Jump to content

RoyalCraftiness

Members
  • Posts

    815
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Everything posted by RoyalCraftiness

  1. None of that is science and none of that is valid a demonstration of reliable knowledge. It's the same exercise in drawing general conclusions from similarities found in number manipulations and in natural observations. This business of drawing parallels is not yet scientific, but it does allow for statements to be made that can then be dismantled. One has to get going somehow. In that time it was imperative to be able to blend the theories into a consistent narrative that explained the cosmology of the Universe which contained a God creator/architect concept. We can look back on those times and see what the more intelligent men were up to. Bacon had many theories of circles and he preferred the epicycle explanation of Ptolemy to other things that he, presumably, should have known better than to reject. That was his bias. It is is possible to be so convinced that Nature was a geometric creation as to not want to allow for it to be dismantled as a suggestion almost as quickly as it appeared. We shouldn't be too critical of this process. It was still a step in the right direction. You do first have to collect observations in order to generalize. What it promise dis that a lot of that would be disproven later, and it was. Euclidian geomtry has only a very limited ability to explain the Universe.
  2. We don't know this about Bacon needing to conceal anything. He left plenty which is not concealed. To suggest it is to allow anyone to speak as if they have access to the unwritten. This is the necessary premise for those who claim what you echo and more. Part of his "job" when he was moving around intelligence with his brother, and others, was to use methods of concealing communication from the continent, especially France and Spain. In the age of exploration what was was sought after most were the best quality maps and positional knowledge of other Kingdoms' holdings. This paid off really well in Drake's time. Elizabeth had one of the largest collections of maps and globes in Europe. It was not just that, though. Anything in the realm of technological advances would have been collected. Better methods of navigation and determining of longitude were sought desperately to command the seas. Are you asking me to give you a reason why two things are displayed side by side? Do you honestly think I could infer why, or that there is a reason that has a discoverable linkage? Bacon's method is about generalizing by inductive reasoning (lumping similar things together by classification in a way that shows a commonality in observed behavior, for example), and on its own it has nothing to do with the current scientific method which relies heavily on falsifying. We don't discover as much as we try and disprove. Statements must be falsifiable. If they are not they aren't even considered by scientific rigor. The Enochian books are the way into the mysterious world of angels and demons. Dee did not invent this. They are in the Bible as leakage from such early writings. Angel numbers and incantations to summon up archangels who hold the knowledge of the end times; that's not the stuff of the mainstream Christianity. There are only hints that this stuff was commonly considered very early on. Why the elite continue to be sucked into the occult has everything to do with people exploiting people in true Machiavellian fashion. Who has ever said that has ended? f you are referring to Nancy Reagan during her husband's puppet reign, we've discussed that here before. It's shameful. To run the affairs of a country with the help of unelected astrological consultants is beyond the pale. That people still bet impressed by such things is testament to a lack of progress, not progress. The example I like to use was the dealing that ensured the Iran hostages stayed held for a total of 444 days to satisfy some occult meaning rather than to have accepted to return them earlier and not reaped the alleged advantage that would come from it. People will always hide their funny beliefs in places that cannot be tested, and today the fools have found the will to use that as political slogans. It is useful for them to recruit among the masses of ignorant people who do the same by speaking of it in their daily lives. In our national media outlet there is a front page astrological forecast. That's not there because there's some accept validity to it. It's there because people come to click on it every day. It's bait. I commend the Machiavellians who exploit it and bemoan that we have such behavior, but that is what it means to be human and suggestible. Baffle linguists? Noam Chomsky has nothing to say about John Dee. Language developed out of our thinking faculty, not as a way to communicate. If we have coded anything today that baffles it is because the encoding is not decipherable. That's not uncommon. I can invent a language that will baffle to. If it has no rules, or if the rule is sufficiently opaque no one will make heads or tails of it. If I told you it allowed communication with angels run...The act of invoking angels would immediately get me some believers, though. Dee may not have been mentally ill, but Kelly likely was. In the end they were both laughing stocks. In popular culture magicians may in fact grow in stature. Thing that get displayed in museums may very well draw more for their occult connections. Something has to pay the bills because the end of the world is not tomorrow.
