Jump to content

RoyalCraftiness

Members
  • Posts

    815
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Everything posted by RoyalCraftiness

  1. To speak in terms of what Bacon believed, you conquer in order that you do not get conquered. I assume it is true for all Shakespearean authorship factions. When there is success there are always individuals who are succeeding at creating beliefs. Surely you can't begrudge anyone else their successes at forging truths. Nations expand their taking ways in order that internal strife doesn't erupt within from scarcity. This is a malicious attitude towards your fellow man, but it is not a malicious attitude towards those in your faction whom you presumably love more that the "other". Think of how the English viewed the Irish, and to a lesser degree the Scots. Not as equals...It is a mistake to treat humans as anything but malicious and selfish actors that have the intent of bettering their own lot in life. When that is done it is never called being malicious towards the dominated. If a faction comes to dominate it will fracture itself from within to destroy whatever positive intent there once was to share a common benefit. Humans are pyramid builders. The shape has physically echoed their internal philosophies. There is a strong desire in man to be in the position of the all seeing eye. Men want to control other men and command from the heights. In doing so they encourage every many to polish themselves into being a perfect stone ashlar that can be used to build the pyramid higher. Those who completely buy in are used as some would see fit. It typically ranges from being an economic slave to being canon fodder. Getting back to Shakespeare, there's a lot to question. I have never seen much written about the intent of producing the works. Everyone gets distracted by who wrote them as if that has a lot to tell us about the monumental effort. What was the lasting effect of the works? What was achieved by showing the world how word games could entrance the reader? The thing was most certainly done to impress in a way that also suggests things. As a work of PR, what do the Shakespearean works do for us? Do they defend monarchy? Are they anti-monarchical?
  2. The control of minds is a human obsession. If we are not fully aware of it when we hear voices or see words then we are susceptible of being exploited for our suggestible natures. The very worst thing we can be is like a child easily taken aback in wonder. There is no creature more suggestible than a child. Its endowment of suggestibility is the first avenue by which it learns and assimilates. It is no small coincidence that the Bible asks that you have the spirit of a child. A monumental sales job requires it. The plea here has sometime been that one be more "open" to ideas. In fact, that is not what one should be at all. One should interact with ideas on the level of skepticism first, an potentially move towards conditional acceptance until such a time as refutation is possible. The point is to refute, not to build towards acceptance using rhetoric. All that we cannot get rid of is potentially of use. All that is imaginable that we could refuse to refute has the potential to swallow us and entertain us to the point of being completely unproductive.
  3. Isn't it? Excellent references to the magical connotations of it. This is why we speak of a story being spellbinding. To cast a spell in words is levels deep. It is not just the overt that works on us. I know it for a fact that one can snare some readers by using adornments like number and proportion. A simple reference to thirty three is enough to magically transform a text into evidence for the acceptance of an unrelated suggestion by transfer. The Bible uses this to effect. We recognize 40 exactly as it must have echoed to a Roman who did not quite understand why a Sumerian pantheon would have come to be associated with decads. The filling in of the blanks to account for it becomes the evidence for us today to know that ignorance was breeding creativity. That 40 came to have a figurative meaning because it was belied that it must have had one all along which was discovered is a perfect example of fooling one's self. These things have allowed a theology of number to be imagined and for it to be broadcast far and wide by way of the skillful use of rhetoric in storytelling. As above so below starts it all off. Like it or not we have all been convinced of many things by the time we start out ventures into the realm of critical thinking. It is therefore very hard to start anew without biases. To create upon a blank canvas does resonate with what Bacon suggested was the way forward for the natural sciences. We were to put everything aside which was believed and start from verifiable observations in an attempt to make general inferences about phenomena. It is exactly as if he wanted there to be no rhetoric involved in scientific discourse. No magic. Just dull facts and reason. This has little appeal to the ones who have mastered the methods to pull on heart strings. "Science claims to know when it doesn't" is the cry of the con man wishing to slander. Science is trying to know in a way that allows for falsifiability. We are trying to gt to better forms of knowledge. It is entirely likely that knowing is not in our cards, so to speak. We do benefit from knowing well enough to engineer with.
  4. The veil is understanding. Once you have understanding you can explain away coincidences to yourself and exploit them in the manipulation of others. It allows one to identify (or reproduce) coincidences in the Universe and to use them to put ideas in the heads of those who lack understanding by injecting narratives that ride along. This a large part of what is Hermetica (Hermes' science). It is the suggestion that there is something there that makes it work to still convince. Dee was very much a magician in that sense. He knew how to exploit lack of understanding and how to control the minds of those he could reach. He could reach the Queen, as you know. That put that much influence in his hands. We can call this a "dark art" if we wish to attach negative connotations on it. William Cecil was a practitioner of it. It is not unlikely that Bacon understood the workings also. To maintain two fronts is to live a lie. A video was posted by "The Modern Hermeticist" Youtube channel in recent weeks touches on persuasion and rhetoric. Look who is stringing everyone along in the imagery. It's Hermes. He is leading those who have been tricked towards "progress". Do not think for one second that Bacon didn't know this dynamic. Some of the suggestions we get to read here was ultimately produced, at some point in the past, by people who understood they were "clowning" the masses. Some who still put weight to these old suggestions clearly don't have the understanding that they have been caught up in a prank (put forth by who is a good question). The "sport" is as old as time. To play this sport is fun. There would be no organized religions if the principles involved did not work so well. Modern hermetic practitioners, like Pierre Plantard, ultimately dabbled in "the game" to rejoice in the power that one man can have in producing large scale truths (to some) in the world. In fact, his game was exactly about that end for him. He wanted to see how far he could go with the scope of his suggestions (i.e. suggesting that he was in the direct bloodline of Christ). Many who were not involved in the crafting of his game inevitably got recruited into the serious study of his carefully crafted "mystery". Some still are, despite the fact he spilled the beans on his fabrication years ago. That is how powerful belief is once it is produced. This is not unlike the cult that exists in the Oak Island mystery. These suggestions all close cousins. Man is a suggestible creature by virtue of having a suggestible mind. This is how we first learn to fill our heads with ideas (at the mercy of our first teachers!). Those who ultimately possess understanding know to question even what they think. If we could know the workings of the mind we would be in the possession of what is locked inside of Enoch's vault. This vault gets symbolized by the skull. The contents are elusive. The idea that the contents exist beyond death is one of the great pranks of history. We do not know this. Yet, people believe this with every moral fiber of their body. How can it be so? What would it mean to be able to control what people believed? What if you managed to make them believe nothing? Some suggest that this is the most dangerous thing, because they would have the freedom to create what they want to believe. In societies governed by reason there cannot be this freedom. It would be the unraveling of them. There must be lies that bind us tightly together for factions to persist. For this reason, Orwell chose to use the slogan of "we have always been at war with East Asia" to portray the sort of propaganda we might encounter in the future. The "faction" that was the "British Empire" is one that Dee and Bacon served. You expand and you dominate in order that you are not dominated into non existence. This speaks to everyone's fear of being humiliated and rendered pointless. In many ways it borrowed from the religious lies that served as a conduit for many other suggestions.
