Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by RoyalCraftiness

  1. If I had written a book of such things, like Kate has, I'd be openly promoting it to her and to you who might be interested enough to pay to read it out of a desire to be outraged. The world according to RC is just a pile of suggestions coming at us, some of which are neither "true" nor "false" and will remain "yet to be determined" for eternity. Digest them as you will using whatever you feel delivers objective truth to you. You're only now seeing that this action you suggest might work to humiliate me by setting me apart. Go ahead and show me what you are capable of with the connections that loyalty confers. I should have to pay for offending you. If you were King I would expect to be drawn and quartered. Please do stop prodding me with your curt sputterings if it is not too much to ask. It is taking much away from the congeniality here. You have the functionality to block my entire output, so perhaps use it. To be fair, that's not what will appease an amateur propagandist. A propagandist will worry that his efforts may be short-circuited, and he'd rather know and intervene if that is possible. We have institutions we still call Universities that were developed to do this where professors of the faith could intervene in the process of forming suggestible people on behalf of their Christian benefactors. This isn't quite that is it? I don't feel I should pretend I'm at University again and be formed by professors of some imagined Baconian faith that extolls suggestions of multiple personality disorder. Most of what I write here is a response to Rob directly, isn't it? It's the way he interacts with me and with others on this forum. I've seen you like his very long winded musings full of odd ideas not intended for you. I've not seen one occasion of any of you telling him to shut up and go elsewhere. It's a very good thing he's not offending you. I've reciprocated in the fashion I have seen displayed in threads where you don't even appear. It's a similar sort of exchange between two individuals in those, wouldn't you say? You have the freedom to be a voyeur and to consume it. You apparently do, and you do like to gossip about it. I "get" that it is hard to control one's self. It's only because of the generosity of two people who are gifting this platform with content it is begging for that you can be offended. The 5 or 6 of you that have their panties in a bunch can't help yourselves. You are worried silly about what consequences this could have on this networking project to recruit using whatever means are possible. Do keep it up if you think you will get what you desire. Where there is a will there is way. You are less likely to get a response from me if you beg for one. I'll give you a hint. If Rob wasn't so interested in exchanging in the way he does I do not know what the point of being here would be. Because he interacts there appears to be a point in reciprocating. There's a mechanism in that which is available to you to try and modify his behavior instead of mine if you want to attack the root of this "problem". I'd love to see you try and push him around. It's bad enough that you guys get to scrub the comments from your Youtube videos to make it look like the entire world is in love with your suggestions. Bacon was not Champlain hiding in Quebec you know. Give it up. Come back down to reality. Work against that sort of thing instead of filling the world with intellectual pablum. "Abracadabra" and "hocus pocus" to you. Magic is about the acceptance of suggestions. The way to negate a casting of a spell is to objectively label all attempts at it as that. I will never stop pointing out that people ae interested in performing feats of magic here. No belief equals no magic.
  2. Here's an example of someone who writes that Rawley is in possession of something that should see the light. This has been taken literally by some when in fact it could very well mean that there was much that was unprinted lying in Bacon's papers. One could chase this suggestion to Oak Island by further interpreting various texts just just as ripe for the pickings by one's imagination. Here someone is also telling us that Francis is of Baconian stock when others will tell you that this isn't the case at all. How can some be so wrong?
  3. Does it resonate with you because you are overly caught up in the search for the physical manifestation of these type of stories that use these archetypes? It's the quote at 7:13 that gives a proper context for me. Magic is what sinks into the subconscious from the past attitudes. Those are, in fact, beliefs that were once suggestions widely and unconditionally accepted that have ceased to be that. Even if one were to chase these things all the way back to a "prima theologia" there would only be old attitudes there expressed by stories whose archetypes we would recognize. We'd recognize them because they were first summoned from nature in a way that anthropomorphizes the forces of nature which are the first unknows. We know ourselves enough to always know how an anthropomorphized concept works. We have referenced the unknown using the only thing we do know. History has been full of role players who have been acting out these stories. Where Merlin is fictitious and true to the archetype, Dee is an impostor who is merely acting to influence. They are not the same thing. So would be any person today who walked around claiming to be a magician. One must not try and live the lives of characters in stories to try and suggest that the stories are literal. The place for a magician is in a story or on a stage where there is a subject and a suggestion to be made and to be accepted (for our entertainment). It's not just Dee who is an impostor. So is the priest or the shaman who steps outside of the role of being a storyteller that is in it for universal "good". We should know magicians from reading about them, not by interacting with one. The powers of the magician are fictitious. If there is any power at all it is in you who is God like. You are Hermes the three-in-one. So, piercing the veil is nothing more than travelling back in time to see how the stories looked back then. It is not a journey where we are discovering any knowledge that is lost to us which has inherent value. There are themes there which we can see as universal. We can coax them out of the stories in such a way that they are useful to us to craft new stories with today. We will remember them from the subconscious (whatever than may mean). I maintain that what is essential is that we still be writing stories which are informative of the state of our current attitudes about our shared well being. These stories must be free of anything resembling ego pursuits. These are very unlikely to come out of anything like our ships of State. We're clearly in an age of propaganda where so much is about influence and self interest (selling and recruiting). Some of that stuff is what future historians will look back on this time to single it out. It will appear that we were massively confused exactly as we have gained the ability to share stories better than ever. We should know better, but we don't. In fact, there probably already is an archetype for this type of person if you look into it. He'd be doing black magic. We're also collectively smarter in the breadth of our knowledge. When we try and use traditional storytelling techniques it often comes across as cliche. Perhaps we have grown too wise for our own good if we can short-circuit the benefit of a good story. Too many conflicting stories have probably numbed us. Religion is an obvious waste of time to those of us who'd rather not be patronized with morality tales. We are, unsurprisingly, suspicious of all motives today. We probably should be. Quality of information matters. We can sniff out fraudulent role player today better than ever.
