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.

Holy Royal Arches Batman! I did not know you lived in paradise. Now you know that 42 is a necessary part of it. I cut the lawn for the first time this year last night. The gardens are just going in now for the things that can still stand the cold. Our frost date here is something like May 28th. For a good chunk of the year we don't need any more cones than are necessary to see white or shades of pale yellow. Over there it would appear that seeing shades of green would be useful. It is interesting that the physiological parts of us that are used to deal with light are cones since it is with cones that we can demonstrate, with a rotating series of cuts, the circle, ellipse and parabola. Also interesting is that we have three light colored cones. So, there is much to think of about light in the natural world that would remind of us of the baseness of three. In an attempt to rescue 154 for you, I did notice that 153 and 154 form what is known as a Ruth-Aaron number pair (named for the baseball players). Ruth-Aaron pairs are unique in that they are consecutive and have all their factors which are primes sum to the same number. For 153 those are 3,17. For 154 those are 2,7,11. They both sum to 20 (TT). They are the 6th Ruth-Aaron pair. 154 is the 7th nonagonal number. 6x7=42, just for fun.

Well played. 126th day is May 6 which is today. Good to see you are checking for possible calendar references.

An interesting way to think of the figurative geometry and its accompanying iconography is to see it as that as wisdom that is travelling through time which is pointing us back to the original realizations, or conceptualizations, about number which have stemmed from natural observation. It is apparent to me that even Christianity could not escape using or borrowing it, because it "fished" from an existing well established religious iconography that was using it. Where it veers off suddenly is in the explanations which tend to be reimagined in an evolving metaphysical language. For most of the life of the Church of Rome there have been warnings about not succumbing to the lure of the "cult of Nature". I think it is useful to think of the early scientific minds like Bacon as men who were in fact very interested in the cult of Nature and who were not at all convinced that it had nothing to do with the nature of the God concept. It is the esoteric that offered traditions based in number which had geometrical significance that stood out as part of our "forgotten" or "suppressed" inheritances. It is incredibly interesting how the idea of God took a turn towards a focus on the stars/Sun, heliocentrism an even a metaphysical reimagination of Sun by German mystics like Boehme in Bacon's day. It's in the Bacon imagery. The geometric constructions that inform the composition are discernable in his "swan song" and are adorned with a Sun labelled by the Tetragrammaton because that is a new avenue of thought that is revisiting the old. It is with the idea of the Sun's light/emanations that the Egyptians came to establish their cult of the Aten in the 18th dynasty, and I suppose it is not surprising that that very primitive observations about light also started to influence the detail of stories. The number of rays portrayed emanating from the Sun disk is 14, for example. There is probably a likely source here for the appearance of the number 42 which we see used by the Egyptians. The number appears unrelated to light, but it is in fact quite important to one light phenomena--the appearance of rainbows. If we want to be clever we could refer to a rainbow as a Holy Royal Arch depicting the holiness of the unit of 7 (and there are 6 sevens in 42). Because of the natural diffractional and reflexional properties of light beams through water droplets the angle formed from Sun to the top of the rainbow is 42 degrees. That is to say when you see a rainbow even today there is necessarily a Sun above and behind you and an angle of 42 degrees there. It is the Egyptians who are credited with having "invented" the concept of angle as we know it. They were measurers of celestial angles (declinations, azimuths and such), and these measures figured in the placement of temple sites and in the construction of pyramids originally (see the Temple of Djoser by Imhotep, he who will later morph into a Hermes figure in late dynasty Egyptian religion). Here's a relatively simple discussion of it which shows the phenomena: Rainbows are (literally) in the eye of the beholder | Popular Science (popsci.com) It may very well be that the fact there are 14 rays depicted is an attempt to employ a third division of 42 in such a way that the emanation from the solar disc represents one third of a trinity (that part that comes down to us and is life giving). Call it the Holy Spirit if you want. The number of assessors of the dead may be a reference to the 42 total rays that one might imagine are a feature of the whole. This is also quite close to a Platonic idea of the size of what is seen "under the Sun" by our senses and of the corresponding things that are under the "divine luminosity" which are available to our minds. Plato parses out that fraction with his divided line allegory. In Bacon's name there is also that suggestion of 1/3 and 2/3 with 33 and 67. Were one to apply it on a globe it would lead us to preferential 100 degrees of longitude divided in 33.3 and 66.6 degree parts. It is something we can begin to show he was toiling with, imo, and it meshes with the Great circle Tudor considerations that were in vogue. In a previous comment in another thread I mentioned the etymology of the word Christos as being one that is likely tied to the ancient Greek root Khrysos which is related to emanations of golden light. We can see evidence of this in the mention of a holy "mineral" mentioned in the Bible which is Chrysolite (a mineral well appreciated for its light show). There are many commenters out there who will seek to define the etymology of words using the Bible and its equivalence to Jewish stories, but it would appear that this is once again an attempt made by some to want to interpret everything from a source they view as primary. If one is limited to chasing back things only to the Bible then one will not get the full picture of much of anything. Our ideas are much older than that. As with the use of numbers taken from older cults of number and other places, we see the same type of borrowing, IMO. Anyway, There are many things that suggest that figurative number representations mattered in religious iconography. The Great pyramid, for example, has 210 courses, or levels. This is a triangular number. It is the 20th triangular number (TT). You will notice that 3x20=60. We ought to also be cognizant that in figurative geometry used to visualize a square based pyramid that the 4th pyramidal number is 30. There is something in all this that captures 30, 60, 90, 120 and 180 which important divisions in a circle. It would appear that a very rudimentary effort was made to make sure figurate numbers were depicted. The Kings chamber in the Great pyramid sits on the 51st course of stone. 51 is the 11th pentagonal number and it also figures as the base angle for the triangular face of the pyramid. it also happens to be 1/3 of 153 which has started us off wondering why it may have some relevance.