  5. The first part can only be said if you accept some person's subjective take of some apparent "messaging" they are attune with. If there was unanimous clear evidence of Bacon being called Shakespeare as a primary historical record you could show it, and no one could deny it. That is never was is shown in the circumstantial cases. Have you ever heard of a rumor mill? I remember one not that long ago that alleged Obama was not who he was. One could show correspondences between people writing to each other which would be primary evidence this did occur. We cannot even reasonably conclude that Bacon himself did not fabricate such a rumor for his own sort of game. What appeared to be closer to the truth is that some suspected Bacon's involvement. If he told many people then it means the cat was out of the bag very early. More troublesome for you would be that all these cats wound have needed to be buried with a secret for the story to fizzle out. What I am asking is "who is the first person who alleges there were people claiming Bacon wrote Shakespeare". For long this was not popularized at all. Then, all of a sudden, it was popularized. Why would it not have been popularized much earlier? It is quite elaborate to suggest that many knew, and that all of them conspired to both hide it and let us know clearly at the same time. On the matter of the literary DNA, there are no matches. Bacon simply did write in the style Shakespeare or with the same philosophical signature. To try and save the case one would have to suggest that Bacon kept two compartmentalized personas. I've noticed that some have realized this and have developed the narrative that he had many dozen such personas. I suspect this is done to make the suggestion of two appear less shocking. This is not to say that Bacon did not have a role in some scheme which he may have been front and center. To say that is not to say he wrote Shakespeare. He may have been close to the reason why there was a Shakespeare. This nuance may have let many speculators astray. If that was the truth, I am almost willing to bet you would call that a victory.
  6. The problem, as I've mentioned before, is that the Universe does not know what time it is. There isn't such a thing as one time. We could define the time you refer to a 1hr 11min, 1/1/11 if you like, or to any other grouping of random numbers. There is no correlation between the elegance of dates and times (that come later from an initial choice) and the workings of the Universe even if we can single out coincidences. The coincidences can be used to suggest that there is something "spooky at a distance" making that happen. Why on Earth would anyone give credence to that? Astronomically rare events happen at every instant . This is true because of magnitude of events we have to choose from. On 12/31/23 an unfathomable amount of mind bending coincidences occurred. Congratulations if you can name 1 or 2.
  7. I got lured by the click bait title, that's why. Shakespeare was a woman, Shakespeare was a Jew, Shakespeare was an astronomer, Shakespeare was a Philosopher (not an empiricist). Shakespeare was written by committee...it's all out there, so yes, do examine the claims. It's actually not a convincing thing that so many are convinced enough to write about who Shakespeare was from inferences. It suggests that people can convince themselves of many things. I was curious about it. The video did not cover it. I have no opinion about the person's stance unless her stance is that there exists doubt in this world about the author(s). What are we to do about all these convinced people? I think I know what you are trying to do here, though. You will not necessarily agree with any of it, but you will take them as ammunition against the man from Stratford, because that's the way to extract value from it. That's not a bad strategy. What is the discernable trend here? It is to doubt. Do you, by any chance, think Shakespeare was a woman a Jew, an astronomer or a committee? Or is it that no one knows for sure? It all starts off with a not so well made case that William Shakespeare can't possibly be Shakespeare on circumstantial grounds. The one thing that would thwart anyone with that view is that he was simply "meant to be" as a product of Fortuna, hand picked from Time and God to be bestowed with immeasurable talent in order that England be great by destiny in exactly the way the historical fairy tale often suggests it. To get to the authorship question one has to not prefer these types of suggestions. Curiously, once that question is accepted, all sorts or esoteric mumbo jumbo starts to get used to advance theories. These aim to pull on heart strings quite often. I will say this: a reasonable man would only get going if there was a need to get going. A lot of people have gotten on board with this without a need for it--they fell on it. That means they were first only snagged by a suggestion. Of interest to me is where and when this suggestion got started to gain a critical mass. I can explain Constance Mary Fearon Pott's obsession because her family was fixated on Bacon. She grew up with the suggestions. She was clearly recruited into some beliefs long before she ever produced any research as a child prodigy. If you have any ideas about why her father was Bacon obsessed I'd love to hear them. The family obviously is associated with the existence of Athenaeum club in London where the who's who of the literary and scientific world rubbed shoulders. The scientists may have preferred Bacon. Who knows?. If there was doubt about who wrote Shakespeare maybe it was commonly discussed. Maybe the Burtons took side. I've seen evidence that men who were members of that club produced works that lampoon the suggestion. So it would seem that there has always been doubt about even the doubters. The further we move away from the first suggestions the more I suspect that there wasn't a great deal of evidence to start off with. People have strived to produce it since, in hopes of rescuing the belief which must have some appeal. We are all better off if Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare, right? Are people actively trying to disprove Bacon wrote Shakespeare? Not really. The case for him was more or less closed years ago. I would think that what is left is that he was some sort of ring leader who kept in the bushes, perhaps. Maybe he worked to protect the fact that he and others sold works to Shakespeare in order to raise money for their personal ambitions. Did Bacon squander it all investing in the colonial ventures? He was apparently quite poor at money management. Also, did Bacon love or hate Elizabeth I? Would he have rather seen her dead than living in order that some truth see the light of day? It's hard to make any sense of it. Yet, for some it is so very clear.