  4. Royal Craftiness is just a euphemism for "that which is epic storytelling". It's how I have come to make sense of human pursuits. It always comes with a story. The epic storyteller has always used what already existed and has sought to broaden it in an effort capture things that may be relevant to his time. Each age has had its concerns. We have some today that are unlike any from past ages. These concerns will end up being captured by stories that later generations will see as being relevant to our time. Unfortunately, some of them will be bad movies. What you describe is play: play with words. It's meant for entertainment as well as to expand our conceptual vocabulary since it is an attempt to attach symbol to evolving ideas. It's part of a way magic evolved in medieval Europe. I do not know if the algorithms have reached you with this yet (It's just a day old), but have a look at this. It's right up your alley and mine.
  5. Everything in the past is some sort early attempt at something that is part of some evolving story.
  6. Are you alleging John Dee coined the word century now and that it doesn't come from the Latin "centuria"? You just won't stop playing the "there's still a chance this applies" card. This is simply an example of you finding a counting scheme that works in one instance and using it to make a suggestion with. Century has 7 letters. Based on the distribution of letter frequencies and their simple gematria value you should expect to find other words that will sum to 100 that have nothing to do with 100 of anything. What does one, two or three mean to you? Would any of them mean 100 if the gematria produced 100. It does happen that there are numbers whose gematria values equal their underlying meaning. That is a coincidence. You can ask an AI to write you a Python code to do that. It will spit it out in a few seconds. Any and all instances of that working are a coincidence. It could do the same for number spellings that would sum to a number you allege is William Shakespeare in disguise. I do not know why you'd want to know that, but knowing it would open new doors of suggestion for you. Part of the issue here is that you don't prefer to think in terms of "coincidence". You'd rather see the world as "synchronicities". You have been sold on the idea that everything happens for a reason. Someone successfully planted that bias in your head. I suppose we can blame Carl Jung for that. Did you know that Jung' was opposed to Sigmund Freud's "Jewish science" of psychoanalysis and promoted his own? He once suggested Jews had inferior psyches (female ones) and that they were thinking up things to compensate for their shortcomings. There's a reason why this guy was never taken seriously. He owes much of his own success to Hermann Goering's cousin from the time his views were promoted by the national socialist party within Germany. The obsession with myth and meaning went deep into German politics in the 1930s. Unfortunately, Jung's ideas have persisted with the esoteric crowd who have no reason to place him in the dustbin of history.
  7. It has. The bilateral cipher has bene tackled. Where it appears to possibly be in play (in the add-on to the plays) it doesn't say what some would want. Rob, and others, won't let his gematria go. It's too much fun, and it is very accessible. That's all they have Peet. It has the possibility to suggest that Bacon was Jesus Christ, but they have settled on less than that. To ask them to stick to things that one can, at the very least, defend with reason is something they don't feel they have to do. Bacon knew how to encode a message in such a way that it could be decodable faithfully. And he was adept at hiding those in plain sight using simple binaries. No one has found one that says that Bacon wrote Shakespeare or was the heir to a great imaginary title. If they found that then they would have an argument to present with some consistency. But they are stuck here on the fringes where like minded people can form cliques to try and give each other support in their efforts to recruit. It is all good and fine if it is done for entertainment purposes. But, you will find when you dig that many here are actually actively trying to recruit in other places. Recruiting is really all that matters to some. They see the way to getting to a point where they "win" comes from convincing people to take the plunge by accepting many hundred examples of the same old indefensible error prone manipulation of words and coincidences they call a ciphering method (one without any clear rules on how to apply it). It works where it works and that is enough to suggest that this is exactly what was intended. Some coincidences are interesting. That makes them entertaining. Everyone on this globe wants to be entertained by something. In many cases one cannot tease out a motive for the existence of a coincidence. No one could say, with a straight face, if they are seeing a truthfully relayed message either, or If they were being pranked. If they discovered the effort, they would err on the side of falling prey to it because it aligns with what they want to believe. This was Pierre Plantard's method. Teh prankster hope s that the message will be found, so he will place it where it can be found. We are here because of a significant suggestion that was made in the past which says that the works of Shakespeare were written by one man. They likely weren't. Many efforts to deal with that have also wanted to suggest that the work was of just one man. To make that compute some have needed to suggest that this one man was actually multiple literary persons. We don't know any of this. We don't even know we should be playing this game.
