reveal any great empiric secret that wasn't already well known. How to divided the circle in 360 to allow for quantitative precision is another matter. IMO, there's plenty of evidence that we are dealing with a theme of star sighting and compass guiding in this empiric "mystery". In no place whatsoever can one deduce that Bacon wrote Shakespeare out of geometry or number. The only way to maintain that it is possible is to invoke gematria which is not decodable. It really depends on what you want to achieve. If one wants to show what is potentially revealed empirically one is limited in his interpretations to things which may have no interest to Shakespeare authorship hopefuls. 1 degree of sighting is 60 nautical miles in navigation. The great project of Tudor times was to get the measurement of latitude, and possibly of longitude, to within fractions of one degree. That cannot be achieved unless one can index a reference circle in 360 and faithfully build instruments with that standard. The way to the initial precision (a chicken and egg problem in terms of building machines) is by geometrical construction of large scale circles on very flat reference planes which can have the angles geometrically bisected precisely on a large scale. The first indexing machines capable of this date to this time. This is the necessary precursor to the industrial age. They allowed for celestial measurements that unlocked the motion of the visible bodies. For the conspiracy theorists it will always be about finding the number that means Bacon wrote Shakespeare. There is no such number combination that doesn't require an essential sales job first.

I fear that you have hunted them down and lapped up what agendas they represent with confidence. To be honest and fair, there are very, very few of the people you are referring to. The most obvious one is a fellow you have mentioned by name before who has kept a visible internet presence. These individuals have their own ideas which they recruit for. The ideas themselves are elaborations based on older ideas that have found them. Freemasonry (the institution) does not recognize their contributions because they cannot be substantiated. When things cannot be substantiated there's no need to talk of there being opinions. An opinion means nothing, and that is why each man can have one simply by waking up in the morning. The belief that some know is contradicted by the fact that some clearly do not know. We either all know, or we all do not know. That's how it works with certainties. Why don't you simply recognize that you are not dealing in certainties instead of talking as if some know something that is hidden to everyone but the ones who accept the necessary suggestions. To know is to have eliminated the uncertainties. Good luck with that. It is almost impossible to know. You will not go to your death bed knowing anything about Bacon that isn't presented to you. You may go there full of beliefs, or opinions. We don't even know ourselves well enough to speak of our motivations.

Freemasony itself rejects this notion, and it is comical to suggest that there's been an organized cover up hiding this within Freemasonry. The "evidence" is that people have been making up stories all along. There isn't even one history of Freemasonry. There are multiple lineages. None of them originate with Bacon. The first British Freemason is not recognized to be Francis Bacon. Secrecy is only being used to imply that you should not expect to find historical records that support this. Believe that at it at your own peril. Everything that isn't true can hide in Ancient secrets. The ease with which one can create a narrative that has the ability to convince is a problem, not an asset. Freemasonry was not even well formed in Bacon's time. All that existed at this time were Acception groups trying to model themselves on operative Freemasonry structures.

I'd certainly be one of those who sees it as being modeled on Freemasonic themes (an evolution). It's not the only thing that appeared in this period that owes its existence to the frenzy there was for this sort of thing at this time. The 1800-1840 period in the US is a time called "the Second Great Awakening". It was esoteric revivalism, now called occultism, based in the receptivity of mesmerism, spiritualism and magic. Smith grew up in NY in a family that was caught up in Freemasonry's exploding popularity on the East Coast (a similar things afflicted Nova Scotia and spawned the Oak Island stories at about the same time). It was a great time to have been a practicing con man. P.T. Barnum famously came out of this period. There was a lot of End Times hoopla going on in the mid 1840s that fizzled and caused a splintering in groups which had adopted popular prophetic views. New prophets appeared that offered something to the disappointed. If you read the history, Smith and his relations set up what came to be clandestine Masonic lodges in Mormon communities. He was killed by Freemasons while he was in prison. It's pretty clear the family thought they could "move in" on the secret society trend by drawing from the Masonic appeal. They obviously had ideas of their own. The point is that he was in the "recruitment for personal gain" business, and that his pitch had to evolve to be unique. Being killed for your cause ultimately helps to make you be a martyr and a Saint for some. There's a similar influence of Enochian themes in both Freemasonry and Mormonism. It is ultimately what can be used to suggest that Bacon couldn't possibly have anything to do with that nonsense. Its the stuff of charlatans, and Bacon would have certainly have understood this. If not, then he is greatly misrepresented to us and should be laughed at. If there is one thing we can know for sure is that empiricists (the father of modern Empiricism in this case) aren't in the business of peddling spiritualism to explain anything in the world. Part of the appeal that I have detected (for some) is that they would want to make Francis Bacon be synonymous with the survival of these spiritually charged ideas. Bacon is like a prophet to them because he can be wrapped up in mystery and serve as a bridge into modernity. The esoteric or spiritualist revival is black mark on Western Society and a counter current to progress. These were populist movements to go back to a lost great time. It became cultish and it still has a great base of following today. Zionism is a troubling reality that was common to these movements. It's not surprising that some Freemasons would have wanted Bacon lumped in. IMHO, we would have wanted nothing to do with what existed in the US in the 1850s and beyond. Out of Freemasonry also came the KKK (another "Make America Great Again movement").