  8. 100 demerit points on you Sir. Your account on this end shows you currently have one warning against you. Take it on the chin. Strive to lose the anger towards your partners when you play. It's just a game, remember. Serve and volley. The point is not to win fans. It's to better yourself as a player. Cold conclusive death awaits us. There is not a need to be positive about anything except the immediate future. The past is a horrible mess of foolishness and we cannot have it back to correct it or work to sanitize it to uplift our sadnesses unless we accept that lying to one's self is also a perfectly fine way to have things. If you are free to be "positive" or "negative" why would you not be one or the other and call that giving yourself the greatest joy. The real difference I detect is that you somehow think that all this was meant to be WHILE you do not want the spiritual involved. If it was then all of the past was meant to be. It's just the result of our uniformed choices. They can't be anything but self interested choices. Those are not prone to widespread joy. The Bacon as Shakespeare phenomenon is a very interesting one. It' s hard to pin down why so many have gravitated to him to give their lives meaning. That wasn't meant to be. I regret that I have been drawn in this direction by mu own curiosity, tbh. There are plenty of warnings in all this to not lose one's self in trying to dig up bones. But we love to play so much... I don't consider you to be a cult leader. I think you are caught up in a cult of personality. That is not rare, so don't be too ashamed. Our modern societies are largely cults of personalities. Many young people aspire to be the object of the adoration. I don't think that's you. I think you need to be more critical of Bacon as a philosopher and statesman.
  9. I don't think you found that as much as you manufactured it from what is given which is useful to you. If I had insight about how you came to this I might have a better understanding of your method to be able to pick apart the biases. This is not the first time you've produced this "I am" and "Bacon" paired suggestion. This comes from the search for "Ba" and "Con" in the texts doesn't it? What has driven you to unite that with the period after drawer? Were you looking for Cepheus after having read Dawkins' Cassiopeia narrative by any chance? There is a constellation better known for having a square in it (the square of Pegasus). Did you consider it instead? Did you even know to consider it? The first observation one can make about the Ws tht are used to show a larger W is that there are others there nearby not being used which would serve just as well to potentially draw something else. Any reason why you chose the ones you do? Are you perhaps fitting your suggestion to what you want to see? That large W seems arbitrary from the letters given. The two brightest stars in Cassiopeia are not the ones that are capitalized. Should they be? Are these meant to be very good positions for the stars suggested? Is it sufficient to just be able to approximate them? This is from Henry IV, right? It exists in earlier versions than the FF edition. What you suggest would not be present in the earliest edition and appear suddenly as an artifice of the FF printing, having the words, letters and periods appear where they should be. It is highly unlikely that the positioning of the characters would match in both. You'd have to date you suggestion to a much later date. I contend that by date an existing narrative existed for the Novas which is not the one you suggest. At that later date there would already have been 3 occurrences of these stellar lights. So, we are to take that Bacon identifies with SN1572 from this, or are you merely saying that the Nova is being given a place or a voice in a narrative? I've not previously come across the suggestion that Bacon identified with it and that anyone else attributed it to him. Why would they, right? It's not clear that what is there ought to be subjectively interpreted that way. If it was Pegasus that was being given you'd not think to look for a way to get a W, right? You might instead look for a cross nearby which one could produce. The "drawer" in astronomy the Dig Dipper, because in one of the old English meanings of the word it is related to drawing which is pulling, as in the case of water where it is most often encountered. The text speaks of pulling one by the ears in that same context. Because there is no obvious way to pin a shape to those four corners you show, I would ask why we would not look to produce the big Dipper there. The Big Dipper famously points to Leo, and the myth with Leo is about Hercules not being able to pierce its skin with an arrow. Are you certain we're not supposed to infer that? In a much more well known use of the Big Dipper it is used to locate the North Star by using the two edge stars in the rectangle. Had you suggested to me that Bacon identified with the North Star I would recognize that suggestion, because it is a shining light by which we guide ourselves. It is a suggestion that has echoes in Freemasonry. Regarding the bastard Sonne of Kings, there have been a few in England. Should we think of them? Isn't Bacon supposed to be the bastard son of a Queen in the theory you speak of? I'm pretty sure you are talented enough to be able to criticize as well as create. What are some of the criticisms you would point out about drawing conclusions like this?
  10. Haven't you imagined an entire esoterically inspired alternate past where cartoon-like characters exist whose lives we are supposed to be inspired by? We know enough about what the past was revolving around (lack of knowledge) to keep that in context. I am definitely feeling like you have to be reminded of it, because the mechanisms for rallying people together have not changed. Henry Kissinger was still preaching Machiavelli when he was 100 and urging every political mind to know his reasoning inside out. Bacon, being a philosopher is stuck in his time to reason things out. As a statesman he knows what he wants for his nation and for his fellow man. The point for him is to have that happen. How does one "inspire" people to advance themselves? It done with lies because the truth is ugly and has the potential to have us hate ourselves in our own skin. We'd much rather be fighting a species. I feel I am fortunate to have had a very good representation of this ideological madness in my family tree. English and French, Protestant and Catholic, but also native and Quaker and Scottish and Norman. No matter what side I would spend time with they would be extremely proud of who they are, and there is nothing but a preferred way to see their histories that informs that. Today I completely separate myself from all of it. 400 years ago is yesterday and you know it. A lifetime is over before it began. It may feel like a long time to people who think the Universe is 6000 years old. I urge you to stop trying to rewrite the past in such a way that you get to keep only what you feel is tickling you the right way. It is equally as important to be very ashamed of our collectives pasts. None of my ancestors are heroes. They were just people with ideas in their heads that have served to chew up their lives. Internal compasses have been set in many different ways... We don't know Bacon. We only have ideas about him. The conspiracies that involve him aren't even well given. They assume that no discernable motive is required (because he was produced by Time and given to us?) and that no intent to keep things "secret" was involved. Was it or was it not intended to be a secret? And if it wasn't why was it not given outright? Who is hiding what from who and why? And why are there ideas about it mattering more than what was achieved by the game if a conspiracy actually existed? What you are sayin is "don't mind that sort of thing" or never mind the context. Should I allow you to give me the context? It's not going to happen. Very few people are going to stumble on your breadcrumbs and simply assume that they have come across a person who knows to follow. At some point you will have to demonstrate unequivocally that you are worthy of being believed. Is this done in the realm of the esoteric? Is that where we are suppose to get our cues from? Good luck in your faction building. It does not seem to have any purpose other than to create suggestions that will be accepted. What then? Do we then start to look at what Bacon was saying overtly and start denying that this is not as reliable as what some infer? If you don't know what Bacon has in his head about religion I suggest you start diving into it. He didn't keep that secret.