  8. But it wasn't, because the word, when it was invented, was not "century". It's a coincidence which is attributable to the choice of the counting scheme. It won't compute in more counting schemes than it will. You should know this. Regardless, you keep trying to make a suggestion to recruit for your indefensible belief. Furthermore, an example of it working is not proof that it will work for all words using that counting scheme. It clearly doesn't. You'd use a word which was made with two roots in Phoenician and apply a "Tudor" count if that would work, and then you would say to me that the fact that it works must mean something more than "it is an artifice". IS the root for century Latin? Do you use a Latin Gematria, a Hebrew one of a reverse upside down one where you get what you are looking for? You are trying to obfuscate to keep the possibility alive when there is no possibility for this given by reason. That would mean that favoring a myth over reason would have to be the way to go. If gooey people are prone to doing that then your message will suffice to keep some support from gooey people. Using a duality that way is how political parties work. Nobody knows who they should align with until they are told by one side how unappealing the other is. People will align themselves based on their preferences. You are going to find allies with gooey people who are told that reason os really nothing more than the work of insufferable people who think they know better than the word of a mythical God (or some other fallacy). This is a message sent to everyone, and it will recruit. This means that all the people who are clearly suffering from a condition of knowing next to nothing outside of their beliefs are prone to having a preference which biases them to aligning with one side of a duality over another.
  9. I'm prickly, you are gooey. We need each other to know what we think, otherwise we are unsure. So says MR. Watts. My wife tries the same rationale when she insults me. "Well, you deserved it!". If I do it to her she will blow a gasket and insist that there is "NEVER, and under no circumstance, a reason to insult her". This is the dynamic of a tyrant, and we must learn to live with them if we want to take what we want from them. The tyrant will always accuse you of insolence and disrespect. Having the power to chop another's head off is ultimately what it boils down to. The offended own the offense. The key is to not be offended if peace is to exist.
  10. You should just to get to the part where he talks of "prickly people" and "gooey people." lol He's a great entertainer. He was super flawed as a person, but still worth listening to. I will listen to him while falling asleep because I think his voice is perfect for that. Seldom do I get to the end of a long presentation with him...I'll nod off long before that. I also don't enjoy it as much when I am fully awake. lol The genius may be in putting you to a peaceful sleep. I'll keep him in mind on my death bed. I wouldn't have been surprise if you told me you were Alan Watts' roommate at some point. You often seem like a Forest Gump type who is one degree of separation from all the noteworthy events and people. lol.
  11. Sure, that's perfectly possible to think. You may even think that it is worth saying what you think. Some things you think may get you demerit points here. You can explore how far you can go if you want. Spend a day reading about epistemology before you conclude that anyone knows anything about what it means to know. It is a very convoluted dialogue that you will find there. What is knowing? What is meaning? How can we know what knowing is? What are the most basic concepts that we build on to arrive to our ideas about that? We don't even typically speak in the language that is used to describe these things. It's all Greek to most. If you'd rather not deal with that and assume that we have all that figured out then I am afraid I must inform you that we don't. The problem is that there is no completely squaring the circle, so to speak. We take shortcuts, mainly because we see everyone else doing the same. The world is not full of philosophers like Bacon. Trying to get into the inner vault is said to be impossible. That, if you want to call it part of an archetype story is the one that says that you simply cannot access the contents of Enoch's vault. You will trip yourself up repeatedly if you do chase it, and it will remain elusive. You'll get to the 153 foot level in a hole and the entire thing will collapse into the abyss (the more you dig the more it sinks) and you will be lucky to come out of the shaft not buried alive if you don't stop pursuing that. I have no way of knowing if this is a story that is faithful to any reality, but it would seem that we are very much stuck trying to bootstrap ourselves into a condition of knowing something about the world. You' ll recognize a version of this story was used in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" with the pursuit of the Holy Grail. When it is nearest it is still capable of dragging you into the abyss. You are never quite there. To save yourself from losing it all you must let go and be satisfied with just living in a complete mystery. We have what we have as tools to work with, and that we understand is already not giving us a faithful representation of the realty we are stuck in. That is not to say that we cannot have brilliant insights about it. Fractals have this sort of property. You can chase them into infinity on all scales. They arise from the most basic equations of give and take. That is to say one can lay down some very simple rules that can account for all of the complexity we see in the world. What are the basic rules? "To be or not to be" are two pretty basic states. If we imagine a give and take which allows for certain things "to be or not to be" then we possibly have a starting point. There are rumblings of this in our reality where detectable things pop in and out of the void/nothingness all the time. There can be something from nothing as long as there is a bookkeeping that is respected. It's fun to think about. It is also fun to think that we have designed a system of money that exploits the same properties. You can create some where there was none only if there is a rigid accounting. Borrowing money into existence is how it starts. What is created just as quickly vanishes from where it came when a debt obligation is settled. Were it not that we trust this magic there could be no economic expansion. That is true of the Universe in terms of space. Anyway, if I am nuts then I am perfectly fine with that because I do see how we were driven to question everything by being in a condition of having to just accept someone's word at face value if we don't. We all want to know the rules. What allows some to state that they know Francis Bacon is something that many others who have looked do not know? What satisfies some and not others? Do we resolve this in the court of public opinion by trying to convince people? What happens if we succeed? Have we achieved knowing then? All this is really just a form of entertainment, a la Alan Watts. Maybe that's all life is too? If we can't be entertained by living then we may want to conclude what Albert Camus reasoned and contemplate suicide. The only choice we have is really "to be or not to be". Those who decide to live will have to be entertained by their living enough to want to keep going on.