Any ideas why the globe showing the Mundus Visibilis and the one showing the Mundus intellectuallis do not appear to be the same? Compare the latter to the Mundus Intellectuallis globe in Sylva Sylvarum. I am intrigued by the idea that these are not the same sort of representations. That is to say one is a different sort of projection than the other. The MM suggestion here is that we can mathematically gain the knowledge to represent the world in a differrent way which is perfectly equal.

Could it be? Where have I herd that before? The answer to the question of there possibly being some sort of privileged alignment is yes AND no. The reason is because London is so large in relation to all other three three points as to make it possible to have there be an alignment through St Albans (or not). You get to decide if you want one. It is even possible to play around with the exact points in such a way that there is not only a line going through St Albans, but one that is also perpendicular to the a line from Cambridge to Oxford where the distance to the LL line is equal to both. This I have confirmed this in Geogebra using a Google Earth placement. What that allow you to do is claim there is a perfectly symmetrical cross there. The angles between points on this cross do not seem to have any particular elegance. The distances offer perhaps one neat feature. The distance from Leicester to St Albans is 0.707 the LL distance, and that is a ratio that is equal to the sine or cosine of 45 degrees. Problem is that has no meaning. Since none of these places was initially chosen to be on such a cross (no one knew they would grow to be such a size that would allow this latitude of choice) we must conclude that it is coincidental. It is coincidental, but it may also may have been observed. Once it is observed it becomes possible to suggest that there was initial intent that carries meaning. To a casual viewer, such a suggestion may float, especially if if he is hunting for things that one can suggest has meaning. I do not know how and why we could show that this was ever appreciated unless we were precisely given this to verify.

Why not get joy out of pushing a GIza pyramid powerplant theory? There's a faction looking for more recruits. They produce lots of evidence they have it all figured out, and they are also defenders of the common sense of the masses which is under assault from idiotic experts. No one is claiming that a deluded con man doesn't get joy out of his efforts to convince others. It is absolutely about the fulfillment he gets from creating an exploitable belief in himself and in others. You should interview Graham Hancock, Peter Amundsen and and Peter Dawkins about it. These people find personal meaning in what they do to others. Each has his preferred narratives, and all require magical thinking based in the spiritual power of something they have no knowledge of. If you are at all interested in bullshit there is much to wade in to criticize. Criticizing the critics is pointless unless you want to get to even better criticisms. Criticizing suggestions meant to create belief where that can exist is what is required of all of us. You seem to want to gloss over all sorts of feel good stories that clearly at odds with what is known as long as it does some of the required lifting you need. That is to say that it would divide the world into factions that are at odds over exposing the truth that some allege exists a priori to be sampled by spiritual means (open and highly suggestible minds). How do you feel about critics of religion? They must exist. You cannot deny that. Do you do your part? If you don't care that what gives you pleasure is based solely in what tickles your sensibilities just the right way then why even pretend to be doing research? The pursuit of pleasure is hedonism; and that, off course, is part of the authentic American discourse and what it means to be American. What if the truth was not pleasure inducing? Can there be such truths? Global warming? Are there people who unconditionally accept suggestions that they truly abhor? It would seem to be the way to anxiety and, in the end, suicide. To want to live a satisfied life is to want to be deluded, it would appear. The conclusions were made 25 years ago? I doubt it. Some already existing suggestions were encountered, weighed and tested and found to be pleasing enough to work to expand promote. From what I can tell, the need to continuously convince yourself is very real in case doubt might set in and cause discomfort, and it does also appear that the thing you want to be convinced of must grow in reach and in stature for the feelings to not get stale. 30 years ago I thought I realized something when I was just starting to look at some things. Over time the work to destroy that unwelcomed conviction was done, and that impulse was internal. So, joy can come from doing good critical work and destroying belief if it found a way in. That is what criticism offers. It can free you if you only dare to turn it onto yourself. We all speak as if there is lack of critical thinking in the world, but it's clear that we don't want that applied to just anything. You are are more of a creator than you give yourself credit for. It's easy to fall in love with one's creation and not realize that the thing is just a monster built in one's image. This is the point of Shelley's "Frankenstein" which was a criticism of the secret societies who pranced around as examples of factions that acted as if they possessed some righteous knowledge and a plan to promote it. The creation is a means to a manipulation. The manipulator has his joy, the world, and all its minds to gain. Surely you must recognize that I am interested in working back some of the suggestions that snagged poor old Bacon. It's hard to know what to think because too many people are speaking for him. I will always have an interest in what convinces others. This is important to me because that is the thing that we must play defense against. Are you aware that people can be "born again" in an instant? Very powerful unconditional acceptance of a suggestion can appear that quickly. This is a frightening reality that is a property of human minds. I would encourage you to look into the claim that Bacon was an experimentalist. He was mainly a philosopher and a statesman. Our society no longer values philosophers or statesmen. They are all shouted down today by those who already know the secret knowledge they have accessed on Youtube. Would your life have meaning if Bacon did not write Shakespeare? Surely it could. There are other things you could be convinced of that would satisfy. A "spiritual" impulse would guarantee that it would show up to be nurtured. Why are Indian numerals called arabic, and why does an AI come to suggest it can find an answer? Show me things you think are convincing. That makes me happy. It gives me something to consider about how minds work.