  3. The notable connection between Bacon and Dee is Euclidian geometry. Both were students of Euclid's Propositions. Bacon was an empiricist in the tradition of Thales of Miletus. Dee wasn't. The rediscovery of Euclid by the masses meant that it would be blended in with existing currents of mysticism. There was a revival in esoteric interest in the theology of number and geometry in this period. There's a sort of line in the sand that appears around the year 1600 that starts to divide alchemy from the reality based discipline of Science. Alchemy that was in the tradition Dee quickly came to be thought of as charlantanism. In the next 50 years the line became a lot clearer. We make a serious mistake if we think there wasn't a faction of alchemist that was looked down upon for being unreasonable (the ones who chased myths and produced nothing of value to build with). The alchemy that was reasoned quickly started to lift its nose and brush off the stuff that dealt in spectacle and spiritualism (which is not a scientific endeavor). The word "alchemy" went out of favor because of the negative connotations. Men dabbling in the natural sciences simply refused to be called that at some point. There never was a Royal Society of Alchemists. It is pretty easy to show that Bacon did not subscribe to any of this End Times bullshit. The man was busy making plans which the long term welfare of man in mind. Bacon clearly has positivism as a guide. He did not preach an "End Times is near" gospel that said we had arrived at the end of our knowledge. Instead he used an imagery that spoke of another thousand years of God's reign. By doing so he was exploiting an existing narrative exactly as the negative view was. Both are in error and seek to control men. Controlling men and shaping the future was a concern of the statesmen of the day. There was already a very well reasoned approach to using people's beliefs against them at this time. Machiavelli was read and appreciated. The great men of this era were moving away from the hokey stuff. Going as far as throwing out religion completely did not always happen as fast as it did with Gallilelo and others. What we see is a philosophical trend towards slowly moving into naturalism and altering existing beliefs. Methods for knowing things that do not rely on the unreliable were beginning to be envisioned by Bacon and Descartes, for example. What to do with the God concept wasn't always agreed upon. The idea of freedom of religion is a recognition that no one really knows anything, if you ask me. Someone understood that practical concerns like internal peace within a country or Kingdom actually mattered more than obsessing over what myths and prophetic interpretations were saying. But that was not a Universal feeling. Religious wars broke out In Europe exactly at the same time as empiricism and reason was taking off in Philosophy. Bacon seemed to understand the importance of expanding out to allow space for a reimagining of things afar (to get things right elsewhere). That was the vision. It was the pursuit of a material advancement. We've never rid ourselves of Dee's charlatanism. It's still with us as a political tool. Reason has never managed to push the unreasonable into the waste bin of history. We still have religious wars of mind control, people speaking of the end being near and obsessing over prophecies they can hardly put in proper context. There are reasons why the book of Enoch had a following. It had always appealed to early Christians, but it had been scrubbed from the Bible in the 4th century. These are the sort of things that came back to the surface in the Italian Renaissance to appeal to a new genre of scholarly doubter. It was a potential avenue to think differently about how things should be, but it was still just myth from a time when ideas were presented to people that way. Angels and demons came to be very popular at the end of the 16th century. Demonology was all the rage. This was a new form of obsession. Bacon never knew what was coming. We make our own future by our choices. We can exert influence. We act as if there is a tomorrow, because if we don't we will be conquered by those busy advancing themselves with their material knowledge. I really have a hard time with those who try and equate Bacon with Dee. The link is VERY tenuous. No one can easily point to one. The two obviously knew of each other and it would not have been lost on Bacon that Dee had the Queen's ear with his spectacle. What William Cecil would have thought of it probably would tell us quite a bit about what Bacon thought of it. Where today we have propaganda to control the masses there was some significant utility in having ways of controlling a monarch. Dee was an agent of control that must have been used to get influence. I have a hard time thinking he ever had much influence over the main influencers who sat around the Queen. Absolutely everyone was angling to get influence.
