Jump to content

RoyalCraftiness

Members
  • Posts

    815
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Everything posted by RoyalCraftiness

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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?
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. This world belongs to fungi. They were here first and they have allodial right to the place. We serve them as best we can.
  19. Cultures that will find a use for elephant dung have good reasons to hold them in high esteem. I'm not aware of anyone ever producing elephant bacon.
  20. There are alleged to be between 30-40 species which we have "domesticated". We have tended to form beneficial relationships to serve our purposes (social and nutritional). If it made sense to have an elephant living in my living room, and if I could afford to feed it and maintain its litter box, I might try. Some things just aren't that advantageous to us. It is said to not be that wise to try to befriend a creature that could eat you. That's probably a good rule of thumb. I love cats too. We have two, which are named for the Sun and Moon. Of curious note is the fact that one of them we call "the wooly mammoth" because it is quite shaggy and rotund. They are godly creatures in that they have men and women providing for them while they sleep to their hearts' content. The shrewdest of humans that have mastered this ability to have others work to keep them (the richest that we have called Lords) we correctly refer to as "smart cats", and they in turn feel they are like Gods over us. The poor quality dried food we feed our cats is not unlike the poor crumbs that are thrown our way by our Lords today. Maybe mammoths didn't purr? I read somewhere that they may have had terrible flatulence.
  21. “The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally payed to the sun.” Thomas Paine, in "The Age of Reason" Of course, he is Adonai, YHWH, or the one behind the tetragrammaton who is given to us as Mr. WH, the everlasting poet who is the only begetter of "these Sonnets" and the one who promises all eternity. "Et vidit deus lucem quod esset bona" from Genesis 1:4 is to us: God acknowledged the light to be good. "Lucem" here has multiple possible meanings. It can be daylight, it can be illumination and it can be a flash of light(ning). The imagery presents us with such a flash in the form of a bolt that reaches down to the mundus intellectualis. A suggestion here is that our intellectual world comes out of the flashes of brilliance that "illuminate" us. The entire backdrop suggests to us the primordial waters. The one who was known as the "Lord of the primordial waters" and the "Good Lod of the Earth" was Enki who was associated with 40, and thus 4T. "What’s in a name? That which we call a rose By Any Other Name would smell as sweet" Romeo and Juliet The Rose and the Cross is a version of the telling of the birth and rebirth story. This we might want to suspect was an important part of the messaging of the early Empiricists who had to somehow overcome the inertia of entrenched religion to get us on a path of reason.
  22. Here's the geometric representation of the 53 atop the "pyramid" that we get from the Masonic compass and square. The privileged position that was associated with the pyramidion (the corner of 53 degrees in Freemasonry) or "cap stone" was the representation of the sacred BenBen stone. BenBen was the name of the scared mound that arose from the primordial waters in the Heliopolitan creation myth. It is made from the word root "ben" which means "son". The man made pyramid is a symbol of it. The BenBen stone was a symbol of birth and rebirth. It's association was with the solar deity Atum ( it was where the Atum settled). To have visualized the Sun sitting in the position of the pyramidion would have been the full spectacle. No shadow would have been cast by the pyramid when the center of the Sun would have reached the 53 degree elevation in the sky. The construction of the Great pyramid includes the feature of having the pyramid face be equal to Phi units of length as well as having the pyramid height being the square root of Phi (notice how often the squaring enters the equation) when the unit of measure is the half side of the pyramid base. This is an important aspect of the 2:1 ratio that is seen over and over, including in Rob's rectangle imagined as a calendar mapping where the half side which should ideally be 13.5 has 14 settled upon to echo the fact that each Sonnet is made up of 14 lines instead. What is a man to do to keep the numbers nice and round but round them off? If we consider the Etymology of words, Enki (the Lord of the waters) was later Ea and Ae (ai). The word Adonis is the Hellenistic treatment of Adonai (the identity of the Tetragrammaton we often are presented with) which is from the word root Adon meaning "Lord of Lords" and Ai. Enki (four T) and his son Tammuz (Tau) are fitted into the story in Sonnet 53, imo. The "Ai" is to us similar sounding to the "eye" which later story creators have placed in this privileged position. In the Masonic treatment of the pyramid which is famously displayed on the US one dollar bill, the pyramid is given by 13 levels + one for the eye. 13 is what divides the number 27 in two 13 unit lengths which yield the number 14 in the middle. 4 x 13 steps is 52 where the one that is left over is for the "eye" that resides at the BenBen location symbolized by 53. It can be imagined that the Sun is an eye with its beams emanating in such a way that is gives a visual or physical meaning to all that is under Sun. That seems to be suggested by the last lines in the Sonnet. Nothing else does this. The Sun is unique in its ability to allow us the "see" the world. Without it there is only darkness. The counterpart of the Light deity is Sin, and it had its mountain too. The mount was Sin-Ai that we know as mount Sinai today. If you are born in Sin it has the connotation of being born in darkness (of wisdom). Sin was associated with the moon cults and the cult of Saturn who became the Lord of the Rings in our popular culture. It is interesting that the Christians differentiated themselves from the Jews who were said to be moon worshippers. They kept their Sabbath on the day of Saturn. How crazy we have become with our story telling...I guess the point is to understand that it must not end. We must evolve the stories in order for them to not be static things. Our language has evolved exactly as our stories must. Modern attempts to craft similar stories have led us to star treks and star wars. Presumably, we feel our future is in the stars. It is how we might get to know the Father and his cousins.
