Baconian Acrostics, Anagrams, Monograms, & Secret Signatures, in the Shakespeare Poems & Plays

[Kate]

I hear you CJ, and I think it’s great to have checks and balances. Your input reminds all ‘seekers’ not to get carried away. We should compile a list of the most indisputable finds that point towards Bacon, and do a list of ones which are open to interpretation.

I agree with Rob, synchronicity (and therefore something connected to the way consciousness and pattern recognition works) is often at play here.

Looking at it rationally though, to my mind things like The TempesT (either two Ts for The Tempest or three if you count the last one) are fascinating as TT (as we all know) is a known Rosicrucian/Freemasonic cipher that shows those with the eyes to see, that the hand of the ‘Invisible College’ was at work here. It’s a secret signal  to all those who come across it in future ages to look more deeply at the text and it’s deeper meaning (about life’s microcosm/macrocosm duality and ultimate unity).  Whether it’s T for Three Three, Tau, Triple Tau, Truth, Temple, ThirtyThree or TwentyTwo (22 bones in our Temple) is open to interpretation, but the fact that it’s also cipher for Bacon is fascinating, when looked at in the context of all the other findings pointing to him as the mastermind.
 

There may well be some really incredibly complex ciphers in the First Folio and Sonnets (and I’ve had fun exploring some of those too) but to my mind the main things they left to be found will be something really simple and repetitive throughout. The TT mentioned above does lead to interesting things throughout. ie Sonnet number 33, pages numbered 33 and 22 (TT) or 222 etc and The Tempest at the front and To The Reader having TT in it and To and Two in acrostic. 
 

Two is the key, as it relates to Mercury and the twins. Mercury is ‘the Brotherhood’ and the twins are Light and Dark, Good and Evil, Heaven and Earth. Two have to come together to create three. I do favour the biliteral cipher for this dual reason.

Anyway, this is just my response to what CJ said above. The middle way is obviously always best. See what people find and unearth on this forum, however complicated, and then it’s for each of us to take a balanced view as to whether they really would have gone to the lengths of hiding so much stuff in the texts in such a fashion.

[RoyalCraftiness]

On 5/28/2023 at 8:29 PM, Light-of-Truth said:

CJ, as I play during this crazy week with a lot of chaos, one thing has been in my face; Synchronicity.

Its been a week of family, work, health, finances, and more with stressful moments interwoven with total bliss. Stories to tell on many levels, etc.

At some point where I was even a little taken by the coincidences popping up I thought of you and your 100% sober cold as ice realistic description of what I was living through. "What would CJ say about this moment?"

You know, typing a word when you hear it, hearing a word as you read it, so on. And sometimes it seems to be amplified or multiplied. Chaos yet Order. How does that happen?

It is all Magic in my Brain? I convince myself about this reality, and then it works? Or the other way around?

When the Magic happens, how do you explain it while you live in it? CJ?

That's what I am thinking about right now.

 

 

 

 

It's Jung's term for something that appears to be meaningfully related despite lacking obvious causal connection.  "Appears" is the key word. There are many ways which things which have no causal connection can appear to be related. 

When I was young I was involved in a car accident with my mother. The thought of the multitude of possibilities that could have arisen to make our car be at that place at a slightly different time is an example of how the mind can be deceived into thinking that the accident was somehow meant to be or that we ought to see a meaning in its occurrence. What were the odds that the two cars would meet at that time?  It is no different than all the other accidents that have not occurred because of the fact that the timing in those made them not possible. Do we say that an accident that did not happen was meant to not be or was made to not happen? How many of those have come to not pass? In theory a  staggering great many of them never come to pass, and a scant few do happen by sheer coincidence. It is part of what is called the law of large numbers. What is possible is truly large. Something rather unlikely must come from it because one in ten million is a certainty that you will have one event in the subset of ten million which is part of something much larger.  It would have to in order for life to have emerged from chemical systems...

Me meeting my wife is another perfect example. I can't for the life of me explain why we met when we did. In all likelihood, it shouldn't have happened. That makes it seem like it was meant to be or that two ships just sailed into each other's path as a matter of destiny. It's exactly the same situation as above. I do not know of any of the near misses I had in my life and what the outcome of those would have been. It is easy for me to say that the outcome I experienced was special. It wasn't. I apologize if this does not sound romantic. In truth, the meeting has only worked because of a desire to make it work. Two attitudes of "this is going to work" produced something that has worked, and that has yet to be fully explored. It could still fall apart, lol.

The same thing is true of our lives in general. Often things work out when they could have more easily not worked out. They do because there are people exercising a bias towards making it work. When it all works out we tend to say that it must have been destined to be that way. When we try we can succeed. The bias comes from trying, not some magical idea of manifesting it in thought.

Synchronicity is an illusion, because it is based on appearances. That doesn't make it less powerful to convince. People love to feel it. It can actually given them more desire to work towards making things work. It also appears to give reason to things which are not governed by reason. The world is full of chaos. The amount of relationships out there is mind boggling. We tend to want to simply it by thinking that there is an architect exercising reason for outcomes that matter to us. All the rest we don't bother with.  The order that comes out of chaos emerges from what are the slightest of natural biases. We deal only in end results which are certainties, so we lack a sense of large numbers with our minds very used to small numbers.

Jung is a controversial figure. A lot of his early work is said by some to ripped off from Plato and simply a restating of it in a new language. As a scientific figure he is just as flawed as Bacon was in that regard. Ideas must come from somewhere, though. There aren't a hell of a whole lot of ideas that just appeared in someone's head. We are limited in starting from observations and then by producing synthesis. All the work that went into dream interpretation has been a waste, imo. The brain explores the possibilities when it dreams. We are at our craftiest at tory telling when we dream.