  4. Are you talking about the current investigations at OI? Yeah, no they are still basically documenting an anthropological story of life on that island from 12K years ago to today. Chasing the evidence of searches and searchers isn't quite the same as chasing anything real. The product has simply been put it the hands of the coulda, woulda, shoulda crowd to be made into a slick entertainment product. What we can understand from what the masses have been fed is that a monumental effort has been done to present various pseudo histories there while avoiding any talk of what historical details would actually inform us best and cause us to have a healthy dose of skepticism. This is a story that is close to home for me. I've been "on it" since about the early 80s. I once had the pleasure over the years to exchange with a professional researcher who was once tasked by Dave Tobias' Triton Alliance group to investigate the back story of the legends there. He sent me quite a bit of his findings. The report that was produced was damning. It concluded that none of the events there are likely related to anything real. I appreciate the fact that the investigation spoke in terms of probability. That is, in essence, what a responsible effort to determine something ought to do. Beware of those who speak in certainties. Tobias eventually pulled out, leaving DB with essentially no funds. That left Dan Blankenship to live out the rest of his life there with his fading hopes. He mostly abandoned the original MP stories and got involved with his own searches in other areas that were informed by some folks he valued more than professional historians. The "star key" theories of the 1650s were at the center of this. That aligns with Amundsen's suggested method to get to OI from Shakespeare. The thing was helped the late arrival of a cross-like monument there ca. 1980. That being said, I do have a suspicion that something not quite real involving something only as real as numbers and their associated symbolisms has been unappreciated by all involved, because the earliest "mystery" there does seem to want to pass on and conserve precise numeric details that "decorate" a recognizable narrative that was beloved by Freemasons. There is a historical Masonic involvement at OI from the very beginning. It's no too hard to discover it. It was a ground zero for a surveying done in 1762 by one man who was an associate, or brother, in Erasmus James Philips' first NS lodge at Annapolis. This surveying is what gave us the modern reference points and divisions that we have on that island. When Charles Morris planned the surveying of the island Philips had just died suddenly the year prior. It's in the realm of possibility that he included some details in his plan that have served to illuminate us about the larger Masonic plan for the British NS colony as it was envisaged by the British military Masonic elite that was in New England already. These are in essence the same plans that existed for the settling of NA if you ask me. The plans were empirical enough to suggest to anyone looking for meaning in "coincidences" to notice a divine/sacred aspect to them by using the proportions (2:1, 3:1 and 3:2). To plan this way is Masonic from the time of the cathedral builders. The edification of a great modern society would happen upon a well planned framework likened to a Great Arch. All the relevant symbolism made its way to Washington, D.C. eventually. In a way it was always there unspoken of in the time when Washington was a native village on John Smith's map of Virginia. The earliest explorer syndicates treated the vast expanse like an empty map on which could be placed any symbolic relationship they deemed worthy o their endeavor. It was a plan to raise a great society from the ashes of a burnt one in NS. The military elite spoke in that language. Great efforts were made to import only loyal and religiously tolerant settlers (Protestant, of course). They fished first from Germany and then from Rhode Island where Roger Williams had instilled religious tolerance into the fabric of his colony. The story is also, quite tragically, about the "civilization" of the "savages" that the British clashed with constantly in NS and New England. With the treaty of peace of 1760 the English had finally achieved a forced peace by huddling the native population onto reserves where they would starve and decline in numbers over time. "A Great and Noble Scheme" is what some American historians have called it. It involved a philosophy given by an adage that one can detect in Bacon's writings--Veritas Vincint, the Truth Triumphs or conquers. Anything that would have been necessary to have the British expand into North America would have been justified in Bacon's opinion. He urged the King to do this in order that mankind would progress and that stability could return at home where land was in short supply for the expanding population. If you can't reconcile that with the Rosicrucian ideology then you are not alone. It's certainly not non-interference. We don't happen to know that Bacon was a Rosicrucian, only that he was held in great respect by them and called a Imperator figure by men like Michael Maier. There is much to be sorted out in all this. Rosicrucianism is a German "invention". It moved from East to West in Europe and not from West to East. It is the product of the Protestant Reformation and the earlier Italian Renaissance before it, and it is full of the imagery of German Mysticism that first started to try and assimilate scientific knowledge into a Christianized story. They fished heavily from the apparition of the 3 Novas that appeared in quick succession over Europe to suggest a divine cosmological linkage. People like Amundsen will have you think Bacon invented Rosicrucianism, because it is easy to do on the surface. It's very near impossible to prove. This is not to say that Bacon did not know the people involved in the movement or identified with some of its aims. That sort of link is demonstrable. By involving religion in it, it is much easier to justify all of that by saying the holders of knowledge were doing God's work. In a more modern sense we do understand that progress does trample over everyone. There is no holding it back. You race to be at the vanguard or you are left behind and someone else will dominate you with the knowledge they amass. I can appreciate that Bacon knew this. He likely had a very large scale view of what was to come. I suspect it was informed by Machiavelli's writings as much a anyone's. To be a "Prince" you must do some really nasty things, and you must be able to live with it. This involves reason to a very high degree. These are themes that are visited in the Shakespearean works. You must be brutal and loving at the same time, and to do your best to not collect enemies. Internal peace is hard to achieve. To take war to some other place in order to allow it was deemed reasonable.