  23. Let's get back to Sonnet 53, because there are some interesting features in the structure of it. The first 4 lines in Q1 are 8 words long for a total of 32 words. The Adonis quatrain is made up of 27 words (4 x 27=108 or the perimeter of the perfect idealized square that squares the circle, so to speak). Q3 is 32 words again. The last two lines account for 17 words. The total is 32 + 27 + 32 +17=108 once again. 108 is, of course, the interior angle value of a regular pentagon which houses the star which is here the Sun. The geometric chord of 108 degree is the Golden ratio Phi. This we can have fun with because 108 in Greek is PH. The "i" in the Phi is the Adonis who is the son of the Adon (Canaanite meaning of "My Lord"). If we were to go back to older representations here we would fall back on Enki (40) who was "Good Lord of the Earth" and Tammuz, his son, who was Tau. All these incarnations are versions of a symbolic story that has its origin in the original Sky father associated with the Sun. I suppose there's a strong argument to be made here that says that there's no way that a glove maker's son would be in the possession of such depth of knowledge. I don't disagree with the sentiment. There's something in all of this that requires a deep background in many unrelated subjects. You could ascribe a lot to a writer who has read a lot, but that would not translate as well to technical mathematical considerations and with an ease of dealing with alchemical subject matter.
  24. Our words were not created to relay number values unless they were devised to describe ordinal numbers. What you highlight are only the examples which are arbitrary and noteworthy in a secondary imperfect mapping you have catalogued. It is used to try and impress ideas on people. It is cultish behavior to want to try and establish it as having merit. The cult of celebrity, for example, is based in admiration of celebrity for celebrity's sake. A cult of gematria would only be interested in what supports its "feels". There is no design in that. There is no rule of decoding and there is no formalism. Nobody from the past can come and confirm you have guessed right with your sum examples. You could forever be said to be "potentially correct" in any of your interpretations. You maintain that is must mean something because there is so much to show, but it is really more of a plea for acceptance and belief. If there was a method to this madness I could give you a number and you could spit out exactly what word or expression I meant. A mathematical equation would be identifiable and make sense with me giving you a sentence like "The dog barks" if we really had powerful formalisms. It doesn't work that way. How it (language) works is by borrowing root concepts and building and extending with them, which is also how story telling works. One borrows exactly what is elegant and useful in the hopes that it will resonate in a novel way. A God can be improved upon over time by dressing him up in various things with implied meaning. So can a word. A Dagan can become a Pope. Similarly, there is no meaning to a human life. One must do all sorts of ill advised mental gymnastics to try and produce something like a meaning that one can then recite to listeners. It is what gets produced that has the potential for discernable meaning, and the hope is that the audience will allow the transfer to occur. If the sentence making the argument made sense then life would potentially have meaning. When some people speak it is clear to me that life has no meaning and is best thought of as a symbol manipulation game played by characters not unlike the Squire of Gothos in Star Trek. It is remarkable enough that we appear to understand each other by writing, but I have come to realize that we probably don't. Only when we agree do we tend to think that the other understands what we are saying. Do show me more games. I love games.
  25. A big clock with symbols instead of numbers. Parts of the sky needed to be given some indexing. Star clusters identified in a standardized way is a form of alphabet. There is a 2:1 relationship to the 12 zodiac signs and 24 letter alphabet. There may be also 2 cycles (of light and dark) expressed by your life and your death. That is something akin to 2 cycles of 364 days which map to the 27x27 square. It is likely why your life has the symbol of the half ashlar, but who are we to say? We try and use reason to know things we cannot know. For this some will call us sinners. Sin, of course was the Mesopotamian deity of the Moon and wisdom. If we worked on faith alone we would be worthy of being Sun/light worshipers like the Jews and Christians. Here's a cool coding of Psalm 19-1 done with star positioning which was imagined during Bacon's lifetime. The Clue to the Labyrinth: Francis Bacon and the Decryption of Nature | The MIT Press Reader It exploits a rectangular gridding that is based in the binary (2:1 ratio). 2^5=32 which is appears to be the motivation for a division in 320 cells. The human mind works in mysterious ways.
×
×
  • Create New...