If you think that reality has a lot to do with number then you are in line with those who see the Universe as a computational engine. Small numbers must have high coincidence. The smaller they are, the more apt they are to capture some fundamental idea. When we factor out even large numbers (work to their constituents) we will always discover that they are close cousins of the base primes. That we should be able to count is what is rather unique about this reality. There is a superposition principle at play where it possible to define a unit of one and a following unit that is made up of 1+1. With just that we can account for all of maths. This is to say that one orange + orange =2 oranges and not one apple. But to say that we can do this still requires an approximation which we can gladly account for. No two oranges are ever exactly alike, and since the unit is not the same we are cheating a bit to say that there is two of anything. The thing does work in the abstract, though, and if we allow fuzziness in our definitions. There is something in this reality that seems to be perfectly countable and additive. So there would appear to be a fundamental unit of something. This is a reductionist view, and it may be an illusion. I have come to think of humans as not one of anything. Humans are as complex as the trillion upon trillion or relationships that are in them, and they require outside help to be able to even persist. The is a fundamental symbiotic relationship in humans that ought make one who thinks of his uniqueness cower in shame if he truly appreciated it. It takes a phenomenology to understand humans. Numbers don't do them justice. Complexity and emergence of structure from complexity does. To work up to what belief is requires that we know what we are dealing with. Everything that reaches you in the information sense is a suggestion of some sort. You have a sensory package within you that benefits you if you unconditionally accept the suggestions it is making. It would not be wise for you to not trust it. It has enough fidelity that it allows you to err on the side of staying alive. But it is not perfect. We can see things that are not there and hear things that are not sounded because we are doing these things in the mind. The mind can be tricked because of its default system which makes us unconditionally accept what we are making of signals if it is triggered. Unconditionally accepting a suggestion, or defaulting to the acceptance of the fidelity of the translation, is what I mean by belief. How we interact with suggestions can or can't be up to us. If we are in extreme fear, deep anger, complete confusion, overly emotional or in shock our minds can readily default to unconditional acceptance of suggestions at that time. It can, in a particular instant, make sense that we ought to kill what is threatening us. That is to say that there are states of the mind where one can bypass any critical thinking faculty and were we can start to be "programmed". For the programming to take hold there often needs to be lasting efforts to condition for the acceptance (bathing yourself constantly in the suggestion). The classic example of this strategy is hypnotism, but that is a rather extreme case of it where one has chosen for the trait of high suggestibility first, and where we instantly work to deprogram afterwards. If suggestions did not work this way there would be no marketing discipline. When thing scan be engineered and profited from that is considered a proof that they are real (so said a Physics professor of mine, lol). I don't know that there are any good reasons to believe (accept unconditionally) anything with our own will. It may ultimately be that we have no choice because we must somehow find a way to not be left in deeply confused states. There are suggestions that give us peace of mind. I would therefore suggest that to not want to believe is a sort of bravery. It is accepting that suggestions which you have to coexist with are not clear enough to interpret (maybe that costs you your eternal life, lol). Still, you opt to not have to accept unconditionally, trusting that our combined reason will allow us to know better in time. In short, my idea of how we process suggestions is an attempt at objectively seeing what exists in the world and how we interact with it. We don't come up to a truth as much as we come up to a suggestion of one. You can unconditionally accept a suggestion. You can also conditionally accept a suggestion. You can discard a suggestion totally. Conditionally accepting a suggestion is not belief. It is finding that near halfway point where you will reside until you have reason to later refine your decision while favoring the suggestion just enough to keep on considering it. The halfway point may be the best place to be (to accept that you do not know either way). To unconditionally accept of reject a suggestion is to be rather harsh. Sometimes that is required, but often it is not. I view human interactions as the sum of the efforts we make to convince ourselves of things (produce evidence). In that regard we are trying to work to some understanding or synthesis. I am not generally in favor of people parking themselves firmly on one side of an interpretation of a suggestion without a lot of consideration of what this would mean. It would a mistake to think that some will have to do just that in order to have peace of mind. It cannot possibly be terribly simple to account for the existence of beliefs. It would require a theory of mind that we don't have.