  5. I'm curious how your teeth fared from eating all this cereal? Lol. What I remember from Cap'n Crunch is that it left a gooey mess stuck in your teeth when you ate it raw. The history of the marketing of these things to children has to have had a great negative impact on dental health. We used to LOVE it, but I can hardly look at it know without thinking: why on Earth were we being fed this stuff? I only discovered later that I was also mildly lactose intolerant. As soon as I did it solved the mystery of why I farted so much when I was younger.
  6. I was caught by the fact that the C was spatially maneuvered like your Z. The 3 petalled flower in his hat is in the R, giving an RC by proximity. You also have that sword piercing the C and presence of the hat in the R. Those are the two letters that are affected by the Captain. There are 3 Cs in the brand name and an additional flipped C in the hat. That is the same set up you have with the 4 Tees of the triple Tau. 4T=forty but 4C= foresee. Could you have foreseen this parallel? The image kinda reminds me of Herge's Captain Haddock when he lifts his sword in that scene on page 20 where he reenacts the events which describes how RR's treasure ship was taken. His full name is Horatio Magellan Crunch which is HMC. Interestingly this is a British Royal Navy acronym used for His/Her Majesty's Canadian vessels. The ship navigates the milky sea (the milky way?). The nemesis is Jean LaFoote who is bound and determined to find the secret of how the cereal stays so crunchy. The names of the creators are Jay and Bill, JB (Joachin, Boaz just like Joe Biden). And so on and so on. Do you see how much fun we can have by finding the similarities? Also pouring liquid on the cereal grain is the alleged solution one group of people proposed to plug the non existed flood tunnels on Oak Island. It begs the question of exactly what secrets they were pursuing.
  7. Yeah, not a safe bet. Bet on the rent coming due instead. It is why Britain's political system catered to land Lords.
  8. Cool. You can tell Yann that dash-dash-dot-dash-dash is SOS in Morse code, lol. Three feathers and a C on the hat...hum...300? I did not know he came from a magical island! Maybe he knew Prospero.
  9. Quite the opposite. He exploited the idea of a future 1000 years of God's reign to potentially capture the religious crowd. That is to say, he played them for their own benefit. A population that is sitting tight waiting for the end of the world will not advance. He had visions of getting people bettering their collective condition. Religion, ultimately, is useful to set a moral compass, but man do people ever get lost at sea if they are given the freedom to interpret things as they see fit.
  10. Ah yes, Captain Crunch is indeed a Quaker Oats branding. Did you know that in the 1960s you could get a plastic whistle in the cereal that was found to be able to access a telephony signaling shortcut, allowing users to place free telephone calls by entering "operator mode". I guess it was an early modem. What's with the all the C symbolism with this character anyway?
  11. The prankster is definitely a helper.
  12. Rosicrucianism has always been attached to positivism and progress. It wasn't, in the very beginning, interested in prophesizing the end of the world tomorrow. That is is in stark contrast with some Protestantism which put real emphasis on the fact the end was near and that your soul was in the balance. If you promote positivism in the world your natural enemies are the ones who are Hell bent on maintaining this place is Hell, and that only the afterlife matters. This place is a garden of delights. Those who partake in it are devils and Satanists to some. If you had any God fearing decency you would be flagellating yourself right now. lol Rest assured that we ae heading into space just as certainly as Spock had pointy ears. The prophecies that warn of the end times soon will come to pass. They were once intended to mean they would happen in the lifetimes of the people who were oppressed in Judea. How long must they recirculate before people clue in to the fact that their literary ship has sailed? Give me some space age myths my friend. This is what Joseph Campbell was asked to help with. Funny that they settled on the "Force" to capture what is meant by the sum of the natural forces, no?
  13. I was first introduced to the American concept (brand) of Betty Crocker while watching "The Price is Right" on cable television when we first got it. It did not exist to me prior to about 1980. This reminds me of a Doc. I watched recently about the "Great Flour Wars" of Minneapolis in the early 20th century. The first inkling of what a Quaker looked like was the man on the bag when I was a child. And there is of course Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben and Rastus that were given to White people so that they would touched by the nostalgia of being served meals by Black Slaves. The product, including flour and creamed wheat, had to be as white as possible, because that was the symbol of purity. These faces were used to sell us emotions. Shakespeare may very well be the face a common man who is touted to be able to attain the highest levels of intellect by his own "talents". It is the myth of one's ability to bootstrap himself into greatness. The truth is that no man is an island. Shakespeare was written by over a billion people's efforts at getting ahead in the world.