Edited May 31 by RoyalCraftiness

[Light-of-Truth]

9 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

There are many ways which things which have no causal connection can appear to be related. 

Hmmm, you say, "...no causal connection..."

Would you be open to the concept that on some level, everything is connected? Maybe not casually, but on a deeper level. I could say the connection is on a spiritual level, or merely scientific quantum entanglement. Whatever it is, we may be more connected to and through time and space than we can imagine.

Leonardo DeVinci said, "Learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else."

There are religions and philosophies where achieving a state of an interconnected awareness with the Universe and everything in it is the goal. "Nirvana is often described as the realization of the true nature of reality, which is empty of inherent existence and dependent on causes and conditions. In other words, everything is connected and nothing exists independently."

And there are religions and philosophies where everything is separate, and not connected at all.

I remember hearing somewhere years ago that from the time we are born we are learning to become separate from everything else. The separation is an illusion we have until we die.

Synchronicity is a ton of fun, that is for sure. It doesn't matter whether things are connected or not for the person experiencing it as real. "Right place, right time" is what I tend to say.

As an evolutionary skill the ability to make connections is how we survive. We have to connect everything, make some sense of it all, and find the best path through it all.

For the serious scientific Baconians, let me share a definition:

Quantum physics:
a branch of science that studies the nature and behavior of matter and energy at the smallest scales. It reveals that everything in the universe is interconnected and interdependent, and that reality is not as solid or stable as it appears. It also challenges the notions of causality, locality, and identity that underlie the illusion of separation

 

[RoyalCraftiness]

On 5/31/2023 at 9:00 PM, Light-of-Truth said:

Hmmm, you say, "...no causal connection..."

Would you be open to the concept that on some level, everything is connected? Maybe not casually, but on a deeper level. I could say the connection is on a spiritual level, or merely scientific quantum entanglement. Whatever it is, we may be more connected to and through time and space than we can imagine.

Leonardo DeVinci said, "Learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else."

There are religions and philosophies where achieving a state of an interconnected awareness with the Universe and everything in it is the goal. "Nirvana is often described as the realization of the true nature of reality, which is empty of inherent existence and dependent on causes and conditions. In other words, everything is connected and nothing exists independently."

And there are religions and philosophies where everything is separate, and not connected at all.

I remember hearing somewhere years ago that from the time we are born we are learning to become separate from everything else. The separation is an illusion we have until we die.

Synchronicity is a ton of fun, that is for sure. It doesn't matter whether things are connected or not for the person experiencing it as real. "Right place, right time" is what I tend to say.

As an evolutionary skill the ability to make connections is how we survive. We have to connect everything, make some sense of it all, and find the best path through it all.

For the serious scientific Baconians, let me share a definition:

Quantum physics:
a branch of science that studies the nature and behavior of matter and energy at the smallest scales. It reveals that everything in the universe is interconnected and interdependent, and that reality is not as solid or stable as it appears. It also challenges the notions of causality, locality, and identity that underlie the illusion of separation

 

But, we cannot change the meaning of a word/symbol because it does not suit us without confusing everyone. Jung had an idea about what synchronicity was, and that is all we have from him. He also touted something very similar to the idea of forms which were archetypes to him.

Religions are stories in symbols which attempt to present us with a philosophy (often touching on ontology). All can be reimagined to be a bit different than what they may have started as if we just play a bit with the meaning of symbols.  We never really know how we misconstrue the "teaching". Many are quick to tell us how we do, assuming all the while that they know.

Cherry picked ideas from Buddhism exploited in other contexts, for example, were used by Heinrich Himmler to drive home the idea that all was just an elaborate dance (or a play) and that one could dispassionately separate himself (his ego) from any of it to see the beauty of it. In that way you did not have to sweat committing any atrocities. You were simply part of a dance that was never ending. A certain type of music was playing and your role in the story was to dance or be carried by the currents of that time. Nature did not care if it killed you in a natural disaster, after all. The sailor that drowned in a tempest was just caught up in that time and place and played his role well.

If the question is to know what is true then there is no way to know. There aren't any sciences to tell you that. For us there is a basic ontological mystery that is similar to how Pac-Man can never know  anything about where he comes from even if he is groomed with the highest artificial intelligence. He can't escape his binary existence to ever know yours, but he could very well infer you might exist to the point of driving himself crazy wondering how exactly he might be like you.

There is a drive to know and there is a desire to possess the truth. We don't have the truth, because we cannot know. That which is absent affects what is present. Theories about how we deal with this sort of thing can invoke getting caught up in circular pursuits around a desire where the excess in enjoyment feeds into a state that causes us to want more simply for the sake of wanting more.  The enjoyment never truly satisfies, though, and it also never satisfies as much as when we first started to chase the novel sensation (what to us is a discovery). Eventually we feel nostalgia. The drive can be a naked drive for knowledge for the sake of knowledge (with no regard for any unintended consequences--think open AI development or nuclear fission), the drive to capture excess value in capitalism or it can even be in forever deepening the nature of a mystery in a story which we once took great pleasure in discovering an initial allure from a mysterious suggestion.

To be "caught up in something" is to be in that sort of vortex. To find meaning in the experience we might seek to forever expand the story. In Bacon's case we don't quite know what will be suggested 10, 20 or 30 years from now, but we can reasonably assume that it will have to expand or else people will feel that the "zing" is missing in the mystery. What typically happens is that these things come an go or experience revivals of interest with new generations. That is true with Bacon theories, as well as many other that happen to revolve around a mystery. I have been partial to how this has played out at Oak Island.

All that we have are evolving stories.  The common thing to all of them, is that given enough time, the people who championed them will start to feel like the world is in decay for having lost its taste in them, and that is because of the growing nostalgia that people inevitably feel. 