  11. Let me add to this that the date you mention, 1575, is entirely in line with the appearance of the Nova (the new star) of 1572 (Kepler's Nova) in the constellation of the sitting Queen, Cassiopeia. I believe you are dancing around a narrative that came to be at this time. What I would add is that the passing or a monarch was esoterically associated with rare astronomical events like total solar eclipses, i.e. As it was, there was another Nova appearance in 1600 in Cygnus, followed by another in 1604. Both occasions got interpreted as omens; of her death and of her ascension into the stars. "In the ashes of her honor shall star-like rife, as great in flame as she was". "The cloud of darkness" here makes allusion to life on this miserable Earth where we are forever facing evils and demons. You get a sense of the ideology here. It is entirely as if this life is a chore or a period of time to bear. I honestly do not know if it is fertile ground to forever want to equate Bacon with 33. He can be fitted into a million places using this. I understood how you counted, but there's no necessity that we count like that. Counting is fraught with danger when we have a large series of numbers in mind to arrive to in order to make the texts speak as we want them. This is a criticism that I have to hold up to my own suggestions. Whether there was a biological heir or not, there would necessarily be one born in the ashes of her honor at some point in the future, so we are not necessarily told anything new here. What you've added is a more subjective interpretation that restates an already existing theory that Bacon is a biological heir. As a suggestion it might work to recruit some people, but this is simply not giving us anything as definitive as that. The mythology around the Queen is astronomically flavored. I'll look into the archer constellation in relation to Leo. Leo is obviously of symbolic importance, because England itself is portrayed by the lion and the unicorn. It's a unicorn because the English see themselves as unique and special--the idea that they are favored by their God is not unique in world history. English exceptionalism is clearly off the charts with these people. They have it in their minds that they are going to build the greatest nation on Earth and that the stars are foretelling it. Believing it does have quasi-magical powers. Prophecies can become self-fulfilling ones. I
  12. No. That's not what we've concluded as reasonable men. We have concluded that is most important that everyone live within well crafted lies in such a way that we create the illusion that we are not who we really are which is, in effect, nothing more than putty or clay meant to be molded (Adam is the man of clay in the story). No one would accept that we create narratives around how totally depraved and hopeless humans are, how they're self interested first an foremost and how they are very interested in scheming for the preservation of their social status (as individuals and as cultures), because they are social creatures in nature. Those who are not that are caught up in the lies and have assumed a new identity quite different from the one our natural courses would put us on. These people have applied a lesson someone has taught to their own lives. Some have become "Christian" in the image of what their molders think that means. Some praise that and some scoff at it. Hardly anyone knows what is driving their choices which are far from free choices. A monster lie was trotted out in regards to England and its relation to its new and improved version of God in Tudor times. Virgin mothers and immaculate sons are in that vein, and it's hard to call that original, as you say.., It is not unlike what we know from having to live with some sects of Judaism. The entire enterprise rests on a fundamental lie that there can be no wrong done in the pursuit of one's self interest. You're smart enough to recognize that sort of exceptionalism from the ideological underpinning of the USA. TT, the Truth Triumphs because it conquers. Wrap it up in a million useful things and it will work as well. Bacon defended so many things by invoking the divine right of Kings. There is no such thing. It's a lie. It's about the will to power of factions. Here there's been an effort to not present this conspiracy to edify as a religious story first and foremost. It may very well be that the a new type of lie is being imagined to replace such tired and previously suggested avenues of debate. These Tudor era believers and their brethren who everyone is researching are totally convinced of some things, yet there's also a sense that their beliefs are changing a bit to deal wit the undeniable realities that could upset older Truths. Perhaps the greatest lie of all is that we are pursuing personal freedom. That couldn't be further from the truth. We are pursuing conformity of thinking which is necessary for faction building. The top of the pyramid has an eye for its continued well being. In the end there must be conquest, because if there is not that one will be conquered by more effective stories who have empowered their own masses. The fear that the other faction is recruiting better or making gains is at the core of a human's rationality informed by emotion. There is perhaps a very old recollection of what it means to be slaughtered by the more powerful faction. Outwardly we are ruthless. Inwardly, and within the faction, we are asked to be Godly. How quaint. Determining what lies you can rest well with may work for you. It will not be tolerated by people who understand the power of magic.. aka the power of placing ideas in another's mind by suggestion. Shakespeare has been accepted effortlessly by many as something other than a conspiracy theory which it may be. That is something has been gained, and how can we say that wasn't intended if it is true?. Efforts to undo this represents only the beginning of an unraveling. Who's to say what is best? What is best to get people internally riled up is to tell them that there is nothing but lies within the faction. That has the power to destroy nations my friend. Machiavelli would have no part of it, except to ask that better lies be used to protect the prince(s). I am all for liars who have an eye on the future. I don't think it is wise to present a child with the history of the depravity of man or with the notion that their parents and their parents are/were ignorant fools for believing nonsense. People rightfully find that depressing and threatening, and besides they would rather play in imaginary based theme parks. Snagging humans with play is an excellent choice. You will not reach that many with intellectualism. If you have a personal interest in British intellectualism then I would personally recommend that you listen to Bertrand Russel's oration that touches on why he is not Christian. He does a very good job at reasoning the flaw in the character of Christ while still upholding the value of striving to be what we are not. It is not something that is presentable to children in our world, unfortunately. It is meant for those who would question even their own thinking. The truth is damaging to existing factions. That is what we must appreciate. Some are built on lies. If we are to tolerate each other we must learn to be fine with the existence of lies and delusion around us. It is enough to scoff at the DeVere crowd from behind walls, no? Maybe try and find a way to exploit such beliefs in the world. The only other option is tp try and bring them in to a larger encompassing story which preserves them. Researchers committed to researching something have not taken the time to consider the consequences of what they are trying to achieve. When faced with that sort of thing there will always be some sort of apologetic framework that maintains that some version of the truth is more important than anything else. That is a lie. The idea that life has meaning is also a comforting lie. We re lucky to be able to know this and be at peace with it. It gives meaning and value to our play which is to be found in our lives when we are free from having to fight as factions.