  12. Gematria was a formalism used to build words (or select them) in order that the sum of the letter values would compute with some already existing numerical representation which may very well have come from geometry and old ideas about deity (as in the case of the Sumerian pantheon of Gods where each decad had a correspondence). 40 had associations to Enki, for example. It was never intended to be a way for you to sum the character values in a word and come to a number which had a meaning that should then be ascribed to the word. If one limited oneself to having only vocabularies where that worked you'd have a problem because MANY words and expression would have to rejected by virtue of them summing to numbers already taken by some concept. That is not how things evolved. We have tons of words and expressions that sum to the same values. The thing gets even more meaningless if we allow for multiple methods of counting. When doing that we are growing the number of words and expressions that can be shown to sum to the same number. This of course favors the story teller as he has more to play with. Others were actively using Gematria? Using it unwisely in violation of logic in a way that they assumed had the power to convince? Maybe. What happened then is no different than what happens now. Go to Youtube and look up this stuff. There is no shortage of examples of people still trying to convince themselves and others of things that have no merit. The sad thing is that both the individual and his audience can succeed in creating acceptance of ANY suggestion. Not all of them get accepted widely. If Dee was talking to angels that is not unlike what some still suggest today. In many ways they feel they should be able to suggest it since they have found that someone already had. Those who take off on a voyages of discovery through what is written can find many examples of what has been discarded along the way in places where they can appear to be quite relevant (in the context of the time when the old suggestions first appeared). The Hebrew Gematria game is an example of this. It was rediscovered again in the 13th century and popularized. Efforts had to be made to stop the spread of it. It resurfaces in almost all esoteric revival period. Nobody was creating words with it times in modern that I know of. "Abracadabra" may be an example of such a thing from earlier. There is something in linguistics that is called the MERGE function. This is something humans must try and deduce about how we came to think the way that we do. This function presumably allowed us to do interesting things in the realm of set building in our mind. It's a sort of gymnastics that has rules. Sets can borrow things that are in other sets. Linguistics is the study of how we came to think. It it not a way by which we study how we communicate with words. Something very rigid is happening that allows us to communicate imperfectly. There's really nothin special in the fact we communicate. All living things do. What is special about humans has some sort of computational underpinning because we are capable of borrowing and building new sets. At some point our ancestors started thinking in a certain way that must relate to the MERGE idea we have to infer (as opposed to just knowing it). When it comes to communications between humans there's much that we may want to signal. What tends to get expressed are our preferences. If someone is making an attempt to communicate with you, and if there is no obvious collaborative intent, we can almost be certain that what is happening is that someone is trying to establish something which is preferred. I'm not sure it works that way in nature. When trees communicate they use chemicals through their root systems. They can sound the alarm and or pass on chemicals that help in combating infections or pests. It is doubtful that any tree is trying to pass on a message about which tree should be the King of all trees. It is also doubtful that a tree is tryin to trick another one into dying for another's benefit. Some of the attributes we have we are quick to call superior abilities. I suspect that our ability to convince is exactly why we have no hope as a species. We will forever convince ourselves there is nothing wrong when we are achieving what pleases us. Our thinking is the root of a lot of what we do not like about ourselves, but it is doubtful that one can have only the upside without assuming the downside. We have used myths until it was clear that myths were being used against us. We fought them back with reason. Then we almost immediately started abusing reason until it was clear that reason was being used against us. Now we will turn to myth again. We are in a time when the age of reason has let us down (the reasoning got imperfectly expressed to create advantages exactly as it recruited). The cost of that is that myths are thriving once again in an age when communication is very easy. It is very hard for men using reason to stop the proliferation of myth now. Myth promises so much. Make believe worlds are so much better than a world where one can no longer make or achieve anything he believes is. There is a myth today around the idea that things were great in the past when myths were strong. It is possible to reason all of this, but I doubt that reason is as effective as mimetic phenomena when it comes to merging minds. Our politics hinge on suggestions and their acceptance. Politicians don't even have to attempt to use reason to try and justify why some should be Gods while others clearly aren't even treated as humans.