You don't always get what you want.

There's no research that will help, unless we are talking about researching better ways to create acceptance of suggestions. It's all attempts at promoting beliefs which exist from a time when unconditional acceptance was created based on someone else's successful efforts at convincing. Nothing ever gets discovered. It's a process of creating narratives. How do you expect anyone to know anything when they are being constantly guided by crafty narrative peddlers who claim to speak for the dead in ever evolving ways? Everything that ever reaches us is a suggestion in the information sphere. I hardly know what my spouse is up to, let alone what Francis Bacon was up to based on someone's reading of the tea leaves found in the printed remnants of some project to do God knows what. For me, or for you, to have any hope in knowing anything is limited to our own efforts to understand and accept the impossible limitations which we face. Information is not preserved in the Universe. It's a challenge for it to persist at all. There are many more ways to be wrong about the past lives of people than to guess correctly. Worse, no one can show up and inform us that we have guessed correctly. We would have to be satisfied by getting feedback from the process of creating similar beliefs in others. Humans are therefore biased in the direction of creating persistence in streams of information and by creating mimetic behaviors. The only validity that can come is from the utility of the preserved information. If there isn't something in a suggestion that delivers a measurable gain in utility then how are we to ever favor any form of suggestion? The forms which allow us to do things better matter. All other forms may be equal. Truth and non truth may offer the same nothingness. If they do, expect both to be promoted purely on the basis of mimetic phenomena. The coexistence is testament to the lack of utility. We can say something like "this convinces me", but we must also realize that "this should not be able to do that". The fact that some things do convince is incredibly interesting. Human suggestibility is the main parameter to be gauging in ourselves and in others. I don't read anyone to have to agree with it. I typically read to see how the author(s) are doing about trying to make their point. We can look to see how people think. How they think tells us a bit about they would want us to think. We can read Bacon to try and discern how he thinks. We can also read what others would have you believe he was thinking. I would challenge you to show me why any of this matters. Why must there be a cult of Francis Bacon based on what few want to accept out of a legitimate concern for being recruited into a meaningless belief? Bacon is dead. Beliefs about him will not build a better aircraft or solve our worldly problems. There is no reason to get upset with anyone who refuses to get recruited into Baconian narratives. What is curious is that those who try and promote ideas do get upset when they describe how pigheaded the non believers are in the face of their pristine efforts. The way out for a believer is often to ask: "So, what do you believe?" It is not acceptable to believe. That would be the original reasonable objective position to cling to if we wanted a life without conflict. It is, however, extremely useful to have people believe. In that regard there's a reasonable imperative to create belief and to forge narratives. The size of factions matters more than the truth. The struggle has always been recruitment.