I did see there was a reference to this individual. That's an attempt at an explanation from the consideration of the figurative representation of numbers, and that is what I suspected was driving the ancient (pre Biblical) interest in the oddity of this number. I would hesitate to look to the Biblical context for a reason since it was written using already established symbolism. That being said, there's no shortage of numbers one could come up with that could also be useful this way. One would think that there ought to be some specific reason why 153 would stick out and find its own niche outside of Christianity. The explanation here does speak of week of 6 days. 42, which one can factor out of 153 division of the precession cycle is 6x7, and that uses 7 which we might think to use for a week. 6+7=13 and that can be interesting as 13 positions yielding 12 intervals (think zodiac, music intervals, months...). This may seem odd as a way to think of numbers but it is not unlike what we see in the Sonnets dedication where there is a possible suggestion of 72 and the tetragrammaton which is represented with word triangles made up of words that number the squares of 8 and 9. What I do like about this explanation is that it breaks down 153 into 100+53. If this was not just his way of considering numbers, but a recognized preexisting method to parse and chose significance in numbers that seeks to find coincidences in numbers treated additively then that would be nice to know. "The hexagon indicates the ordered creation of the word in six days" is an poorly inspired attempt at finding a link to the primacy of 6 in the creation story if you ask me (because of the existence of the seventh day). What we do know of 6 is that it first stood out because of the fact 6 equal triangles complete a cycle around a point. In fact we have Babylonian clay records of it. Whatever importance one wants to give to the circle representing a cycle, there is within it 6 equal triangular division around a center. This was reflected in the main pantheon of Sumerian Gods which numbered 6, with each representing a decad, so understood in terms of 60 which was their basis for numbering (the sexagesimal system). The preference for 60 degrees in a division of six around a circle explains why we would have fixed the number of degrees in a circle to 360 as opposed to anything else. The fourth decad, represented by 40, was Enki's and he was the popular "Good Lord of the Earth" who managed to be kept by other cultures in he Land of Canaan as religions evolved towards monotheism. Not to be too harsh on this fellow, I detect a desire to want to explain things with the details of the Bible stories. Yes, there is a link to a trinity, but why is there even a Trinity in the Bible story? This preference/reverence for 3 predates Christianity, surely. 3 represents the first relationship between points that is not a duality. It is the first polygon. If one is all (beginning and end) and 2 is a duality of good versus evil (inspiration taken from Zoroastrianism where this is central?) then 3 is that first relationship that comes and mediates between the dialecic that is at odds. In the Hegelian sense 3 allows for synthesis or some sort of resolution that allows stability in such a way that the polarity does not just negate itself. On a purely abstract level one can see how this conceptualization may have appeared. If one calls this the "Holy Spirit" then one is hinting that there is a force of realization in our reality that allows us to reason enough to not turn every duality into a fight to the death. Nature might come to a fundamental symbiosis this way. When we posses this thing represented by three we are working to find common ground, or seeking the middle way. Without it we are doomed to grind it out and not build outwardly. I'm not giving up on 153. I do think this fellow is right in one aspect. The fact that 153 is a triangular and hexagonal number Polygonal number - Wikipedia is significant enough to want to highlight it. Working it into a symbol of the fish may require that we use the two overlapping triangles in the Vesica Piscis to visualize a hexagon which we can represent as a Star of David. It is beyond elegant that 1080 would come out of it. That's 108 x 10 and 108 is the perimeter of the perfect square stone ashlar that has sides of 27 units in length. 27 being 3^3. Squaring a circle, while not possible geometrically, can be symbolized with 108 by using 4 times the square of 3. That just goes to show how important figurative considerations were in thinking about number syllogisms. That is why I feel it is wise to go and read Iamblichus' "Theology of Arithmetic" to begin to approach Alchemy and an idea of God as a geometric architect of the Universe which Bacon seemed to be fan of. 154 is a nonagonal number, if that is of interest. It would have been quite nice if 153 had captured triangular, hexagonal and nonagonal numbers. To fit 154 in a pyramid one must fudge things ever so slightly by adding an additional dot to the top of the pyramid.