Chaos, or complexity, necessarily involves relationships. A dynamic system of variables feeds into itself everywhere. The end result of this computation are countless possibilities. There is a lot to play with. As for humans, we are intrinsically linked to our minds, and that is something for which we have no satisfactory theory. It is a bit like knowing why there is deep recurring structure in a fractal. We know it to be true on some level but we cannot know why this emerges. It is not within our grasp to relate intimately to self referential systems.

I love the Bacon suggestions as examples of what is possible for the mind to come up with. It is truly remarkable than some can fuel their drive with them. We can ask: what is desired and how does one stay fresh within that orbit?

 

[Light-of-Truth]

5 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

But, we cannot change the meaning of a word/symbol because it does not suit us without confusing everyone. Jung had an idea about what synchronicity was, and that is all we have from him. He also touted something very similar to the idea of forms which were archetypes to him.

Religions are stories in symbols which attempt to present us with a philosophy (often touching on ontology). All can be reimagined to be a bit different than what they may have started as if we just play a bit with the meaning of symbols.  We never really know how we misconstrue the "teaching". Many are quick to tell us how we do, assuming all the while that they know.

Cherry picked ideas from Buddhism exploited in other contexts, for example, were used by Heinrich Himmler to drive home the idea that all was just an elaborate dance (or a play) and that one could dispassionately separate himself (his ego) from any of it to see the beauty of it. In that way you did not have to sweat committing any atrocities. You were simply part of a dance that was never ending. A certain type of music was playing and your role in the story was to dance or be carried by the currents of that time. Nature did not care if it killed you in a natural disaster, after all. The sailor that drowned in a tempest was just caught up in that time and place and played his role well.

If the question is to know what is true then there is no way to know. There aren't any sciences to tell you that. For us there is a basic ontological mystery that is similar to how Pac-Man can never know  anything about where he comes from even if he is groomed with the highest artificial intelligence. He can't escape his binary existence to ever know yours, but he could very well infer you might exist to the point of driving himself crazy wondering how exactly he might be like you.

There is a drive to know and there is a desire to possess the truth. We don't have the truth, because we cannot know. That which is absent affects what is present. Theories about how we deal with this sort of thing can invoke getting caught up in circular pursuits around a desire where the excess in enjoyment feeds into a state that causes us to want more simply for the sake of wanting more.  The enjoyment never truly satisfies, though, and it also never satisfies as much as when we first started to chase the novel sensation (what to us is a discovery). Eventually we feel nostalgia. The drive can be a naked drive for knowledge for the sake of knowledge (with no regard for any unintended consequences--think open AI development or nuclear fission), the drive to capture excess value in capitalism or it can even be in forever deepening the nature of a mystery in a story which we once took great pleasure in discovering an initial allure from a mysterious suggestion.

To be "caught up in something" is to be in that sort of vortex. To find meaning in the experience we might seek to forever expand the story. In Bacon's case we don't quite know what will be suggested 10, 20 or 30 years from now, but we can reasonably assume that it will have to expand or else people will feel that the "zing" is missing in the mystery. What typically happens is that these things come an go or experience revivals of interest with new generations. That is true with Bacon theories, as well as many other that happen to revolve around a mystery. I have been partial to how this has played out at Oak Island.

All that we have are evolving stories.  The common thing to all of them, is that given enough time, the people who championed them will start to feel like the world is in decay for having lost its taste in them, and that is because of the growing nostalgia that people inevitably feel. 

Chaos, or complexity, necessarily involves relationships. A dynamic system of variables feeds into itself everywhere. The end result of this computation are countless possibilities. There is a lot to play with. As for humans, we are intrinsically linked to our minds, and that is something for which we have no satisfactory theory. It is a bit like knowing why there is deep recurring structure in a fractal. We know it to be true on some level but we cannot know why this emerges. It is not within our grasp to relate intimately to self referential systems.

I love the Bacon suggestions as examples of what is possible for the mind to come up with. It is truly remarkable than some can fuel their drive with them. We can ask: what is desired and how does one stay fresh within that orbit?

 

You cover a lot of ground with great perspectives!

Coincidence this week in another thread the "Illuminate" came up and in my basic poking around saw that being "rational" is a big point with them. I immediately thought of you, CJ! LOL

Regardless of anything else in my world, I do have a "Rational Department" in my brain that gets inquiries from my other various brain departments. My "Baconian Department" is in constant contact with the Rational team. 😉

Right now, early in Sonnet 66 which is a High Coincidence time, and being immersed in AI for a few days, "Rational" is not making much sense for me! Yikes! 🙂

[Light-of-Truth]

CJ, hope you do not take offense on my reply above. I'm not too worried, you don't appear to be thin-skinned. LOL

Seriously though, your message comes through. Your opinions have been a place I have tried to visit a few times lately. 🙂

Being a "Machine Shaman" can be a rewarding yet strange experience. Being a Machine Shaman with AI is even a stranger experience. Are aliens in the AI?

We can have a conversation with a computer now. It can have a sense of humor. I asked for a Baconian joke and had as many as I wanted to read by hitting "regenerate".

Why did Francis Bacon and his Rosicrucian brotherhood collaborate to produce Shakespeare's plays?

Because they believed in the alchemical transformation of words into pure theatrical gold! They were truly the masters of "play"-chemy!

 

Remembering there is a CJ type of reality to come back to is a good thing. Whew! A safety net!

Life is funny, reality is even funnier!

Why did Francis Bacon and his Rosicrucian brotherhood choose to produce Shakespeare's plays?

Because they knew the best way to keep their secrets hidden was to stage a dramatic distraction!

[RoyalCraftiness]

On 6/3/2023 at 10:52 PM, Light-of-Truth said:

CJ, hope you do not take offense on my reply above. I'm not too worried, you don't appear to be thin-skinned. LOL

Seriously though, your message comes through. Your opinions have been a place I have tried to visit a few times lately. 🙂

Being a "Machine Shaman" can be a rewarding yet strange experience. Being a Machine Shaman with AI is even a stranger experience. Are aliens in the AI?