  14. The observation and collection of coincidences is of no importance for what they show The fact we are able to understand how to produce these and how to interpret them is of importance. In its most bare essence it is really just a demonstration that there are some basic geometric spatial realities at play. The ones that most concerns us are exemplified in the forces of nature. Gravity, and how it seems to emanate from a single point within a body explains why planets are orbs and not squares. It explains why there are Suns who are the parents of all the higher elements and everything else that is made of them. The gravitational law is an inverse square rule. Remember that. It hinges on the reciprocal. Do you want to see something cool? The square root of 11 is roughly 3.3. 3.3 ^3.3=51.42 which is ominously close to the base angle of the pyramid whose height gives the side of a square equal in area to the area of the pyramid's triangular face. If we could not show why that is, and if we asked someone to explain why these numbers are allegedly equal (lets say by asking a child) me might get answers that imply that someone decided they should be. Well, it is not quite that. Geometry alone imposes its consequences. Some other forces that spread out geometrically in space produce hexagons. 3 spatial dimensions turns out to have many things given that involve 3. There are other things that come out of a 4th invisible dimension like time which is malleable. That gives us probability. There is only a probability that two reference time frames are equal. One observer's present observations can be another observer's past event. This does not imply that we can exchange information about each. We are always locked into a relationship that does not allow for inconsistency or violation of the basic rules. What these rules are were arrived at computationally. The computer is the Universe doing the computation as we speak. There is nothing of its scale to model it with, so I wouldn't suggest you try and crunch the numbers. The proof quite literally is in the pudding. It is a veritable miracle that we can extract some large scale rules of nature, but we can. It allows people of all faiths to drive around in the same cars.
  15. You give an interesting testimonial. Anecdotally, Methodism started not far from here. In a very small geographic area there are literally half a dozen belief system that sprouted and found their way to America. I suppose that is how colonial history works. Democracy is not necessarily THE answer. It's appearance may be the desired effect. It is the best way to make everyone feel their voice matters, but there is great danger when the masses start to feel that it is no longer really the case. Based purely on harmony, one would have to concede that everyone must be given equal freedom of opportunity and be considered to be equals under "God" concepts. This is a fine rationale for when everyone and their dog is starting off from zero and mostly British and Protestant, as it was in the colonial beginnings. Bacons ideas about why expansion was necessary and what peaceful benefit at home would come from it are available to us. As far as power dynamics go it is hard to think he did not prefer the elitist view. If one values knowledge then it must be that the ones who are in possession of it would be the ones who rule. This was a very common colonial view in Nova Scotia. It was the Tory view. This "strong ruler" dynamic is found in Conservatism still today. This is because, as Bacon put it, the truth is in the possession of the Victors. The King and his lineage is never wrong on account of his family's conquests. I don't think we were meant to avoid decline and symbolic deaths. It is probably a very natural occurrence. The place where we try again is the next great expanse. This promises to be in space where we are beginning new colonization plans. The new perspective from space will change some of our small minded views, necessarily. One day in the not too distant future the first non-Earthling of Earthling parents will be born. He will have a title upon his head. In many ways he will be like a first Adam.
  16. They share the same beginnings in Europe (early 17th century). Freemasonry today is not what it used to be. There's actually a very large branching tree showing what Freemasonry has spread out to be. There have been many factions over the centuries. Rosicrcucians and Freemasons split at some point in the past. There's no clear historical link from Rosicrucianism to AMORC. Rosicrucianism faded into nothing by the 1670s and it is considered a historical fad. There were efforts to revive it later. Someone picked up the symbolic torch at some point. Same thing with Freemasonry which announced itself to the world officially in 1717. Before that there is an unclear history that does have a spotty presence going to the early 1600s with free and accepted Mason "lodges". Don't forget that the KKK considered themselves to be part of this family. Even Mormonism is copy cat phenomenon. I have an interest in the origins of Adventism in America. It is also tied to Freemasonry indirectly. Whenever there are are factions there are conflicts. In my opinion the report I saw was based solely on the interviewing of one person who expressed that he associated its creation to Satanists. What Satanists could mean is unclear. The people who did it have never been exposed. No one has ratted anyone out.