I noticed that 153 of 154 was on your day 360. That's an interesting coincidence that once again gets us to a circle suggestion. No one truly knows why there is this preference for the number 153, but I suspect it has to do with the older cults of number and the ancient study of 3 and triangular numbers. As with composition in art, the positions that produce the most interesting points of coincidence tend to be the places used to anchor an image. Numbers have visual representations too. 153, when you first encounter it, seems like such an odd number to use as a symbol. The pyramid of 153 dots has 17 levels. 153 is the 17th triangular number. 153 is divisible by 17, 3 and 51. 3x51=153 uses the same numbers on both side of the equal sign. On the other corner of the pyramid bottom using 153 dots is the number 137. 100+53 and 100+37 involve the same two numbers that are found in the corners of the 3:4:5 triangle as integer angle approximations 53, 37. The sum of the first 4 factorials is 33 The sum of the first 5 factorials is 153. The difference is 4x5=20 (TT). The approximate length of the precession cycle, 25700 years, can be expressed as 153 x 4 x 42 where we can recover Lewis Carroll's pet number 42 which is he number of the assessors of the dead in the Egyptian afterlife. I'd sure like to know how they came up with that number to tie it to one's judgment.

Would you say that 100 and 53 are "biggies"? Do you mind if I suggest 100+53 is special for its use in the Bible in relation to the number of fish caught in a famous miraculous act? What is miraculous about 153? It is also a number associated with the Vesica Pisces (unclear to me why at first glance) which visually appears like a fish when viewed sideways if one includes a protruding tail. Archimedes called 153/265 the number of the fish before there was as even a Bible. That ratio is equal to the Tan(30). 30 degrees is not without significance in its relation to 60 degrees and the internal angles of the equilateral triangle found within one half of the Vesica. What's the fascination with 153 and fish in the age of Pisces? What's the 265th day in the calendar? Is that not the Fall equinox? Why was Enoch's impenetrable vault placed at 153 feet of depth in the story? 153 is a triangular number, so you can make a pyramid out of it using dots if you wanted to extend the Tetractys to 153 dots. It seems to suggest a relation to three. There are some truly odd things with 153. If you take any number divisible by three and break it down to its constituting numbers (for example 24 becomes 2 and 4) you can sum the cubes (powers of three) of those numbers and repeat the process with the new number until it will eventually necessarily end with 153, because 153 is the sum of the cubes of its constituting numbers. Many paths of this algorithm lead to 1080 before one ends with 1^3 + 0^3 + 8^3 + 0^3=513. 513 then yields 153. 1080 is the number of the Vesica Piscis. It is also 6 times 180. Six equilateral triangles placed edge to edge return to the same starting point which is the center of a circle. The total sum of the angles in the 6 triangles is 1080 degrees. Someone apparently noticed all these coincidences and saw something quite miraculous in it. But why would it make its way into a religious story also involving the primacy of three? The right side of the pyramid of 153 dots sums to 969 which is divisible by three (=323). 323 is a number which is the sum of 3^2 consecutive primes that end with 53. That should be enough of 53 for now.

I think he understood that the solution was going to have to be political and the New World held a lot of promise.