We can have a conversation with a computer now. It can have a sense of humor. I asked for a Baconian joke and had as many as I wanted to read by hitting "regenerate".

Why did Francis Bacon and his Rosicrucian brotherhood collaborate to produce Shakespeare's plays?

Because they believed in the alchemical transformation of words into pure theatrical gold! They were truly the masters of "play"-chemy!

 

Remembering there is a CJ type of reality to come back to is a good thing. Whew! A safety net!

Life is funny, reality is even funnier!

Why did Francis Bacon and his Rosicrucian brotherhood choose to produce Shakespeare's plays?

Because they knew the best way to keep their secrets hidden was to stage a dramatic distraction!

I certainly don't take offense, and I also do not wish to change people with what I suggest if it were to be accepted unconditionally. I actually feel a sort of guilt for wanting to be vocal about all the things that are at play with humans.  In a sense it is trying to mow everyone down before things even get started. Doing that sort of thing often appears to be an attack on the freedom of others to do what appears natural to them. If we were all artificial machine intelligences, a lesson once learned by one would instantly apply to all others, but that is not how things happen with us. We are all on a path of realization and never nearing the same experiential reality. The person who is recently born into this life is not going to measure himself with the yardsticks of the Philosophers of old. All must be learned over and over, and a flash of the lightbulb must occur in each of us at his own pace. Still, it has not stopped a great many to try and put us on a path that came out of someone's previous experiences. We want to learn, but never quite to the degree that we ought to be limited in making our own discoveries. That is both good and bad at the same time.

Rationality is something that I have a hard time wrapping my finger around. It would appear to me that we are much more utilitarian than we are rational, because we are much more apt to do what serves us well, or to "use" the means at our disposal to gain what it is we want. If it is being irrational that accomplishes this then that will work just fine. The irrationality we see in the word is often someone's rational calculation or it is example of delusion. What has been increasingly normalized in our world is to put on an irrational front/mask in order to rationally control people with the condition of confusion generated in factions groomed to be opposites. To the degree that this is succeeding we are growing to be more confused. I'm certain a powerful AI at the disposal of the right type of opportunist will further even what we see which is troubling now. What is worrisome is what we can all be made to accept. The suggestion can most certainly come from a machine and be just as effective as from a P.T Barnum type.

I have recently come across two things that might be of interest to you. One is a from a discussion of the Philosophy of Francis Bacon. Will Durant---The Philosophy of Francis Bacon - YouTube The part starting at the 20:34 minute mark is in Bacon's own words.  He speaks of being quite capable of seeing the similitudes in things. That we ought to take to mean that he was busy looking for patterns in nature. The other bit is from a detail I discovered from a discussion of the works of Hieronymus Bosch. He treated the subject matter of Saint Anthony of Alexandria in a famous painting (I like to study his story's treatment in art). The Mystical Artist Whose Paintings Kickstarted The Dutch Renaissance | Great Artists | Perspective - YouTube The part of interest begins at 38:46. It has to do with Anthony's temptation by the devil in the form of a Great Queen with apparent great benevolence. She was in fact Satan. This is a fun detail, because of the very close link of this Saint's myths to the story of the Tau cross. For some reason this myth has had special appeal to Freemasons, they who have St John as their patron Saint (one of the four Taus in some people's understanding). It has undoubtedly a lot to do with the story of redemption. If one is to make a case that Bacon is a father figure to speculative Freemasonry then it is very likely he knew this story well.  The reclamation of Anthony is something that may have even had a personal appeal to Francis who was apparently greatly concerned for the fate of his dear brother in the afterlife after a life characterized with a lot of "rule breaking". it does make one wonder to what degree Bacon may have seen Elizabeth as an impostor with the devil being William Cecil.

 

 

[Allisnum2er]

Hi everyone,

Here is, in my view, another subterfuge used by Francis Bacon at the end of The Tempest in order to conceal his Authorship. The 5 Spirits mentionned at the very end of the play and Ariell (the aerial spirit) are mentionned only one more time all together, on page 15 of the play that is the 33rd page of the First Folio.

 

[Allisnum2er]

Hi everyone,

Here is a short video about a message concealed in the First Folio, that I deciphered this afternoon.

My last research brought me back to the misnumbered page 88 of "The Comedie of Errors" that is the 104th page of the First Folio ( 104 is the simple cipher of PALLAS ATHENA).

And I am so happy !!!

This is the very first time that I find a hidden reference to Francis Bacon's Foster Mother : Anne Cooke. 😊

 

 

 

[Eric Roberts]

7 hours ago, Allisnum2er said:

Hi everyone,

Here is a short video about a message concealed in the First Folio, that I deciphered this afternoon.

My last research brought me back to the misnumbered page 88 of "The Comedie of Errors" that is the 104th page of the First Folio ( 104 is the simple cipher of PALLAS ATHENA).

And I am so happy !!!

This is the very first time that I find a hidden reference to Francis Bacon's Foster Mother : Anne Cooke. 😊

 

 

 

 

Hi Yann. I see now why they call you the wizard of the B'Hive. Sharper eyes and a more enquiring mind would be hard to find.

[Light-of-Truth]

21 hours ago, Allisnum2er said:

Hi everyone,

Here is a short video about a message concealed in the First Folio, that I deciphered this afternoon.

My last research brought me back to the misnumbered page 88 of "The Comedie of Errors" that is the 104th page of the First Folio ( 104 is the simple cipher of PALLAS ATHENA).

And I am so happy !!!

This is the very first time that I find a hidden reference to Francis Bacon's Foster Mother : Anne Cooke. 😊

 

 

 

You have a true gift, Yann (Allisnum2er)! I am ever impressed!