The fact that no one can know what is a lie, or not, in any way that would satisfy a reasonable and undemanding skeptic, and that so many have managed to be convinced of conflicting things is the painful truth, isn't it? You can't on one hand be sad that others are convincing their audiences with what are deemed to be weak suggestions when that is the sort of thing you are trying to achieve. Rejoice in the fact that there is a mechanism that works at creating belief despite lack of knowledge. If it did not work there would be no hope for even God, because there is no other way to acceptance in him than the successful creation of the underlying belief in something that involves him. That is true for even Bacon if he wanted to suggest something to you beyond the grave. Someone has to be able to convince you that he can talk to you in unequivocal terms in exactly the way they know he does. How is this any different from those who would defend religious views and the existence of prophets, yet not be on board unless it was in the service of their own religion and prophets? That's entirely unreasonable. If you want "evidence" to matter you better understand that everyone can play at that suggestion game. Belief is the most unimpressive thing in the world, on one hand, but it is at the root of the existence of power dynamics which are truly impressive. The existence of a priori forms of knowledge in our world is a problem with no solution. We will never be able to stop people from claiming they know something by default. I think of it as a "chosen people" type of dynamic. The amount of effort that has gone into trying to convince the masses of magical things like Zionism, for example, shows us how deeply related the accepted truth is to the success of the creation of a necessary unwavering belief. Christianity has unconditional acceptance baked into the cake, so to speak. You are going nowhere you are suggesting others are going without faith in it. And yet, no one knows God or of the existence of God. Belief has been created and maintained with slogans like "remember death" and countless hooks that exploit human frailty. Suggestibility is real. Why aren't we highlighting the articles that expose us as humans as fatally flawed creatures in the knowledge pursuit business? One of the most damning realities that one can attach to Baconians is the breadth of the sister accompanying beliefs that are so often accompanying the cherished one. I do not know why some wouldn't just perform a séance and talk to Bacon directly. This sort of thing was done in the past and it is no longer put forth as evidence. This suggests that beliefs in things can erode. That would mean that there is hope for even Baconians that they might come to criticize their endeavors. The truth is that there are things talked about and accepted that we cannot know. To want to know is not a guarantee that one can know. There is almost never a way to know. There is a way to understand why people think they know. You can look at the strategies they use to achieve their desired ends in others. It always requires lips moving. Some fancy themselves as top notch salespeople even when it isn't the case. The troubling reality is that not that many are buying.

"T.T. Codex" has no clear implied meaning, does it? A meaning is being interpreted and suggested based on one sole explanation for TT (=33=Bacon). I do not understand why this would not refer to a Triple Tau Codex, for example. Why is "H i RA m " not an idea of the personification of the Holy Royal Arch in a fictional character's life? Ben Johnson famously rejected Christianity and embraced Protestantism. It is not any run of the mill sort of Protestant religious belief he harbored. One could argue it is the same "enlightened" variety that men like Bacon and Rawley had ideas about. It is obviously closer to the mythical Hebrew texts than Christianity is. T.T. in the context of the T.T. mystery is the story of what comes after what is in between birth and death-- a life. Theta (death) and Tau (resurrection) are the letter symbols. 9 and 300 (9x300=27x100) in value. 8 and 19 in position (death and resurrection=8+19=27). The ship that explores between the pillars is also a human life. Imperator for Bacon is a symbolic title which was given to him, not a title he gave to himself and described himself as. He had nothing to do with German Rosicrucianism where it appeared even if he was exposed to it as a current. I have no idea why a sovereign would refer to a lesser monarch and not to a king of kings. Bacon, like you or I, is an heir in that way of thinking. This entire presented narrative skirts the religious context that is so front and center in all of this. It is trying above else to make Bacon be the author of Shakespeare, something which is never given except by those who seem to now this prior to looking. It is always numerically derived by association to words which are used to hen craft a narrative by plugging them into a preexisting set of statements. It is taking what is being done overtly in symbolic representations to a totally new level of suggestion that we do not know is meant, imo. Who can say that this sort of wishful thinking is not happening? There is no end to what can be suggested. "Francis Bacon is God" is just as easily suggested and demonstrated. The Elias Artista has an end of times connotation. He was supposed to show up as a precursor to the messiah to show the world how the Natural laws fit in God's plan. It's a German mystical idea. Not sure why Bacon would be dabbling in its edification. Bacon was not the Elias Artista. He showed nothing to the world in terms of how the Natural Laws fit into the plan. The German astronomers did to a larger degree. Bacon's scientific contributions are next to nil. He seems to be much more about how to go about cultivating a method to gain what the Elias was rumored to just dump in our laps. The Elias is clearly a not a sole person; he is the body of mankind which is being given the means to understand nature. That is he only way to kep this idea alive today. Elias comes from Eli.