  17. By their own coming into being the "Free and Accepted" Masons brought the ideas of divine proportion with them into the realm of everything they dabbled in. These men were not builders in the physical sense, but they assumed a symbolic role in the edification of man, it would seem. The inflection point is ca 1600. An early "Acception" group existed in London in 1607. It had a prominent statesmen within it, but we cannot infer that was Bacon simply on such a description. What seems to have appealed to them is the breadth of the structure in operative Masonry which was appreciated for being as strong a sturdy arch. Much of the early symbolism is arch related, and that is where one can take a turn into wild speculation and imply that the interest is in fact due to Masons possessing the secret of the Ark. In many ways they do, because the Holy Royal Arch they understood to be many things (an archetye if you will). It is the rainbow with its seven colors that ivolves the prism and water and the light in one way of seeing it. There's not a huge amount of direct evidence for proto Masonic links in the text. That being said there seems to be plenty of that sort of thing in the bits and pieces that accompany the works (Title pages, dedications...etc...). This has led some to suggest that the patrons behind the production of the First Folio may have had links to early speculative Freemasonry. That's certainly not impossible. The obvious links to such groups exist with the Royal Society later too. There was a time in NA when just about everyone's granddaddy or great granddaddy was involved in this. It became wildly popular during the esoteric revival of the early 19th century. In Nova Scotia, where I am from the place was built up from the ground up by Masons post 1742. The OI story starts with Masonic activity and has spun into every other mystery that is in need of a final resting place. I've notice the same historical interest in "owning" or claiming the reference locations on this globe. To possess the prime Meridien and to posses the North and South pole was highly symbolic. These things have not always been what mundane thing they are today. To know where the North pole is becomes an exercise in observation and in proof. The sorts of observation that one can make at this location are worthy of being claimed by a country for all of eternity. This is how it was likely experienced for these adventurers. The US, for example, needed to be first to the moon. Billions in today's money was spent in achieving it. It has pushed the boundaries of scientific knowledge. By definition science is the only thing that can show relationships reliably. If it is not done by that method it is done by convincing. This is one thing Bacon was bound and determined to not have continue, because he was tired or the errors of Plato and Aristotle and myth based belief. Religion is perhaps the height of what we have that is not science, but Bacon did not favor it in the New World. He was very clear that it was important to not pick and choose faiths as to not create internal conflict. It was shrewder to allow freedom of religion and to exploit it to make allies. This is a sign of high intelligence, not necessarily a sign that Bacon valued "other" ways to knowledge. The knowledge that is arrived to by faith and convincing is capable of creating just about anything including fairies and magicians. Peter Amundsen reads this forum. He links to it on his Facebook page. I have never seen him post here. I've read his FB content in the past. He's not the type I would characterize as being reliable on account of his extremist religious views. He is quite simply a literalist of the sort that I can't take seriously, but he is free to have his fun with this. Other who post here re also quite committed to their faiths. He got chased off of the present OI efforts for trying to get the people involved blocked from destroying precious religious relics (menorah and ark). What else can you say? That is faith that I can't deal with. I'd love to explain to him why we can reliably know to a high degree of certainty the ark isn't buried there.
  18. This wasn't known then. It was the observable that set these traditions. Nothing stops moving. You have to imagine a parabolic curve that gives us the position of the Sun (its declination). It dips. As it approaches a minimum there is an inflection point. The point of reversal has a tangent that is perfectly horizontal. This is seen as a flat in the noted position in the Sun. It takes 3 days for the eye to observe a significant move upward. The early observers had no clue why the inflection point looked like a flat to them. This tracing of the curve is something that you just encountered in the "Dee Tower" video you posted. Observers could draw this curve on the floor if they wanted to have the light pass through a point like hole in a boarded window (as was mentioned).
  19. What conclusion? They either reported the truth or they made it up. I am not weighing in on any of the consequences of what they are saying. Let's be real about this. Its comes to us from the US where there is no such thing as the truth in reporting any more. It is all about what you can convince people to believe which may suck them in. What was a project involving a lot of reason has turned into a nightmare of belief. The power of empiricism is that you can measure. How does one measure the truthiness of statements? With a vote? Hardly. Because Bacon was an empiricist he would have most certainly not espoused the idea that we could ever get sucked into voting for the truth. That is exactly where we are at today. Bacon, Ashmole and company were monarchists for a reason. Give power to the masses and reap the consequences of mimetic phenomena. Forces will appear to convince the masses which might not work as well as reason to convince a single monarch. Bacon's politics are worth looking into. I am not implying that Freemasons are Satanists, but I will gladly point out that this view is out there and held by people who believe it for whatever reason. If it believed by those who build creations museums then it speaks loudly about what is behind it.