[Allisnum2er]

16 hours ago, Eric Roberts said:

 

Hi Yann. I see now why they call you the wizard of the B'Hive. Sharper eyes and a more enquiring mind would be hard to find.

Hi Eric,

Thank you very much !  In fact, I found a "key" concealed (in my view) by Bacon in a Book, a "key" indicating to look closer at some specific pages of the First Folio. Another one of these pages refers to Anne Cooke, so when I took a closer look at this specific page and I noticed "To find a Mother and a Brother" I had a very good idea of who he was talking about. 😊 That helped me ! Thank you again.

[Allisnum2er]

2 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

You have a true gift, Yann (Allisnum2er)! I am ever impressed!

Many thanks Rob 😊. There is more to come !😉

[RoyalCraftiness]

On 8/20/2023 at 12:56 PM, Allisnum2er said:

Hi everyone,

Here is a short video about a message concealed in the First Folio, that I deciphered this afternoon.

My last research brought me back to the misnumbered page 88 of "The Comedie of Errors" that is the 104th page of the First Folio ( 104 is the simple cipher of PALLAS ATHENA).

And I am so happy !!!

This is the very first time that I find a hidden reference to Francis Bacon's Foster Mother : Anne Cooke. 😊

 

 

 

Where did you get "foster mother" and how is this not evidence that Anthony Bacon wrote Shakespeare and is referring to his brother Francis? 

The printer is the only person who can make that work out to be part of the visual layout of the text if that is in fact there. The writer of those words isn't doing that.  Was Anthony Bacon the printer? Is this another level to the conspiracy? 

I'm interested in your method. How do you go about generating these and what is your success rate? You seem to be churning out things like this continuously everywhere you put some effort in. That is mirroring my effort to produce things that do not say the same thing. How does one explain that? Is it your belief that you are discovering these or producing them? 

The two words "seekes" and "finde" are diagonally laid out and can have parallels drawn to confine them (from the word extremities). You've chosen another line, one that necessarily has to go tot he H for you to employ the H in your suggestion. With the diagonal "quest" and "finde" at the bottom right you seem to have settled on a diagonal that is parallel to the lines which sandwich the word extremities. Bacon is not suggested by such a line. It appears to have been isolated from random letters, some roughly line and some in proximity. It that how you start off? Are you first looking for any and all occasions of Bacon you can tease out? That, I feel, is easy enough to do. Peter Amundsen liked doing that too. Is that where the idea of doing this comes from?  I see the prefix "con" is there and not being used with A B. Why not use that instead of going offline to suggest c-o-n. 

Assuming that this is in fact there, and not an artifice of the skill, what does this tell us about the intent of the printer? What did he believe he was up to?

Typically what is used to suggest Anthony Bacon when he is suggested starts off using "the" and "an" at the beginning of sentences. Here that isn't even as compelling. Anthony has to be completed by taking from the general area of the diagonal. How much leeway do we have in fishing from the text?

"Pallas Athena" has a simple cipher gematria of 104, but 104 does not have a corresponding reverse gematria meaning of Pallas Athena. You are only starting with 104. It also has many thousands of other correspondences. I have one in mind that is not "Pallas Athena". Who is right?

What can we say about this curious arrangement:

Do we take that as a repeated call to "hunt"? What method should one employ to use this effectively in a suggestion? Keep in mind that I can just easily involve Anthony Bacon and Francis Bacon in proximity with that. There is a way to construct a suggestion with them. This, of course was not produced by Francis Bacon, even if it is in a title page of one of his works. Should I accept a level of conspiracy between the printer, the individual responsible for the page and Bacon?

I suppose I should ask, do you think Bacon was aware of what is on page 88? It really only makes sense as suggestion if he was. That would mean that Bacon knew his brother was Anthony Bacon and his mother was Anne Cooke. I ask again where "foster mother" comes into the equation?

Anything you can shed a light about about your methods is of interest to me. I am interested in how all authorship theorists do this and why they use it to suggest different things. I am also interested in understanding why I am probe to doing the same exercises as you are and how they almost always come tp want to confirm what I may have suspected.  Can the bias affect even what we see? I have lost all confidence in my ability to generate anything of value when hunting for suggestions. There does not seem to be a method which saves us. 

 

 

[Allisnum2er]

1 hour ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

I suppose I should ask, do you think Bacon was aware of what is on page 88? It really only makes sense as suggestion if he was. That would mean that Bacon knew his brother was Anthony Bacon and his mother was Anne Cooke. I ask again where "foster mother" comes into the equation?

I think that Bacon was aware of what was on each and every page of the First Folio. 🙂 

The very first time that I discovered this page it was by following the number 104.

At the very beginning of my research, my idea was that if Pallas Athena, the Spear-shaker, was Francis Bacon's Muse and if Francis Bacon was Shake-speare he could have possibly use the simple cipher of "PALLAS ATHENA" (104) or "MINERVA" (77) to conceal his identity on a page of the First Folio related with one of these numbers.

I began my research with the number 104.

This is how I discovered this misnumbered page "88"  and FRA BAC in acrostic in the left column.

I did not have read a lot of books about the ciphers in the First Folio, following my own way from the very start, so I was excited by this discovery.

Evidently, after some research on the net I quickly realised that this acrostic had been discovered a long time ago.😄

About the "Foster Mother", indeed, the word "Foster" is not in this passage, but I found it elsewhere.

This is without talking about all that has already been written on the subject.

And I recently found a "key" pointing to specific pages of the First Folio, that (in my view) relate to his "two" mothers.

FRANCIS BACON TUDOR

"H" the "Queen Mother" of consonants (see Ben Jonson's The English Grammar.)

https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/SLNSW_F1/104/?zoom=850

 

[Light-of-Truth]

4 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

I suppose I should ask, do you think Bacon was aware of what is on page 88?