  13. In the grand scheme of things it does not matter to have the truth be known, because the truth does not matter to most. Lies are more often preferred. It would be better if a lie continued to be believed than to give license to rewrite history as we'd like to have it (picking an choosing what we prefer) by rallying public opinion in order to have new beliefs and narratives that would not work as well as the stage play that was created to do what was intended. Are you doubting Bacon's wisdom all of a sudden? I've pointed it our before, but no one here is making any effort to show that Christianity (or Anglicanism) is all a pile of lies and that someone cleverly "wrote" it and passed it on to do social engineering with it. It is more important for Christians, or Anglicans, that the lies not be challenged, because they see value in the presentation of the allegory as it was given, and because it would be a shameful admission of dishonesty. Same dynamic with Shakespeare. The truth would change the way people interact with the story. Lot's of people suspect that Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare AND don't want the context to be altered to show it was a bunch of ideologues pushing their preferred worldview on the populace they looked down upon as subjects in need of edification. You're not going to succeed at replacing the suggestion of a man sacrificed like a Passover lamb to atone for your sins (the ancient Jewish celebration of the blood sacrifice applied to the Christian story) by showing there was an elite with intelligent men within Roman society that used existing stories to achieve something in the area of the control of men's thinking (allegedly for all's benefit). It's too important to too many offshoots of Christianity that this not "come out". Same with Bacon. He's elite blue blood, bred like an Arabian horse with pedigree, educated to the nth degree and the head a cabal of religiously biased social influencers (if he is that). He would have needed to orchestrate what he did in order that it not be suspected as being top-down issued propaganda. That means that you'd be working against his best efforts to conceal it (again, if that's what happened). I could not care less what people who are paid/hired or who maintain Trusts to advance certain views produce. Their biases come fully advertised, and that is for them to overcome. Show me instead what the fiercest critics would have to say. I would not swallow the apologetics of anyone trying to defend the Christian narratives. But I do read what the critics have to say with an eye on also criticizing them. Quite often enough, two opposing factions are both wrong. I also do see the advantages of controlling people with stories. Beliefs that are cherished are maintained that way. None of this works for you if Bacon isn't also a victim of some conspiracy to bury him in history. What is now alleged does not show he is a victim of anything. Maybe that's why there's the invention of the Tudor heir story...Whatever. The whole thing reminds me very much of those who pour over the Bible looking for passages to try and make their points. Codes, gematria, secret messages, revelations, prophecies, gut feelings, emotional testimony...it's the stuff of fantasy writers and PR specialists. Now that you've been given some evidence that there was a sort of Anglican conspiracy at play what are your feelings about this? These people are pushing that version of a lie for the advancement of mankind, presumably. Should we get on the case to expose the historical duplicitousness of Bacon's efforts or should we accept that part of the story should be untouched, because it works better to conserve something that has been achieved if it is not challenged. If there was a great scheme then you are potentially not being fully appreciative about what it was trying to do. Regarding the teaching of one's children, I would like to point that Constantine the Great had the misfortune of allowing his to be educated by a man called Lactantius. Lactantius was such a powerful zealot that he managed to reach even the Emperor with nonsense. In a time when it was widely understood (far and wide) that the world was sphere-like he managed to convince the wrong people that it was all a lie on the grounds that it could not be the case because people would be falling off the planet in the Southern hemisphere (!). And, so it became to be. Not only did his quite rare brand of Christianity find an ear, but also stupidity came to replace empirical knowledge until the rediscovery of the much older realizations. The truth is always going to hinge on what we can show. Efforts to convince along some other line (i.e. by using divine revelation) should immediately be challenged. I apologize to the amateur astrologers in the crowd. It's a can of worms. What it has produced is plenty of people who have educated themselves by reading the Shakespearean works while thinking them to be the product of a young entrepreneurial country boy like them. This is an important part of the presentation, because a work ethic is very much what the Protestants were selling. The odds are not stacked in William Shakespeare's favor in the authorship question that some raise, but what sort of unravelling of lies are you interested in? Where will you stop, and why would you stop? Will you not rest until Bacon has been shown to be a fool for his beliefs in nonsense? On this I feel you might say: "no, we must not go there. Better to allow everyone's freedom to believe lies". Does this not apply to the Shakespeare story? Pushed to the limit the exercise is about showing how Machiavellian humans can be, but we know this. There is no goodness in humans. There is only what is good by each of of them and the building of factions around that.
  14. This in the vein of the same biases you've shown before. 11+29=40, 5+8+7=20 works too, for example. We have no way to know what to add. If you are taking the I in January as =1 then there is another I in what is given with John. We have no way what to make of 33 if that was intended either. Is that for T(hree) T(hree)? Is 3^3 + I I =29.?And is TT for 20 or pi is the "circle of Bacon"? Is this making allusion to the Christian death and rebirth story which is also a theme of the myth of the Phoenix? It would appear it could very well, no? The constellation of Phoenix was "imagined" sometime just before 1593 as that is the first year it was depicted on a known celestial globe. Exactly when is not clear. It is one of the Southern birds which one can find around declination -40 (as opposed to Cygnus at +40). We might think of them as reflections (like the Z or the T at times, for example) You do point out the archer here in the headpiece (seen before), as well as the reference to looking at the stars. The archer points to Antares in Scorpio in astronomy. The myth there relates to a cautionary tale about dying from having excessive pride (A shot at Roman Catholicism?) It's not clear if this is too early to be speaking of the constellation of Phoenix if that is indeed being called out. The date 1587 is close to when it may have been called that for the first time, but close is never enough to make a case. One thing that this thread does put some correct emphasis on is how committed these persons were to their State religion which was also a recent construction. So much of this drips of religious messaging with an empirical astronomical flavor. The Anglican Church itself can be thought of as a Phoenix rising from the ashes of something which has been stung if we accept that the Church of Rome may have been seen as a prideful beast. What is to be liked about this sort of interpretation is that it is not in any way a revelation. The idea of building a New World in the Protestant faith is very much a known ambition. As for any talk of a smoking gun here, it's more of a smoldering ember for the Bacon as Shakespeare case. There is no logic that correctly get us from knowing Shakespeare did not author ANY of the plays to having Bacon be the author of the entire works. If anything, more fuel to the suggestion that this was the work of many people who may have been in a circle around Bacon is being added. This is something that many people have suspected. The fellow from Stratford-Upon-Avon was simply not up to it as an intellectual. The fact that his children were illiterate gives us some sense of how much he valued the acquisition of knowledge in his own household. As if often the case, one must be careful what one alleges one knows. That is still being overstated in the conspiracy theory presented. Things are being spun into an already existing narrative that seeks support. I will also note that there is a B and an A in front of a Con word in the sentence I just wrote if you want to pass that on as proof of something.