  13. I depends what you mean by "means". If means can be replaced by "might mean" then I cannot possibly know the meaning of anything with any certainty. I could take my cue from you, not knowing from who you got your cue from. What it "is" is going to boil down to which formalism we want to treat it with. The best use is a 1:1 relationship with symbols. Here B is 2 and F is 6 works well to get us to the point where we must wonder if all occasions of F and B were supposed to point to 62, or 26, or 6/2=3, or 6x2=12, or 2/3=0.333... or 2^6=64. Depending on what we favor we ca pursue that line of thinking even further. When we go in the reverse direction and start off with F and B given, 26, does not give you the identity of anyone either. You may assume you should be looking for an individual with initials FB, but why would you? If you give me FB, I will suggest that you are referring me to the Key of F in a diatonic scale which has only one flat, B. Then I will look up what emotive quality the key of F is supposed to have and wonder whether I should feel serenity and calm from the suggestion. It is all a big can of worms. If we are willing to accept any formalism. If we are going to we must at least be able to show why the one we prefer should be the one everyone defaults to.
  14. What will be denied? Any interpretation that one gives it? He's giving clues and hiding them at the same time by using a totally unacceptable method of encryption that you take the liberty to call ciphering method? And we are supposed to know by default what is to be believed? Never! Start at the beginning with this pyramid of suggestions if you can. What is the corner stone of the suggestion? Who is the braniac that first suggested such a thing and why? The way symbols work is by a hereditary mechanism. We keep borrowing them, first from nature, and then they end up having some recognizable flavor. to us. There's no way for you to know what I have in mind right now with the number 177. It doesn't appear to have had a meaning until it is alleged to have meant "William Shakespeare" if we count this or that way. Some numbers can simply be made to appear by rather simple manipulations of counts. Other times they don't even have to. They just pop up. Case in point is the number 1881 which you have adopted as a symbol. Until the entire world has been exposed to your suggestion over and over don't expect it to float. Other things you could suggest might have a more direct path to being recognized as symbols of cyclical time. That looks merely like a date to most people. We have no clue what anyone is suggesting with the idea of masks and dispossessed Kings. If I was forced to write an essay about it I would favor suggesting that the point was to present us with the idea that each man is a version of God in his own right. You are just as entitled to be King of England as Bacon ever was. One need not be the child of a great titled whore to fit the bill. You are also just as worthy of being called a God because God is in you as much as he is in any "savage". This is what an enlightened person might conclude about the allodial rights and titles of Kings. You are a mask of God to a reasonable man. You wrote Shakespeare in another version of God, so to speak. The Shakespearean work is of no use to masks of God unless God himself is in each one. This story appeals to you because a part of you is behind it. It doesn't quite matter as much to a mushroom unless it grows on the pages of some lost folio. Others will say rather childishly: a mask means a secret identity. From there they will try and imagine a juicy secret worthy of being kept secret. "Whose identity is being hidden and why?" or "Might it be the location of the Holy Grail or the Ark?" resonates in their heads that are clearly already completely sold on the idea of the existence of these things. It doesn't even matter that it is given TO THE READER rather overtly that the Sonnets were written by God for some to disregard that as too straightforward to count as a message. It matters more what Constance Mary Fearon Pott may have thought, because she is somehow worthy of being believed in a version of some cult of personality. Never mind that some of her relatives thought she was off her rocker. She wrote books after all...popular books that resonated with uninformed persons. Sigh... Why wouldn't we favor the idea that you are the rightful King of England Rob? I think you'd make a worthy God for us too. You have all the necessary attributes of a God and of a manipulatable human that would make a great King. In fact, it is entirely within the scope of your argument that John Dee himself arranged it that we would only discover this today by way of your feigning that is was your alias Bacon that we should focus on. By tricking you he managed to inform everyone else, right? At some point we need to stop with the cleverness and ask ourselves exactly what we know. It's not much. What we can suggest is so much more.