 

2 hours ago, Allisnum2er said:

I think that Bacon was aware of what was on each and every page of the First Folio. 🙂 

Love it! If I were Bacon I would be aware of every page.

It's not like there were phones, email, computers, and TV back then to suck up one's time in the day.

But I want to take this a little further which CJ will state with conviction is merely a belief in my brain and Yann might totally understand.

Yann, you see into another level that is not in most people's skin encapsulated perceptions. If our human skin is the Veil, then you have Pierced it and your mind is Free. It has been a very long time since my mind/consciousness has been trapped back in my skin behind the Veil.

I am learning to do what you do and am a fair student I think. But I also know you have a very rare way of seeing that goes beyond the world most people live in. Whether Bacon placed those messages there or not is not as important as you seeing and describing the messages. May be that Bacon had a strange message from the future sent from you to add them there. You know, <-- 1881 -->

CJ said, "The notion of 'peeking behind the veil of knowledge' is Descartes language from his Meditations. There is one thing that these two men have closely in common. They suggested that we empty the basket of apples, so to peak, and see if any of the apples are rotten to avoid the rot spreading."

Interesting tidbit, CJ, but I will say that for me "Piercing the Veil" has a meaning that is much more important to me and anyone who is destined to understand what that means on another level. Is it intellectual, spiritual, emotional, physical? None of the above, or all of the above? You have defended your place on the inside of the Veil I am aware of, and may have no interest in peeking behind it. You may be correct is mentioning something about an apple though. 😉

That Bacon was in public describing how to define Nature by his methods does not mean he could not have been in public as Shakespeare describing how to define Reality. Both may be accurate. I totally believe in Science, yet am not foolish enough to think we understand very much about Nature and Reality.

The curly on the H Bacon left for me as my mind spirals into dimensions where time and space fade away into silly concepts. 😉

 

[Allisnum2er]

4 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

"Pallas Athena" has a simple cipher gematria of 104, but 104 does not have a corresponding reverse gematria meaning of Pallas Athena.

You're  right !

We know that Pallas Athena was Francis Bacon's Muse thanks to the French poet  Jean de la Jessee,  private secretary to the Duc d'Alencon,who wrote in a letter to Bacon:

"Therefore, Bacon, if it chances that my Muse praises someone,
it is not because she is eloquent or learned, although your Pallas has taught me better (how to speak)..." . 

When I noticed that Pallas was 47 simple cipher and 103 reverse cipher ( 103 is the simple cipher of Shakespeare, a nom de plume based on the epithet of Pallas, the Spear-shaker),  I  had no other choice that to take a closer look at the pages related with the number 47.

And I smiled when I noticed that the page 47 of Histories was also misnumbered (49).

https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/Bran_F1/369/index.html%3fzoom=1200.html 

And I already shared on the forum some of my thoughts on page 47 of Comedies

(This is the 65th page of the First Folio 😉 )

with the famous "By Gar" instead of "By God" used many times by Dr Caius.

Gar means Spear and it  is the 33rd and last rune of the Northumbrian Futhark.

https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/Bran_F1/65/index.html%3fzoom=800.html.

[RoyalCraftiness]

16 hours ago, Allisnum2er said:

You're  right !

We know that Pallas Athena was Francis Bacon's Muse thanks to the French poet  Jean de la Jessee,  private secretary to the Duc d'Alencon,who wrote in a letter to Bacon:

"Therefore, Bacon, if it chances that my Muse praises someone,
it is not because she is eloquent or learned, although your Pallas has taught me better (how to speak)..." . 

When I noticed that Pallas was 47 simple cipher and 103 reverse cipher ( 103 is the simple cipher of Shakespeare, a nom de plume based on the epithet of Pallas, the Spear-shaker),  I  had no other choice that to take a closer look at the pages related with the number 47.

And I smiled when I noticed that the page 47 of Histories was also misnumbered (49).

https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/Bran_F1/369/index.html%3fzoom=1200.html 

And I already shared on the forum some of my thoughts on page 47 of Comedies

(This is the 65th page of the First Folio 😉 )

with the famous "By Gar" instead of "By God" used many times by Dr Caius.

Gar means Spear and it  is the 33rd and last rune of the Northumbrian Futhark.

https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/Bran_F1/65/index.html%3fzoom=800.html.

Pallas Athena is represented by a near infinity of value sin a near infinity of possible gematria schemes. Where this goes off the rails is that you do not know what was being used at any given point and if anything was being used. One has to allow for it to be able to even get started.

[RoyalCraftiness]

20 hours ago, Allisnum2er said:

I think that Bacon was aware of what was on each and every page of the First Folio. 🙂 

The very first time that I discovered this page it was by following the number 104.

At the very beginning of my research, my idea was that if Pallas Athena, the Spear-shaker, was Francis Bacon's Muse and if Francis Bacon was Shake-speare he could have possibly use the simple cipher of "PALLAS ATHENA" (104) or "MINERVA" (77) to conceal his identity on a page of the First Folio related with one of these numbers.

I began my research with the number 104.

This is how I discovered this misnumbered page "88"  and FRA BAC in acrostic in the left column.

I did not have read a lot of books about the ciphers in the First Folio, following my own way from the very start, so I was excited by this discovery.

Evidently, after some research on the net I quickly realised that this acrostic had been discovered a long time ago.😄

About the "Foster Mother", indeed, the word "Foster" is not in this passage, but I found it elsewhere.

This is without talking about all that has already been written on the subject.

And I recently found a "key" pointing to specific pages of the First Folio, that (in my view) relate to his "two" mothers.