53 is often enough suggested by those who like the Pythagorean 3:4:5 triangle suggestion, using its internal angle 53.13 degrees rounded off. It stems from the arccos of 3/5. Its compliment is given as 37 degrees because the pair sums to 90 degrees, as they must. Amundsen, for example, likes to send you looking on page 53 for triangles and such things. It is interesting that the cos (53.13...) is 0.6. That is reasonably approximate expression for the reciprocal of the golden mean (0.618). If you constructed something using 53 degrees (on the flat) you would be producing a construct in which there would be something in it that was closely relatable to Phi. In three dimensions that is more like the 51.82 degrees seen in the Great Pyramid side angle. The sin(53) is approximately 0.80. The two numbers (which are ratios) are ones we can express as fractions 60/100 and 80/100. 60 and 80 are 100 + 40. We can see how 53 can be made to be a good angle to evoke the 40,60,80 triple and a relation to 100 which Bacon may have indeed seen himself as having (67+33). In fact we should probably include 20 in there so we have 1:2:3:4 in which we can discern the fundamental quaternary with which you can construct all of reality from the tetractys in the Greek sense. It makes 20 (twen=twin T or TT) be fundamental and a signpost/symbol for the 1 (the monad). It allows one to then imagine why it might be that an asterism like the Summer triangle with internal angles of 40, 60 and 80 might contain the symbol of the heavenly cross of crucifixion atop it. That this cross is found in the body of the swan leads one to a new avenue of suggestion and syllogism. That a new star appeared in the swan at the interaction of the cross in 1600 when someone like Giordano Bruno was executed is enough to send wild imaginations to the races. Everything appears to have a cozy relationship to everything else. In the path of Deneb in Cygnus is found the myth of the charioteer which is parallel to the ancient Jewish story of the ascension of the winged chariot (Paul's alleged experienced revelation). It is all so useful to a storyteller. Can one use this as the basis for a new mythology? Most certainly. It is highly likely that someone did. In fact, it is almost certain that someone did. Why do it, though? What is to be gained? Why strengthen this sort of syllogism? If Bacon was so taken by the need of an edifice of science why would he be invested in such a storytelling? Is it to draw you towards the practice of observation in nature and to also suggest that all Gods (not just the Christian God) can be found there? Are we being cajoled into being scientists with the idea that it can be useful to one's ideologies? Might that make science look less heretical? We know that these things figure in Rosicrucian symbolism. I am intrigued by the fact that Rosicrucianism was a voice of positivism while much of Reformed Christianity had taken on the voice of the prophets of doom and was caught up in wars to the last man. The use of the period of 1000 years ahead for Christ's reign was used as a way to push us in the direction of not thinking we were seeing the signs of the end of the world all around us. There are ten centuries in Bacon's Sylva Sylvarum to describe his attempt at science for a reason. We were going into the enlightened second part of a 2000 year story that was part of an astronomical age of that duration (out of the age of Pisces). We can therefore see that he was on to a Ptolemaic idea about the great cycle and its divisions. He seems to have fit the Christian story in an astronomical story. Might that explain why he was also so steadfast in wanting to keep the Ptolemaic cosmological view? It is interesting to see how far we can go with number to find parallels that are usable.

Why are you entertaining this idea about Queen Elizabeth? Are you looking for a motive for the use of some of the symbols in the heraldry? For me this raises the interesting question of why it is some want there to have been a secret child of Elizabeth that conforms with their preferred theories for their individual in question. This is in no way unique to your inquiry. This type of quest seems to give weight to the idea that some actually do greatly value the existence of lineages through important historical figures as a way to make their theories that much grander and more meaningful. They seem to recognize that there is a potential for transfer (of our perceptions about one individual's importance) from one individual to another. It never seems to be enough for people to focus on the achievements of a person. I submit that it may be because it is often difficult to see what is great in what appears to be not that special to us today (it may be a very important philosophical contribution, for example). There is often enough of a desire to wed an individual into a line from which even more well established theorizing can enter the discussion (to grow the breadth of the mystery). It is never far from leading you back to a Christian knight who was part of a conspiracy with Rome, and then part of a conspiracy against Rome to hide a truth. Again, this is the great theme of Western esotericism. In it there must be a mystery which, when solved, leads to some long lost knowledge of how the world really is, and which might explains the destined greatness of Britain or America. In the purely abstract this is a desire for the man who is lost to find himself again, and that is itself found in the Christian story telling (lost in sin and made pure again). We seem to like to think that we are in trouble now because we have lost our way, and that the tracing back of things to a halcyon past will uncover the legitimacy of who we are--and that we are great and it was all meant to be! Would you be less well served if you ancestor was just the descendant of a crusader knight? On the matter of Bacon documents, I am again amazed at how often I am encountering stories of Freemasons who