  15. Used for what? You cannot reliably use gematria to code a message. Despite what you say it is NOT a ciphering method per se. He knew that by virtue of understanding basic logic. He knew well that it was one of the tools that had been used in the process of word creation in Hebrew (where its point of being lies). Meaning is not supposed to be decoded from number by treating the exercise as a 1:1 correlation in reverse. 177 does not tell you anything. If he did attempt to exploit it he would have known that it only had the possibility of snagging those who could be convinced by it. So, yes, he could have built a following of uniformed people who had not read his writings on such things. Had they read what he had to say about bad logic they would not have given it any weight. If that is being used, it is potentially not being used by Bacon. You only prefer that we start off by stating that all this was given by Bacon. It forces you to have to accept a massive contradiction. This you seem only too happy to do in order to keep your beliefs which we cannot even establish the origin point of. Your beliefs were not place in your head by Dee. It drove him nuts because he maintained that Aristotle's standard on logic and dialectic was in serious error. People touted that work for a VERY long time out of pure convention. Aristotle's well established reputation as a great Philosopher (a King-like figure) only helped to convince many that he should be the last word. The Church could use Aristotle and the other Neoplatonists. There was that much room for error. We wouldn't know this if Bacon hadn't written so extensively about it (overtly). That is not hidden from you. This, many would argue, was actually his main contribution to the world. We can gloss over that completely and imagine that all Bacon ever represented was a man who was held back from accomplishing anything because he was denied a title making him the representative of God on Earth to his tribe. The title that is bestowed to a person is not what gives merit to his contribution. It matters not one bit that he was or wasn't a dispossessed King. It only maters to those who want to sell books who allege he was. Should he be that in order that he deserve to be believed? No. Life is not a cult of pedestaled personalities. The suggestion can be made, and one can recruit for its acceptance, but then what? Why wouldn't one stop himself in his tracks and point out that it was using methods that Bacon was calling out for being unreliable in the first place? Do you think that is what Bacon was up to? He was giving an example to end all examples of how bad logic was the way to come to points of knowledge? Really? Have you given this much thought aside from determining that this is what you would prefer? Some theories' only merit are that they are entertaining. That's not nothing. To be tickled is fun if it is done respectfully. It's probably true that some subjects which are bordering on the comical and the tragic are best dealt with by entertainers. In matters of spirituality there are men like Alan Watts who labelled themselves as spiritual entertainers or showmen who are perfectly fine to listen to as a way to detoxify one's self from the seriousness of some of the mainstream delusions we all grapple with. For whatever reason, Google loves to recommend Alan Watts to me. I suppose he's a good counterbalance to the Jordan Peterson videos they'd want me to consume (serious crap). Neither one or the other is worth betting the farm on. I feel you might enjoy this Alan Watts contribution which touches on the nature of reality. It is covering many of the ideas we are playing with which are dealt by with myth. He's enough of joker for me to suspect that is on to something. lol. : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpHqYnFELLE
  16. It would all depend on what is meant by "is". If "is" can be replaced by "might be" then I would be completely unsure if I exist. I would have to suppose that I do exist, and that would require some sort of external confirmation for me to suspect it. What is the external confirmation that comes to tell us that we are right to see things in one way or another with gematria? Thinking one can encode and decode with gematria is poison. Any suggestion that uses it as a corner stone is on bad footing. It only seems possible and reasonable. Bacon did possess a way to encode precisely, and he understood that it was requirement that a coded message should be decodable when identified as a coded message (the identification of one should be difficult to limit the attempts at decoding, because that is another level of security). There are no properties of anything that is accompanied by the number 26, or described by it, that tell us we are looking at a larger coded message. What the exercise does is allow for very large doors of possibility to be opened. In politics that is called opening the Overton window, and it is a very powerful strategy used to start manipulating and recruiting the electorate with. This is never good for anyone who would want to know anything. However, doing these sort of mechanics does qualify one to write scripts for History Channel shows. If the pursuit of lucre matters then it is important to massively confuse people with things that are very interesting in such a way that they can become embroiled in making sense of it. Keep that in mind if you want to write a serial novel. This sort of confused interpretation of facts is what drove Bacon nuts. It is highly unlikely he would have exploited it unless he was pranking the people who who would be caught up in this sort of exercise. The Rose/Cross story comes with another that I find very useful to make sense of it. It is the "Pilgrim's Progress" that was written by John Bunyan. The moral there is that you can die in a collapsed shaft on the "hill of lucre" or drown in the mud of a "slough of despond" if you get off the straight path. The straight path is free of curves and possibilities. On it there is only what matters that get you to the point of knowing. The hill of lucre and the swamp are both archetypes exploited by the Oak Island story tellers. They confuse you in order that your lost time might become money in their pockets. They know the straight path to getting paid for their investment in that bit of story telling. The entire enterprise must rest on "could it be". As a story teller I feel it is important that you make sense of that.