  15. I like the pic of the Sun which shows the optical effect known as the solar cross on the left side The ancients knew it from atmospheric effects where here we are given it very clearly with our high precision optics. Looks a lot like a Maltese cross doesn't it? A numeric equivalent comes out of the distribution of points that are Pythagorean triples (i.e like the 3,4,5 triangle). The first few points give the cross and pellet motif. This is nature looking a lot like religious symbols we have adopted. Christos, for example, was depicted with the golden solar cross around his head. To borrow from Rob's story of the other day, please don't think you can omit paying your rent because the end of the world is coming soon. Solar cycles are real, and they are approx. 11 years in length. This is just one more way we can mesh 3, 11 and 33 into a narrative if we want. One day, Sol will grow to swallow our planet. It will explode in time and seed the Universe with the stuff that we are made of which it is busy synthesizing right now.
  16. You're opening a can of worms...It's not difficult to produce elegant charts like this. I would suggest you focus on just the Sun and moon and the visible planets (seven in total). Greene's 4 triangle demo on the Sonnets title page can be examined with that mind. I once put the data in a hysteresis calculator and it spit out the date Jan. 20 , 1561 as a best fit for the observable positions. The simplified chart for Bacon's birth is: The oddity here is that they are all on one side of the circle, and that pairs of bodies are in opposition. The Greene triangles work best if one also includes a line for the alignment of the three Novas which appeared in quick succession over Europe (a line that approximates the galactic plane, aka the milky way). One cannot prove this. It is an interesting observation in the case of Bacon's chart. I've also confirmed the relative positions in better tools than online astrological charts. It's intriguing to think that the celestial vault is depicted in relation to the galactic plane. Seems like it could have been something that would have interested Bacon at a time when the Novas were front and center of everyone's prophesizing of the future. He may have been trying to present this as an empiric story. We don't know. Maybe someone is paying homage to him.
  17. The discovery of the stone is supposed to be an omen for the "return of the King", or second coming. The OI story was built upon this legend. The alleged discovery of the "90 foot stone", a half perfect 27x27 ashlar in dimension, in 1803 is supposed to align with the Millerite prophecy of the end of the world in 1843 (40 years later). 40 years prior to the 1803 date was the beginning of the arrival of the Rhode Island settlers to NS. A plot on OI was given to each man who received a grant at Shoreham township. The 32 divisions of that island are probably symbolic. They are likely tied to the divisions of the Compass Rose which feature heavily in the narrative too. The compass and the cross within it are the tools to give man his bearings.
  18. That's not what it appears to be. One has to "cheat" quite a bit to make that compute precisely. I believe Greene walked some of that back too. Aside from that, something like that is supposed to be there as a result of Thales' Theorem (T.T.) There are things within circles and pyramids that are baked into the cake, so to speak. We can "discover" them with a bit of time and effort with a piece of paper and some good old empirical calculation. A demo I like to make is the how the area of a square defined by the height of pyramid can be equaled to the area of the face of that pyramid. The height of that pyramid will be the square root of Phi, a beautiful constant that we can also relate to pi. The height of the triangular face will be Phi. Because a pyramid can be nested in a hemisphere you can immediately appreciate that here will be relations to constants like pi (TT, visually). The other ones he invokes are related to nesting spheres on a plane. One cannot reasonably suggest that the Egyptians or some Shakespearean author made this up. I wouldn't even suggest that YHWH made this up. It's a consequence there being 3 spatial dimensions. I could not tell you who first observed that, but it happened quite a long time ago. Getting our bearings in three spatial dimensions is said to be what caused us to develop numbers and subsequently writing. I've also noted here before that this appears to have been appreciated by literary persons of note in the past. There is a solution to the the chart puzzle in Lewis Carroll's "The Hunting of the Snark" that hinges on the same scheme. This is the chart that is said to guide the Bell-man to the mysterious island the motley crew will sail far away to in the work. The thing appears to be a tongue-in-cheek parody of the Lord Anson mysteries which alluded to a NS(Nova Scotia)-Ark quest that gets captured here by the clever name "Snark". Of interest to me is that the suggestion touches exactly on the position of a Great Circle point of triple coincidence which has plenty of loaded meaning when you think of that in terms of the Holy Royal Arch narratives found in early speculative Freemasonry. An entertaining book could be written on this alone. You can very easily lose yourself in this rabbit hole. Some of us have visited this labyrinth for many decades. We find that others have been there before us. We don't understand exactly what we are finding or supposed to make of it. Yes, it can be political. I deeply feel that many factions want a piece of Bacon. He is a worthy individual to have included in one's faction. I do think he put a lot of things in motion, but I suspect that we will never know exactly what was going on with the bloke from Stratford-Upon-Avon. In many places there are warnings to not pursue this. In other places the "treasure" is very overtly given. Curiosity gets the better of us. I think many want here to be a great mystery that is not the mundane one that says that you get your eternal treasure in heaven. That doesn't satisfy as much as it once did.
  19. Happy New Year's Eve Yann, I'm still tickled by this page 123. I've been considering other things with 123 that offer some interesting analogues. It's for long been appreciated that 1+2+3=1x2x3=6. That means 123 has a digital root of 6 which is also the case with all the iterations of 123. All numbers (in any amount of digits) that do possess a digital root 6 are divisible by 3, so they can be thought of as being closely related to the 3 of the Trinity (3T) despite the fact that none of these will be prime. The number 231 has 7 distinct divisors (excluding itself) 1, 3, 7, 11, 21, 33 and 77. They happen to sum to the divine fishy number 153. The presence of 33 here intrigued me. 7 x 33=231 and this is something that has the potential of translating to a calendar of weeks if one would want to exploit that. One could even allege that September 11 has an numerical link to these numbers (7,11), but I am not going to suggest that. To repeat your exercise, I went looking at what is on the first line of page 231 in the first folio. This page is page 2 of the play All's Well that End's Well. I thought that was interesting since I had gone looking for the end of the Great Circle line I had previously considered and found that this pleased me. The title does also figuratively relate to the end of one's life when it ends well (free pass to heaven). The first line on the page is line 90 in the play, it reads: "Must I be comforted, not in his sphere ;" There's a thought for a human. Not on "his" sphere. In other words not in this life on this planet...if we are talking about all ending well. The fact your page mentions the Laws which one can interpret to be the empirical Laws of Nature begins to resonate here when we are given 90 and "his sphere". Out of curiosity I went looking to line 108 in this play, because that is the is the number most associated with cosmological proportion in the ramblings on the theology of number (4x27). There we find: "Cold wisdom waiting on superfluous folly." That made me laugh, as it is about what I consider my examinations to be. Cold wisdom indeed. That is not a "hot take". The dialogue in the text is between two characters. They are having a discussion about Virginity (does this relate to Virginia on the globe?). The characters are Para. and Hel. That's sounding a bit like parrallel, but not so much as the name Parrolles when it is not shortened. What are the parallels on a sphere, btw? They are the lines of longitude or latitude. A bit of "cold" wisdom here would be to mention that the parallel longitude lines meet at the North Pole. An interesting mathematical oddity here is that the 90 given + 33=123 again. What does line 123 in the play say: "Bless our poor virginity from underminers and" Ok, that might make us ask who might the figurative "underminers" on the sphere might be. Who is mining under what which is sealed? Who is piercing the sphere and trying to unseal the well where all ends well? And what might they want to find? That question may have been alluded to in line 99 (3x33 or 3^3 lines down on that page) where we were given: "Must sanctify his reliques. Who comes here?" Who does go there looking to be comforted on this sphere by finding relics, and what relics do they think will satisfy them? Perhaps we should ask Peter Amundsen? The point I would make is that so much of the mystery is presented like the pursuit of the contents of Enoch's vault. If one starts to take that literally, then one is undermining his own self. This seems to be saying to us that there is only cold wisdom to be found in studying this. I don't disagree. It doesn't really allow us to improve anything in our lives or to satisfy us. We just keep digging deeper and finding wonderful suggestions that are accompanied by the same suggestion of a treasure being available to us in death only. There's something of an empiric nature that has come out of this for me. Considering a number wheel with 7 spoked divisions allows us to visualize the relationships between the numbers of digital root 6 an all others. There are very neat relationships that come out of that. This pairing of 6 and 7 belongs to the story of the creation of the world that gave us our 7 day week concept. 123 is in fact very useful as a starting point to discover other symbolic numbers that may look to us to be arbitrary at first.