FRANCIS BACON TUDOR

"H" the "Queen Mother" of consonants (see Ben Jonson's The English Grammar.)

https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/SLNSW_F1/104/?zoom=850

 

I was hoping you would comment on the rightness or the wrongness of a method that allows some to win at the game of getting to some certain knowledge. This to me is at the core of the problem here. 

Essentially what is being played is a game called a determinacy game. We can imagine that game to be played by any number of players, but for discussion purposes we'll only deal with two. In game theory, which is a branch of mathematics, there is what is called the axiom of choice where it is said that If one person can make a move to win the game, the other cannot win the game (there are two sets of choices that are possible, a winning one and a non winning one). If your definition of a good choice says "Bacon is Shakespeare" then "Bacon is not Shakespeare" is not good. It is understood that if one player plays the right move then it is possible to make it inevitable that the other cannot win at this game. There is also an axiom of determinacy that states that neither player can have a winning strategy (this can be shown mathematically). This appears to be massive contradiction in logic. It turns out not to be. The reason is that it is impossible from the onset to define what would be a good choice or a bad choice. That is not known. A method to play the game does not know if it is generating a good choice or a bad choice. If that was known at the onset the game would have no meaning because one person could simply just make the right choices and defeat all comers.

This has consequences for all games, and it is true for the game of using a method to deal with gematria where we are making choices.

What is clearly detectable from the onset is that you feel you know how to win at this game because you are in possession of something that allows to make your choices be good choices. My point, and it is also true for me, is that we do not know what good or bad choices are when we start making choices. The only thing we do know is if one of us could come to make a choice that was a good one then the other could not win.

All the machinations about the selective use of a gematria scheme and the pairing of inferences are not known to be good choices.

None of this mathematical reality was known to Bacon. Logicians and mathematicians have come to understand this since his time. 

There are some ways of getting to determinacy, but none involve games where we have the prize in hand before we start.

There is a very real and humbling consequence to playing games with choices.

I apologize if this bursts you balloon a little. It's not the only thing you can reach for to save the idea that your choices are correct. There's also the suggestion that all this is divinely inspired (that a belief has reached you because you are a chosen one). One would have to go outside of the natural world to suggest that he is in the possession of the knowledge of how to make good choices in games of choice. You objected to this before, but it is likely that you did not understand how limited the possibilities are. When I offered up divine inspiration as the alternative it was because all of this consideration had been mulled already by me. 

To know by supernatural means actually really bothered Bacon. He had plenty of criticism of Plato and Aristotle for their ideas about that.  It is why he tried to go beyond the big 4 in philosophy (To go beyond the pillars) with his empiric methods. It should not be lost on you, or anyone reading this, that those who invoke mysticism to tell us something about Bacon are referring back to a playbook that is Aristotelian. You can account for that in Organon, but not in Novum Organum.

In my humble opinion, not enough talk of the philosophy of Bacon is happening here. In fact, one gets chided by some for talking too much along philosophical lines. It is as if being a Baconian was only about playing games to redefine knowledge. By our own modern definitions there are in fact two ways to understand the word "Baconian". There is the one related to the philosophy and there is one that says that Baconian is about proving Shakespeare authorship.

The authorship game cannot be played with the knowledge in hand that Bacon was Shakespeare and that the methods to show it are known to us. If they were known to us then the former would not be in doubt. In that case there would be no reason to play games. We happen to not know that the authorship game should even be played. 

Outside of places like this we find that there are people who simply will not take this seriously. We might ask why. There are good reasons why the authorship game is not played by many. We do not know it should be played, and if we play it we do not know to accept or reject methods making conflicting claims. On the surface they all seem just as valid. The prize will not go to the most creative or most elegant scheme.

 

Edited August 23 by RoyalCraftiness

[RoyalCraftiness]

18 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

 

Love it! If I were Bacon I would be aware of every page.

It's not like there were phones, email, computers, and TV back then to suck up one's time in the day.

But I want to take this a little further which CJ will state with conviction is merely a belief in my brain and Yann might totally understand.

Yann, you see into another level that is not in most people's skin encapsulated perceptions. If our human skin is the Veil, then you have Pierced it and your mind is Free. It has been a very long time since my mind/consciousness has been trapped back in my skin behind the Veil.

I am learning to do what you do and am a fair student I think. But I also know you have a very rare way of seeing that goes beyond the world most people live in. Whether Bacon placed those messages there or not is not as important as you seeing and describing the messages. May be that Bacon had a strange message from the future sent from you to add them there. You know, <-- 1881 -->

CJ said, "The notion of 'peeking behind the veil of knowledge' is Descartes language from his Meditations. There is one thing that these two men have closely in common. They suggested that we empty the basket of apples, so to peak, and see if any of the apples are rotten to avoid the rot spreading."

Interesting tidbit, CJ, but I will say that for me "Piercing the Veil" has a meaning that is much more important to me and anyone who is destined to understand what that means on another level. Is it intellectual, spiritual, emotional, physical? None of the above, or all of the above? You have defended your place on the inside of the Veil I am aware of, and may have no interest in peeking behind it. You may be correct is mentioning something about an apple though. 😉

That Bacon was in public describing how to define Nature by his methods does not mean he could not have been in public as Shakespeare describing how to define Reality. Both may be accurate. I totally believe in Science, yet am not foolish enough to think we understand very much about Nature and Reality.

The curly on the H Bacon left for me as my mind spirals into dimensions where time and space fade away into silly concepts. 😉

 

This other level is a mystically inspired one isn't it? This is the great objection of Bacon to the Aristotelian method. Piercing the veil is accessing God's mercy (a theme in The Tempest closing act). He (God) is allowing for knowledge despite our inability to be able to arrive to it. This, if you want another example of it, is perfectly akin to Paul's method for getting his knowledge about Jesus (a mystical vision). It is an attempt to inject a truth that is a maximum truth above all truths in the sense that Descartes described such hierarchies.