  17. You're purposely glossing over the fact that a cult is possible without easily identifiable leaders, churches and financial incentives. A society can be caught up in a cult of the self that is promoted by business forces for business rationales. The shopping malls never get equated to churches. The free market isn't promoted as heaven. Humans can be snagged by the cult of personality that is promoted which sells advertising and caters to everyone's desire to want to be someone other than who they are (someone who is allegedly loved by a great many). If a person is recruited by these efforts his contribution is a mimetic one. He counts as one example to help recruit others. The end goal isn't always the same. You want to seem to have everyone think that the point of a cult is to get rich from it. Not always. I think we can recognize that the cult of the self and the cult of personality are both playing into the suggestions we are seeing. Bacon would have needed to be in love with himself to have written himself into the stories in the way you often suggest. Others would have needed to have been recruited into a cult or adoration of him from very early on to groom him. One would need to use the context of prophecy to advance this. There is no prophecy in play. Suggestions made to people at any time are ripe for being accepted unconditionally and become self fulfilling prophecies in time. We ought to understand that these are important aspects of the propagandizing of anyone's life. When it came time to write Henry Kissinger's authorized biography the job was given to a man that is very well known for writing in a story telling style (producing narrative biographies). He creates compelling narratives around the lives of the subjects he tackles. That is to say he presents someone's life to others with borrowed symbolism taken from existing stories (archetypes). This is a shrewd way to whitewash any man's life and to make him look like he is either of the side of the light or the dark. A "you are with him or you are against him" type of dichotomy is given to the world. Priests do the same thing when a dead person is eulogized. There are even professional eulogists one can hire. If the job came down to you to write Bacon's biography it would be such a story. You'd have no choice because you never knew the man. You'd struggle to know how he should be presented. Bacon is a cultish figure. He's that because he was a philosopher on the cusp of the modern age of science. There are people who are admirers because of the empiricism and naturalism in the philosophy. His reputation as being a father figure for empiricism allows some to present him as a bright Sun or a point of illumination if they wanted to use that. I don't think you are enamored with Bacon the empiricist or the statesman. I've never seen you write much about what Bacon had to say about reason. You much more prefer to present a story where Bacon is teaming up with characters that are clearly not proponents of reason for reason's sake (Dee, Elizabeth...). These are the schemers who are the manipulators in the historical cast. The manipulators are the ones who lay down the first suggestions. Somewhere along the line the Shakespeare authorship question morphed into a Royal bloodline story for you. The suggestion is employing a known archetypical storyline around the dispossessed heir. I would also argue that you have been recruited by others who have their own interests. It is much easier to identify the rationales when you come to people who try and make their living promoting stories. This sort of networking is beneficial to all involved. The whole point of the symbolism we see may be to present the message that Thomas Pained echoed in the quote I singled out. Bacon may have been screaming exactly that from the rooftops to anyone who would pay attention to the narrative that exploits masks. To have overtly said anything like what Paine wrote would not have been possible. The story of the God symbol is part comedy, part history and part tragedy. It's not an easy subject to present to the masses in a world where the monarch is assuming the role of spokesperson for the deception.
  18. Yes, I'm aware that the Hebrew symbols sum to 26. I think we covered this already with the flaming heart emblem that uses the tetractys with Hebrew Characters instead of numbers. The whole of the characters sum to 72 (3 x 24) which is the number of the names of God and the geometric suggestion of 9 x 8 which is in the Sonnets dedication. All in all it is that whether one want to insist that 26 is Bacon or not. The problem I have is that there is literally no end to the ways one could equate a number to Bacon. I am not one to subscribe to the idea that Francis Bacon was given initials FB to allow for this coincidence. Should we think that Bacon's parents saw him as a Christ figure? That's something that I am much more willing to suspect is a belief held in a cult of Francis Bacon. It's neat, but it is not compelling. There's really no way into inject Bacon into all this religious symbolism unless you suggest that there was already a cult in his persona in his time. Boehme used this imagery and Bacon would have known of his esoteric writings. Pretty sure all Rosicrucian's would have. Doesn't mean Bacon was a Rosicrucian. He may have seen right through all that.
  19. I have it on good authority that 177 is the Latin Gematria value for "The Sun is my Adonai" and that "Sol" is 40. Tudor is an English invention that means "gift from God". It's value is 70 which is the Greek letter value of Omicron. This may suggest that it it be placed in the middle. Why are we counting in Tudorese again? Who exactly has established that we should? Is this Rob's doing again? Where does counting in Latin figure in these games? My point is that there always going to be a cute way to present a suggestion one wants to get accepted using gematria. It doesn't have to be Gematria that one invents either. You just keep maybe 4 versions of it to assist. Neglect all others, right?