own a copy of one of them, or a diary of his. There seems to be a pattern in this. You can actually work back the fact your father was a Freemason (or a Rosicrucian) to a group of men who see Bacon as their father figure (Imperator title allegedly bestowed on him by German Rosicrucianism). This is one of the theories or origin stories that some in American Freemasonry cherish(ed). You will not, however, find anyone claiming to speak officially for Freemasonry as a whole who will state this (and it is not a denial that is trying to hide a truth either), or the validity of any other theory. In truth there isn't a knowledge of its origin for a good reason, and there is unlikely to have been a single uniform lineage in it. 19th century Lodges existed that were solely committed to tracking the theories/origin stories, but they never achieved anything but to number and describe them. There is a period between operative Freemasonry and speculative Freemasonry where there is a large gap and after which a lot of invention was introduced to the latter as an adornment. After 1723 there are things in Freemasonry that are clearly just crafted stories, evolutions and reintegrated myths. The Scottish rite is modeled heavily upon the identifying with the endeavor of the crusader Knight. It's called Scottish rite but it traces back to French Franc-maconnerie which has its own version of its origin story. The adherent identifies as a sort of crusader for the cause. The modeling extends to the name given to the steps which one is following, the password etc... As is often the case, the manufacturing of "evidence" in the form of alleged primary records seems to have flourished in America during the 1840s onward when there was a great Victorian esoteric revival. These records have been past down in families often enough. Many offshoots of Freemasonry appeared at this time, and they all seem to have had their secret documents in tow (one which we can recognize a link to other stories). There are events in time with which we can use to suggest a date for the the appearance of documents of various sorts. I would wager that the appearance of a Bacon document does not predate the time when we start to see these theories come out of the writings of people associated with the Francis Bacon society of London. Similarly, there was no Shakespearean document cache on Oak Island suggestion before there were the popularized works of Constance Mary Fearon Pott in the 1890s. Before this period of what I call the Baconian link (1890-1930s) at OI there was the period where everything was echoing the Treasure Island/Kidd narrative or story line (1860-1890), and there was before that the original myths of Enoch's shaft/vault which are integral to some Freemasonic stories (ca 1840-1860). The thing is traceable to a beginning around the 1840s with a backdating of events that captures evocative details to help situate the observer in events with a discernable pattern. There have also been revivals in the Shakespearean theories at OI. Amundsen's recent works revisited an earlier suggestion and that seems to have been an area of interest at OI for a while (before and at the time the TV show started due to Fred Nolan's suggestion of the well dimensioned stone cross). We should be able to see that the folks writing the story line at OI know very well how to tap the currents of Western Esotericism. It is not a situation where we are once again finding new evidence for what has been suggested in the past. It's a situation where writers are taking inspiration in the subject matter of our mystery based inheritances to make suggestions about the "evidence" they can produce today. Nobody at OI is reinventing Western Esotericism. They are tapping that well established current. By doing so one can almost guarantee that interest will be drawn from many areas where efforts to mesh isolated theories with the greater theories is happening. The behaviors of your Father and mother were informed by what was said to apply to Bacon in his life, so they are a form of mimicking, and they are probably true. It is likely not a case where you ought to think that the behaviors are evidence they acted independently in a way that confirms a tradition that has been passed down from one generation down to the next. That is not how the ideas made their way to us. By all means study this. You have an opportunity to see how the story of your family is one of the preferred ones in Western Esotericism. Ultimately it must lead you to Egypt where the ultimate mystery man Hermes Trismegistus must be accounted for. You have to come to grips with why the Romans were so enamored with the Egyptian culture, why they sought to destroy Hellenism and how they transformed the old prophecy of the messianic Jews to suit their political needs with a Christianity that became the philosophical currency of the Empire in the 4th century AD. In everyone's Western origin story there seems to be a way back to Egypt, because in ancient Egypt are the seeds of what we deem to be a great mystery with physical traces. In contrast we can look at all that with what we know today. We know more today than the Romans knew of Ancient Egypt and its links to even older cultures. We can push back the mystery to at least the steppes of Russia where we can theorize anew about our origins. On the way there some have chosen to inject alien visitors to the equation because can be made to fit in syllogisms. Take it seriously, but not too seriously. No matter what you find you will not be believed, and that is how it should be. People are drawn to mystery, but they will not take well to you solving the mystery. This seems to suggest that we love the tension of not knowing (not being saved yet). Not knowing pushes everyone in the direction of trying to know, and it offers equal opportunity. This pushes you to educate yourself and to figure out how exactly one is supposed to know that he knows. If you figure that out let us know.