If you want an example of that sort of individual from Shakespeare there is Prospero who is like Dee in the sense that he is a "seer" by non natural means. Prospero is on his island in the end scene spilling the beans.

"Prospero invites everyone to pass one last night in the island at his dwelling, and promises to tell the story of his and Miranda's survival, and of the devices of his magic. The play ends with Prospero addressing the audience, telling them that they hold an even greater power than Prospero the character, and can decide what happens next."

There's a revelation if ever there was one. They all hold more power than the magic that he wields (to suggest the future to one who will accept it).  What is the author saying about Dee here? He's saying that his seeing is no match for the ability of anyone to shape his own destiny. Prospero's magic is weak when there is no inherent acceptance and  guidance from it. A priori knowledge is being exposed for what it is. 

At line 33 of Act V there is a reference to Ovid in a passage that is said to be very similar to one in Metamorphoses. Something about one's personal progression from believing in magic and recognition of one's own powers of determination is at play.

In all this is a suggestion of dark magic too. One can suggest things that do get accepted as truths which are not truths. This is exactly what the warning of the Kabbalah was. There was at least that recognition with it that one could shape men and that the power to shape men horribly was also revealed. One was slowly initiated into it in order that the things would not be put to bad use. The idea is in Freemasonry. You have to go through an adjunct degree called the Holy Royal Arch in order to finally involve Christianity in that scheme. The idea is also in Machiavelli where it seems that the bad use of it is encouraged for the benefit of the Prince (for him to keep his power over men). The dark powers of the magic can be of political use. We know this very well in the age of glorified liars.

It may be that it is of use to have good magicians with the ability to convince the masses of good things. One can recognize that this is actually required for religion to persist. A purely empirical thinker might not want to throw out the baby with the bathwater if there is somethin of great use that can come from the ability to create beliefs in others by suggestion. But that is not what is favored. What is favored by an empiricist is that you can come to know by other ways that don't involve suggestion and acceptance by one who knows.

The belief in the mystical ability to see and know is from the age prior to Bacon. It is in Hermeticism at its beginning and it is gone by the time it has metamorphosed into a mature science. An example of a man who has gone through this process is Elias Ashmole, he who was like Dee in his estimation and then became more like Bacon with efforts to create the Royal Society.  The metamorphosis has been so complete over time (Time has revealed the truth?) that mysticism is now relegated to the ashbin of history. It is still a great thing to study to know how men used to think. 

The power to deceive by suggestion is also one that one should recognize as a power to do harm that can be self inflicted. Still, knowing it does not stop everyone from falling prey to it.

Edited August 23 by RoyalCraftiness

[Light-of-Truth]

5 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

I apologize if this bursts you balloon a little.

Don't worry, my balloon was burst when I was 17 years old. I never went back. I am still amazed at how you are so contained in your rigid balloon with Bacon being contained in a tiny aspect of who he was. But yet, I need to read this Deeper when I am not working hopefully later and reply better.

🙂

You put the following in quotes. Is this a quote from something I said? Could be. If not, who are you quoting? Just curious.

4 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

"Prospero invites everyone to pass one last night in the island at his dwelling, and promises to tell the story of his and Miranda's survival, and of the devices of his magic. The play ends with Prospero addressing the audience, telling them that they hold an even greater power than Prospero the character, and can decide what happens next."

First time I read the Prologue it was Dee speaking to me and no matter how much I try to deny it in my brain, the experience is what it was, Dee speaking to me.

[Allisnum2er]

3 minutes ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Don't worry, my balloon was burst when I was 17 years old. I never went back. I am still amazed at how you are so contained in your rigid balloon with Bacon being contained in a tiny aspect of who he was. But yet, I need to read this Deeper when I am not working hopefully later and reply better.

🙂

You put the following in quotes. Is this a quote from something I said? Could be. If not, who are you quoting? Just curious.

First time I read the Prologue it was Dee speaking to me and no matter how much I try to deny it in my brain, the experience is what it was, Dee speaking to me.

Don't worry Rob, CJ did not talk about your balloon, but presumptively about mine. 😊

https://www.lvpdesign.com/post/141975653801/i-love-bacon-balloons

[Light-of-Truth]

4 minutes ago, Allisnum2er said:

Don't worry Rob, CJ did not talk about your balloon, but presumptively about mine. 😊

https://www.lvpdesign.com/post/141975653801/i-love-bacon-balloons

I skimmed three CJ posts really quick so lost track of who he was talking to. LOL

Either way, that you or me are in any way living inside any kind of balloon is a poor analogy. CJ might be more accurate to say we are in a vast ocean of unknown and unexplored regions, like a ship tossed around in the waves.

[Kate]

This is very left-field, but also seemed somehow relevant. I've been watching this 3hr series today. I  got to the end of number 5, then broke off to read the (very lengthy!) replies on this thread. Then I went back to the series, and started video 6a

Anyway, watch the first bit of this and you'll (hopefully) see why I thought 'Oh, that's weird!' - or maybe you won't see the connection, but I did. It's a great film/docuseries (not quite sure what to call it).

Watch how they even draw a T!

 

Edited August 23 by Kate

[Kate]

I guess I'm saying that the way Yann finds things, and the connections he makes may be a part of emergent consciousness. Who knows what's going on here. something quite profound is at play. I feel that we have suddenly tipped over, since the sharing of ChatGPT and all the other machine learning systems, into something we don't quite understand, yet. Yann has been making these connections for years, but the fact it's suddenly being discussed as to how these things can happen  (some must surely just be  coincidence, whereas others leave little doubt they were planned) ironically reinforces that we are indeed now crossing into a 'New Age'.

There's a huge shift. Try and watch the entire video series linked to above, even if it's outside of your normal interest.

We choose what we see.