  20. Yes, I suspect that these Laws are in fact the empirical Laws of nature. Those would be the ones quantifiable with numbers. This does raise the question of whether or not the Great Circle alignment I have often shown was appreciated for more than 100 degrees of longitude. If we consider what that looks like for 123 degress of longitude from Jerusalem (the Christian ground zero) there is something quite neat that comes out of it. Here's what the 123 degree segment of the GC looks like when viewed as an equator. The total length of this line is 10,999,138 meters (close to 11,000,000) If we divide this number by 3.3 we get 3,333,072 (close to 3,333,333). It may very well be that this was considered, or checked for. When you do it you will notice that there's 123 degrees of longitude difference. The other interesting aspect of this is that you end up at a latitude +30 that is equal to the heading of the Great Circle (approx. 30 degrees NE). Another idea that I never really considered is that there are 3.28 feet in a meter (approx. 3.3 feet). This may have led empiricists to notice that factors involving 3 where everywhere to be appreciated in nature. This, of course one can extend all the way to the speed of light which is 3 x10^8 m/s. These are all neat demos of how one can produce synchronicities that can then be appreciated by observers who can be made to think they have an otherworldly significance. These things come out of how we define our standards. It is easily demonstrable to show how that arises from the dimensions of the planet. The line does go through Georgia at latitude 33 if that is of interest.
  21. The Sun doesn't start to rise on the Solstice. It represents the lowest visible point. There is a pause at this day in the observed elevation of the Sun. The pause lasts 2 days (a bottoming out). On the 3rd day there is a festival that celebrates the ascension, or the start of the new cycle of the Sun. That is what was special about the 25th. Christianity sought to obscure this meaning in its calendar. That being said, it is not a bad choice for the symbolic birth of a light emanating symbol. Have you conducted the count of the number of Sonnets that have words in them which start with CON?
  22. You write well. We' ve talked about Jung here before in this light. I'm one of those who would argue that he has simply restated Plato's ideas of forms (as patterns he calls archetypes) in modern language which has been borrowed a lot in the pseudo scientific fields. Some say abjectly "ripped-off", but that is maybe too harsh. Synchronicity is a term invented by him for a phenomena that is fraught with possible biases. It is perception related. In scientific terms it is not possible to prove it. However, it is very possible to show that many are convinced it is real. Everything that happens happens in conjunction with other events. The "alignment" of some events is to be expected. Even very unlikely events ultimately align. Most of the things that happen to us in a day are incredibly unlikely to happen at once, but they sometimes do. This is nothing but the confirmation that a large number of rare events must eventually translate to interesting or jarring coincidences. It makes it possible for us to imagine ties between them and imply that things are, or were, "meant to be" (confirmed by the Universe). It has nothing to say about things that don't appear to have synchronicity. In many ways it does allow one to feel good about one's powers of observation. We have to be careful what we attribute to Bacon. Inductive reasoning-- yes. Scientific method--no. Bacon's empirical philosophy paved the way for the scientific method. An important part of the scientific method is that assertions be tirelessly questioned and torn apart if possible. One is never done doing this. It is not strictly an inductive process which would build upon what is accumulated by experience in order to generalize. There's plenty to read concerning the differences between the two. This is often something that is misstated about Bacon. What is perhaps most notable about Bacon is his desire to have an institution of science that would be open and transparent (a Temple of Truth, let's say). The Royal Society for the Advancement of the Natural Sciences considers Bacon to be a father figure. Elias Ashmole was an ideological disciple of Bacon, a monarchist and the original "Fellow". There's no doubt Bacon's vision was the inspiration. That being said, the RS was not necessarily operating like Bacon may have liked. In early days it had a strong bias for favoring celestial observation for time keeping and the determination of longitude, for example. It worked against the development of Harrison's marine Chronometer in what can only be called a mess of internal politicking. The RS became quite elitist. We've always struggles to live up to the ideals of philosophers. I would also add that Bacon wasn't really an experimentalist. That is also misunderstood. He did collect observations and dabbled in the advancement of science, but this was not a major area of his contribution. Sylva Sylvarum is a collection of experiments that research has shown are a mix of notes Bacon had left, but there is also a lot of "borrowed" material that was included by Rawley when he created the work which often goes in Bacon's name. The globe is the stage. I suspect Bacon made a lot of observations about the empiric metering of this stage. I think he was fascinated with developing methods of positioning on our globe.