Those who refuse to believe are too rigid. No. They are unrecruitable. They are not open enough to the ancient knowledge? No. They understand that what was older was less well informed. Those who claim to know anything beyond what is knowable to even the cleverest of modern men are too confident. There's the "con" word which gets exploited in the Ba "con". It's hard to know how confidence gets generated in the initial instance, but later adoptions rely on known mechanism. As is often the case, the WH questions are intractable to us. When anyone pretends to know, he has to suggest certainty as a discovered pocket of reducibility within what is so complex that it is essentially irreducible to us who do not even know the origins of the suggestions used. Simplistic stories take over, as they must. The average Joe cannot make heads or tails of any of this. There's relief in simple stories that entertain biases. He must be worked on at the level of "coincidences" marketed as "coincidences with meaning" in a world where nothing happens by chance, and where some call that synchronicity to imply that divine providence has gifted them with personal hints of the truth. I'm getting alarmed by some of the repeated pronouncements you keep making. The Kaye cipher's attribution to Bacon is your idea. Push as I may, the only references I get to this go back to your website. The website in question is likened to a "truthpaper" by my trusty AI friend. Now, there's a harsh condemnation if I ever saw one. "Con"spiracy is also invoked. Could it be that it detects the confidence game that relies on overstating what is known? The nature of this place appears to be based on the exploitation of many such truthpapers, but they are expanding once again to "truthmedia" projects. The goal is recruitment. The hope is that enough has been done to recruit with in the face of a century+ worth of previous failure. The people involved, if one looks at the recent ventures, are closely tied to Christian evangelical media groups who are not limited to this sort of conspiracy peddling. They have been invested in rtelling the Templar stories of late. And yes, these people are con artists. A con is a confidence, so I don't necessarily view that as a bad/evil thing. Those who try and recruit must use a conman's approach. Capitalists are called upon to be con men, and we do live in a capitalist society after all. What constitutes capital isn't always money. Some Christians are interested in numbers of believers, for example. The greed there is a different type of greed. They vie to outnumber. Recruitment is paramount. You are certainly not willing to accept the responsibility for your own pronouncements is what I get. You claim that the all seeing eye is at work within you now. Where does this idea come from? Out of curiosity, why does the eye get portrayed as being in the position of the lopped off part of the pyramid atop the octahedron? Well, it's where you will see the lightshow looking down through the crown of the diamond that has been polished with a certain "perfecting geometry" to receive the light of truth, isn't it? You tried to employ the same imagery with a lopped off pyramid. I don't think you understand exactly why you were biased towards that. By doing it you can certainly invoke the all seeing eye and claim any attributed qualities of it for you. "Step right up and look through the position of the eye that sees all" is what I imagine P.T. Barnum saying. The delusion is historically deep in America, which is a free-for-all loving land for con men to try their best at achieving their dreams. Anyone who invents something out of his own imagination has a preferential position to view it with, no? No one else will see it that way that is not convinced to see it that way. That is where the con enters again. The con hopes to tap into the magic of the unknown mechanisms which allow for suggestions to be unconditionally accepted. It can be quick, but it may also require a ritualized immersion into the suggestions. A yearly calendar idea of daily immersion was envisioned by the Church a long time ago to go with a cradle to grave type of story telling. I'm glad you mentioned Stephen Wolfram's name. He's more or less putting the nail in the coffin of Bacon's contribution to 4th age of understanding (based in reason) as we speak. In a very long journey from ape like creatures knowing nothing but utility in tool making to relying first of the magical and then onward with the mythical and the mental (reason, logic) to explain the world with, we've now entered the computational age (not in the sense of our dependence on computers). We are slowly realizing that the nature of this reality is computational in its steps forward (what we call time). What we are now discovering as a new perspective is going to help to release us from the errors in "understanding" of the past and the road blocks we have run up against in "knowing" using reductive approaches on preferential scales of information. Wolfram is worth listening to. I appreciate that he has been a strong voice to warn people to the fact that LLMs will not ever be trustworthy. They have the potential to be very powerful conmen among us. That is the risk. The small conman is a problem, but the one with the power of the LLMs will recruit jut as effectively if we allow them the same freedom we have given humans recruit with.