  20. What I show when I produce a demo of something is not an opinion of anything. It's only me allowing for an exploration to happen and to have it be seen. I have my own personal criticisms of it. I recognize the childishness of trying to understand how men who once lived may have thought by looking at what we have to play with. I would never accept to publish it as anything but a fancy. It doesn't necessarily have value to others, but I do value the "fun" of dabbling in it. I think you have fun with what I show, so that is good for US. We help each other through life a bit that way. Humans like to play like otters, and we are social creatures. An observation or series of observations isn't an opinion. An opinion is present when we start crafting narratives that are meant to bootstrap what it is we call knowledge. We are often stuck without a method for getting off the ground. We "cheat" by trying to sanctify or validate some methods. The thing I have said which you might want labelled as an opinion is that WE do not know. The personal threshold of "knowing for certain" has been crossed for some of you here, but that is not something that you will describe an being opiniated. I find it dishonest to call it anything but a feeling looking for validation in the world. I've pointed out why, and not always publicly. I can respect all of this for the pursuit of life enhancing fun and games. I don't typically value opinions per se (if you come across mine don't value them). I find those to be an exercise in wanting to have people think alike when they are given. They often seek to recruit and to build factions. Opinions are not to be weighed as tradable commodities, and we should ultimately not take sides with them lightly. Often our world demands we take sides. We are too used to it. The fact one cannot tell someone who is in possession of a belief that they do not know is going to forever be a problem on this planet. Adding to the discussion that I also do not know doesn't seem to make anything better. People seem to want to know what they cannot know. What they feel ends up being a good enough substitute for them. It is good enough to try and pass it on to their children, that's for sure. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are one of those who believes that knowledge can come to you by no effort and direct revelation. I don't even see how we can label any phenomenon that gets an idea in our skull a revelation. The way our minds work is not known to us. We have no accepted theory of mind. No matter what is alleged to be happening, no one knows for certain. There are however mimetic phenomena at play when we open out mouths. That is where it can serve one's interests to carefully present things in a way that is effective to reach the suggestible. Using honey to catch more bees is a strategy. I would like it better if you qualified me as not being suggestible, but I would still not agree with that completely. I am hard to reach with some sort of suggestions that are known to work well with others. I find it hard to reach you with some of my suggestions when I feel suggestions must clash to stop the attempts at recruiting, else we have to live with cults. How do you think Bacon would have solved this enigma? How does one trick people into working for a desired end? What is the best way to play people to get a harmonious tune which allows for progress as the output? Some philosophers have explored this question. In all my public education I have never been presented with their examinations. What we are generally told to do is to exercise freedom of choice. It is such an inebriating thing that we easily accept the suggestion. Ultimately this allows each and every one of us to feel as if he can be a tyrant or a God. This is what leads to the cycles of decline that come to affect all civilizations. Democracy and freedom are the road to self advancement, then plutocracy and then tyranny which is itself the way back to democracy and freedom. If we are not having fun on this merry go round we are missing out on some of what life has to offer. The truth is a narrowing of the possibilities to the point where there are no other options. If you were in possession of it you would also have a very narrow view. I think our tools are limited to the use of reason, that our understanding is bound and that we are forever going to feel we have abilities we do not. What drives the Universe is chaotic and it is driven by unfathomable relationships with deep complexity that are knowable on one level and computationally bound for us on another. The basic rules follow logic and consistency, but is is also true that they have never always been the same. The rulial space (the set of all possible rules) is unknown to us. We do our best to use reason in this place and time to sort out the larger scale rules that offer hints at the most basic ones. They still will not allow us to be prophets of the future beyond extrapolating what we call the large scale laws of nature. Life offers no hope for those who want to know. It must be why we invented a place where all would be revealed to us. Penetrating Enoch's vault is unattainable for the human in the myths. Trying to dig down deeper causes it to sink further into the abyss. The meaningful road for those who want answers and who believe in a certain narrative is to march towards one's death where once crosses over into the parallel world where one is completed. It's not been a hard sell to make for humans. It pleases them to think they will have all the answers and that they will "know the father". Knowing Bacon is very much in that vein. It doesn't typically come with the suggestion that the knowledge of him is unattainable. Any piece of literature can and will resonate on some level if it is touching on universal themes. This is what makes it possible to plug it into some many lives and have it feel as if it is almost speaking directly "to the reader". This is how the Bible was envisioned to work on you. HMWH addresses you with "To The Reader". The Sonnets clearly have a structure. The patterns in it make it possible to think it is echoing our time division concepts by virtue of the fact that some recognizable numbers appear or almost appear. The overall plan for the Sonnet respects an arbitrary choice that is also arbitrary at the level of the reader. You see a pyramid when there isn't one there. That's an interesting phenomena. Presenting it with some other more applicable repeating structure is possible. You will not accept to see it as a rectangle related to half a perfect square because that is not what initially reached you. So be it. Efforts to recruit for any one interpretation are outside of the internal scope of the Sonnets. We do not know what the author would think of that. I'm sure he, or she, would be amused with it, since the plan isn't really given. It can appear to us as different things.