  20. Good catch! The falcon is the symbol of the god RA who is a symbol of the rising Sun. The millennium of the rising Sun is probably exactly what Joseph Campbell had in mind. It is an extension of the idea of a 2000 year period of Christ's reign. The 1000 years (ten centuries) that Bacon identified with were those that he equated with the illumination of man by reason. The light was to come out of the dark. It wasn't a story that started in light and ended in darkness for him. It's a powerful symbol for the forces of good that wrestle against the father of darkness. In German Vader has the meaning of "father senior". This makes him akin to Seth. The enemies of the Jedi were named Sith.
  21. That begins with the Acrostic FAMA which means "what is said about someone or something" in the realm of gossip and speculation on one hand and in the area of renown and reputation on the other. Certainly applies to the Sun. It is not widely said that the Sonnets are autobiographical or related to Bacon. I wonder where one would pick up that suggestion. Are you, perhaps, from a race of mind readers? Maybe it is much less sinister. The ability to read between the lines isn't quite as powerful as mind reading after all. One does often feel it can be developed to the point of being reliable. It is possible to borrow the entire Sonnets to help create a story. I'm not against that sort of creation. The Sonnets were ascribed to Adonai, though. Are you so certain that the story isn't his autobiography? He had a rough love life with Aphrodite. Same with the Sun. I hear the moon was chasing him all the time. She caught up with him occasionally and their alchemical union produced consequences in the affairs of humans, it is said. Fun story. Did you know there was a total solar eclipse on Sept 22, 1968 (Fall equinox)? No Star Trek episode aired on that date, but season three did debut on Sept 20, 1968 with the episode called "Spock's Brain". In this episode a female alien beams up to the starship and manages to steal Spock's brain (a woman overpowering the reasoning faculty of man?). Let's call it a cautionary tale about losing one's mind over a woman. One should be careful against having such total eclipses of the brain. lol
  22. Star Trek is a great borrowing of ideas and of themes. It fished from Shakespeare the most, imo. All great art is a borrowing. And it has a cult following of fans who know all the details and can quote you entire episode dialogues. I have seldom seen anyone who has picked apart all the symbolism contained in it. What we do know is that the show was thoroughly detested by the American religious right (organized religion). People in high religious places tend to know how to sniff out symbolism (or think they can read your intentions). They perceived it as an attack on their values. Televangelists like Billy Graham panned it. Letter writing campaigns and lobbying of advertisers neutered the show pretty early on. The money soon ran out for the producers. Season 3 was poorly funded. The episode "Spectre of the Gun" had to be shot on on an old western set because there was no money for set building. This forced the writers to use appropriate story lines. Of potential interest to you is the fact that the episode revolves around the year 1881 and the date October 26th (day 300 in 1968 when the episode aired) in the city of Tombstone. It's based on the shootout at the OK corral. The episode title can be imagined to be a social commentary about the events of 1968 (killing of Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy and the students at Kent State University). The protagonists in the episode are the Melkotians who are a race of xenophobic mind readers (the surname Melcot means free spirit). Perhaps this is also a commentary on Americans who see themselves as being of free spirit and who are capable of rampant xenophobia. I watched the show in all stages of my life. It is only much later that I was introduced to the idea of chasing back choices of character names, for example.
  23. 4 or them are identical in that they start with "O That". The 5th is "O All". The Greek character Theta is transliterated as "Th". The symbol is an O with a horizontal bar across it. The "O all" is typically the O with the dot within it (Omicron). Theta is the 8th character. 4 eights are 32, and that is how Sonnet 53 starts (with 32 words). 32 is 2^5. These are the 5 dualities that make up Bacon's encryption method. Here we can speak of a duality of O suggestions with Theta and Omicron. Omicron is the 15th letter. The Greek value of Theta is 9. 4 x 9=36. Omicron's value is 70. Together they are 106 which is 2x53. Using positions. 4 x8=32 + 1 x 15=47. 47+53 are 100. There are 55 words in this bit of text. 100 +55=155. Like I said before, it's not hard to write a compelling story using what one has at his disposition.
  24. A thematic reference to "This Side of Paradise" from Star Trek TOS? The planet name was Omicron (monad symbol) Ceti III. It was the spores that resisted the berthold rays that conferred peace, contentment and apparent ever lasting life. Berthold is from German and it means "bright ruler". It made Spock (a creature of reason) capable of love. The scientist there was named Elias Sandoval. Elias is of course the prophesized one and Sandoval has the etymological meaning of grove or clearing that has been opened. Elias had a little garden of Eden going, made possible by the spores. The script does mention there were no pigs there, so no bacon in paradise.
  25. This world belongs to fungi. They were here first and they have allodial right to the place. We serve them as best we can.
  • Create New...