  23. The guide stones were destroyed by Christian Evangelical fundamentalists who believed them to be Satanic works of Freemasons, no? We had an article about that here in our media.
  24. That's a perfectly fine interpretation. Knowledge is to be amassed this way in Bacon's thinking. It is all about building up from a solid base with individual ashlars. This is why the Arch is so admired. Nothing was as solid as an arch to bear the weight of the vault structure to the cathedral builders. The Holy Royal Arch symbolized supporting the celestial vault above us. The interesting thing about the pyramid is that it is nestled under an arch if one draws only the above ground portion of it. It is a bound by a hemisphere which is a 3D arch. Atop is the all seeing eye of God, symbolically speaking. This is very much language that one would associate with Masons and edifiers.
  25. Peter knew he wanted to end up at OI before he started, imo. There's more reverse engineering in his methods than there is discovery if you ask me. Unfortunately, that is true with all our examinations. We come with preferences in where we want to end up. He does detail (a bit) how he deduced he needed to look for an island in Nova Scotia where he does in his televised "Sweet Swan of Avon" series where I first encountered it. The problem with it is that is based on celestial clues taken from the First Folio which he alleges compute closely enough, but they don't actually compute if you look at them closely. These theories already existed in the 1970s and they were related to a "star key" alleged to have existed from the 1650s which had said to have been found in alchemical works (that are full of this sort of stuff). This is a common enough theme in pseudo historical narratives. You have to look with partially closed eyes in a poor lit room, or possibly just take his word for it. In my opinion his "method" to get there is beyond suspect. It's been one effective way to get from the "The Tempest" to OI for his fans. The Shakespearean suggestion at OI date to the 1890s. They appeared shortly after the publication of Constance Mary Fearron Pott's popularizing of her Baconian theories, ca 1891. For the period of 1897-1933 it is said that the searches at OI centered around the pursuit of a vault of Tudor documents by the Chappells. It was not that before, and it was not that after. However, it is one suggestion that keeps reappearing now that it has been unleashed. OI is an interesting story in its own right. The history there is British starting around 1762, which is the date of the surveying of the island for inclusion the Shoreham grant for the New England settlers from RI which arrived the following year. The planners were Masons associated with the 40th regiment of foot at Annapolis Royal. The land near there was first settled in 1752 by British subjects originating from Germany (loyal to the King and from his family's original homeland). Prior to that the area was French until about 1751 (the end of the French regime in Canada). Halifax, a defensive stronghold nearby, dates to 1749. The original legends at OI follow a discernable Masonic theme until those fizzled and the story was reinvented to be a pirate story (Kidd) in the newspapers of the 1860s. This was a trendy alternative popular in New England at the time. A great commonality in both the Shakespearean mystery and the OI mystery is the presence of what I call the older TT mystery. I would not suggest that the commonality means they are of the same hand. One is clearly Masonic from a later time, and one is Masonic feeling from a time when there aren't really any organized Masonic structures yet. The root of the TT mystery is to be found in operative Freemasonry's alleged ties to the cathedral builders of Europe who employed careful "divine" proportion in the their monumental stone work. Regarding Mr. WH, there's plenty in context in the Sonnets dedication for us to suspect that he is the man hinted to by the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). He is the architect and the ever-lasting poet. There are a few geometric clues in the layout of the page. The squares you refer to are 81 and 64, of 9 and 8. 9x8 are the 72 names of God, of which the Tetratgrammaton is but one. It's the first used in the Old Testament, I believe. The numerical clue is 81 by 64 which is 81x64=5184 or 1/5 of the precession cycle in years given by the 5 positions of the polar star in constellations. It is Ursa Minor now, but it will be in Cygnus next. The geometric suggestion here is the 5 pointed star which is typically given in Euclidian geometry by the shoulder angle of 72 degrees (360/5). It is all a nice round way to get you to consider 72 and it's mirror image 27 (3^3). On this I've written quite a bit.
×
×
  • Create New...