  21. Let us know what the cabal decides in their secret vote. I sense you've been tapped on the shoulder again. The peace you aim to keep is within the group of people that matter most. If they are getting agitated then maybe just say it. I've never been asked if the content of any post here had gone too far down the road of conspiracy. The AI I occasionally turn to verify things with is much more clear about it if you bother to check with it to help make your calls. Most of what is here that is brandied as a truth IS an evolving conspiracy theory. By not removing it and claiming to want to remove conspiracy theories one is telling the world these aren't in fact that. This place is fine with some conspiracy theories. What needs to be said is that not all conspiracy theories are wrong by virtue of them being classified as that. The world is full of conspiracy. We should be able to discuss theories involving conspiracies. The reason why we feel we cannot is found in Western culture were control structures that are alleged to be democratic. The control of this sort of dialogue is done by simply removing all of it with choke points in the media. We live in an editorialized world, and when that is not done things end up looking like Reddit where there are little fiefdoms in tyrannical control. Humans strive to be tyrants, but that is always going to get portrayed as acting like a benevolent King. This is how we should also probably think of religion. God is allegedly not a tyrant. He is a benevolent King. This is an example of how man has made God in his image. When some men had understood geometry well enough, he made God in that image. Where we are now is that some are on the verge of calling him a machine or an AI whose body is the Universe. That's fine as long as we understand what motivates us. The quest is to know the "father", so to speak. There's nothing in this thread that is damaging to me, if that matters to you. It's been fun until someone's feeling got hurt, presumably (I'm late reading the last posts if thing shave gotten out of hand). The offended own the offense, though. If you cater to the offended you will provide them with a mechanism for controlling this place by screaming foul and by having fits. I've seen it before. One can be "nice" in taking criticisms kindly. For the record, it's not something that even scientists or reasonable men have mastered. Because we are social creatures, the mere appearance of mimetic mechanisms working against us greatly bother us. IMHO, a lot of the anecdotal stuff you want to dabble in should be held in private discussions. A lot of people you respect are probably too respecting of you to tell you to shut up. It ends up being attached to other stuff and it reads like a thread of consciousness. It allows others to chime in with their own interesting side comments and feel perfectly fine about it. It opens doors to the political and to social commentary. If it's not private then it should be moved to some other open thread which follows no theme and allows it. I do understand why you might also want to have it be public, because it does give the impression to others that the place has activity. It's a balancing act. I do feel you are capable of it. It's the people you manage for that will have to decide.
  22. This is a place where people are mainly trying to sell an already made narrative (a lot of these cats have books and sites and are in a self promotion role here). I can assure you that trying to tear down already made statements and claims here will make you a lot of enemies. A lot of them would vote to ban me if they could, but Rob has stuck to his principles and suggested they just block me, which some do. No one is willing to take back their past "work" and revise it. That is the down side of promoting things as certainties You are more or less stuck with defending your views and sticking to your guns. What goes on here in spades is that people pile on with observations of coincidences and try and use them to promote a theory that has never floated in the world where decoding numerology and gematria doesn't count as proof of anything. The process is akin to a primitive inductive process that fails miserably to do the same as the scientific method does because it will not tear itself down. I you want to be convinced of something, there are people here who will do their best to try and recruit you without it feeling like its being pushed on you. The bait has been set for those who would follow the crumb trail here. None are really interested in having their views changed or challenged. The gentleman whose ideas you have taken a liking to has already opined profusely about how he ultimately was touched by an initial revelation. Nothing here is assailable because it would invalidate someone's personal experience which is taken as the highest truth. When it comes to producing knowledge you have precious little to go with. Reason is all we have. You won't wake up on day and have truth be placed in your head by an angel. If it is belief you are after then there are many strategies and ways to reach the suggestible. Our world does mainly revolve around ways to reach the suggestible and building factions. It is adversarial that way. I also made the mistake of thinking one could come here with observations and "rescue" poor old Bacon from being made into a mystic. Bacon clearly tells you a lot. The father of empiricism was not a mystic. That suggestion is a veritable tragedy if you ask me. He did have the ability to package ideas in a digestible form for the masses, but let's not jump the shark and assume he actually saw that as anything but dragging people along down the road of progress. No one can really tell you why they want Bacon to be something other than what he is believed to be. I can hardly see what it would change. Its much more about the validation and confirmation bias if you ask me. Some of the more modest suggestions that might want to have Bacon be involved in the production and publishing of the Shakespearean works are hard enough to aboard. We aren't really given enough to know. That isn't unusual. It is not the domain of serious historians to create historical narratives, so it is also true that people here are not scientists or historians. They are the folks who write alt-history offerings which become the building blocks of larger theories. I view it as a potentially harmful process not unlike selling boxes if sugary junk food to children as breakfast cereal. It is not enough that some would like it and want it. However, it can have a higher purpose. Exploiting people can have a legitimate higher purpose.
  23. It has zero predictive ability. It is utter nonsense in fact. You all cause yourself a great shame by even speaking of such foolishness about prophets and prophecies and wanting to attach that to Bacon somehow. Did anyone predict that the US was going to invade Chile on 9/11 , 1973 and assassinate Salvatore Allende, replacing a democratically elected government with a brutal puppet dictatorship? In excess of 10 000 were rounded up and killed by supposed reasonable men acting out a reasoned plan in the name of the Friedman's Chicago School of Business' desire to impose American market dominance on a population pursuing its own vision of social edification Do we speak of the world changing on that day? Nothing changed on 9/11, 2001 that wasn't successfully propagandized. A super power got punched in the nose. The reoccurrence of events on the same day happens either by a desire to make it happen (as with Sept. 11, 2001 and Sept 11, 1683) that way or by coincidence. The Universe could not care less. If you put 23 people in a room there is a 50/50 chance that two people will share the same birthday. It is not that way by anything but empiric certainty. You don't have to look into the future to predict that it will also happen again. When it does, the same efforts to use the similarities to suggest occult connections will be made. September, by its name is the 7th month if we are to put meaning to words. The events happened on 7/11 of a year we can't even agree know what to number by. In Universal time it was not 2001. Only by cherry picking the meanings can we create compelling stories.
×
×
  • Create New...