definitive proof of Rosicrucians involved in Shakes-Bacon authorship

[peethagoras]

I believe I have found the smoking gun re the Shakespeare authorship question. I found it after many years of studying the Stratford monument, the First Folio introductory poem and the Sonnets title and dedication pages.

The evidence is in the form of anagrams and mathematics. For these reasons it is difficult for poetry lovers and non-mathematicians to come to terms with my findings. The subject matter was engineered by John Dee, and consequently is extremely difficult to grasp. Anyone who has knowledge of Dee's Monas Heiroglyphica will have some idea of how hard the subject matter is.

I have not offered my information here because I doubt it will be received well, but if any member of this forum is truly interested in debating what I've found, I will be glad to explain things in depth.

 

[Light-of-Truth]

Always feel free to share your ideas. 🙂

 

[RoyalCraftiness]

2 hours ago, peethagoras said:

I believe I have found the smoking gun re the Shakespeare authorship question. I found it after many years of studying the Stratford monument, the First Folio introductory poem and the Sonnets title and dedication pages.

The evidence is in the form of anagrams and mathematics. For these reasons it is difficult for poetry lovers and non-mathematicians to come to terms with my findings. The subject matter was engineered by John Dee, and consequently is extremely difficult to grasp. Anyone who has knowledge of Dee's Monas Heiroglyphica will have some idea of how hard the subject matter is.

I have not offered my information here because I doubt it will be received well, but if any member of this forum is truly interested in debating what I've found, I will be glad to explain things in depth.

 

You ought to be greatly disappointed if you were not questioned and put to task. The goal is not to be believed or to produce unconditional acceptance of a suggestion. When all is as it should be, you ought to be doubted and scrutinized critically.  The act of proving things to the world is not for cowards. It is said to perhaps be for fools, though.  There are no religions that have achieved this. I submit that it may not be possible. What anchors some ideas firmly enough that they may continue to exist is the existence of the unconditional acceptance of the underlying suggestions (a pitfall).  They will have faithful believers, and they will be able to have factions form around them where the conditioning for the acceptance of the suggestion going forward is practiced in ritual fashion.

In my case, know that I would never believe you. At best I will conditionally accept what you say and consider if it is worthy of being included in the spectrum of possibilities which I also try and map out. That spectrum is akin to the physical landscape which an explorer is trying to map out. He may think, for a while, that he has reached India, but later he may revisit his assumption. Don't be so quick to think you have reached India. When you are closer to 60 than 16 you will have known by experience how often it is you must walk back previous suggestions you've made. 

Monuments erected by third parties after the fact, and works written by third parties before the fact, will contain in them the perspectives of the third parties. In hindsight it is easy for us to create narratives in the possibilities. Bacon was a proponent for a method with which we could know things that was more than just weak syllogism. Rene Descartes was also. This was the chief pursuit of that age. 

If we lack a method then we cannot know a hell of a whole lot with any degree of certainty. This of course, is limited to what Plato informs us is "under the Sun". For things under the Sun it is possible to gain confidence by discovering demonstrable and repeatable truths which do not fail to be true anywhere we look. Now, there are other things which reside in dark caves (in the figurative sense) where we have only our mental faculties to feel our way around them. We look at cast shadows and we look for patterns in things which resonate with our sensibilities. There are real limits to knowing things this way. When we cannot show beyond a doubt we must accept to say that we are only feeling a certain way. If we do not then we are speaking as impostors. There is no shame in that. For the most part that is what we all are. We believe in circles, but there are no circles in the world, and there will also never be any. There are only things which satisfy us enough to call them circles.

The world is built upon a fundamental uncertainty. Out of the chaos appears to us things we see as only evidence of realities in their own dimensional scale. We do not refer to humans as chaos magnified and personified in 90 trillion relationships, but maybe we should. 

By all means map the possibilities. If you are afraid of being judged then that is very normal human thing which is very strong in youth. You ask for permission because you want that sense of safety. The world is full of judgement and that is supposed to even follow you to your afterlife in some ways of thinking. The courage of the knight is to stand before the fire breathing dragon. The heat will temper you.

 

[Light-of-Truth]

19 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

You ought to be greatly disappointed if you were not questioned and put to task. The goal is not to be believed or to produce unconditional acceptance of a suggestion. When all is as it should be, you ought to be doubted and scrutinized critically.  The act of proving things to the world is not for cowards. It is said to perhaps be for fools, though.  There are no religions that have achieved this. I submit that it may not be possible.

Maybe that is one reason I find mathematics so exciting. Some things with math can be proved. There are Theorems and Proofs.

Peethagoras, I entertain a few cool ideas in my mind that I share. Of course it would be fun if the whole world accepted what I have discovered, but that aint' gonna happen. I gave up on trying to prove anything to anyone a long time ago. I certainly don't get upset when someone tells me they don't get it or whatever. But I still happily share with all the freedom we allow on the B'Hive.

I have tried to change my wording over the past months, when I think of it. Instead of stating one of my beliefs as a fact, such as "Francis Bacon was born as William Tudor," I try to say it more like, "I believe Bacon was born as William Tudor," or "My theory is...", etc. That is the result of feedback and discussions from friends here long before CJ joined. CJ (RoyalCraftiness) just says it more directly. 😉

I'm still offering evidence on why I think this or that allowing input from others. But I'll never prove anything, and CJ is 100% correct, I won't completely prove anything. I do feel it is important to accept that hard truth. But, in my opinion that should not pour water on one's fire. Ultimately nobody wants to travel down a path that leads to disappointment, but we all do it if we ever want to get anywhere. So we must remind ourselves at times that everything we think we know may possibly be wrong. (Ouch!!)

I will say I believe it is possible for all of us to stumble on treasures and find shining nuggets of truth if we pursue and study. As I believe Bacon says in the Sonnets 52, "Like stones of worth they thinly placed are, Or captaine Iewells in the carconet."

I suggest reading what CJ says about "beliefs" as well. Always make me squirm a little, but hey, that OK. LOL

[RoyalCraftiness]

1 hour ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Maybe that is one reason I find mathematics so exciting. Some things with math can be proved. There are Theorems and Proofs.

Peethagoras, I entertain a few cool ideas in my mind that I share. Of course it would be fun if the whole world accepted what I have discovered, but that aint' gonna happen. I gave up on trying to prove anything to anyone a long time ago. I certainly don't get upset when someone tells me they don't get it or whatever. But I still happily share with all the freedom we allow on the B'Hive.

I have tried to change my wording over the past months, when I think of it. Instead of stating one of my beliefs as a fact, such as "Francis Bacon was born as William Tudor," I try to say it more like, "I believe Bacon was born as William Tudor," or "My theory is...", etc. That is the result of feedback and discussions from friends here long before CJ joined. CJ (RoyalCraftiness) just says it more directly. 😉

I'm still offering evidence on why I think this or that allowing input from others. But I'll never prove anything, and CJ is 100% correct, I won't completely prove anything. I do feel it is important to accept that hard truth. But, in my opinion that should not pour water on one's fire. Ultimately nobody wants to travel down a path that leads to disappointment, but we all do it if we ever want to get anywhere. So we must remind ourselves at times that everything we think we know may possibly be wrong. (Ouch!!)

I will say I believe it is possible for all of us to stumble on treasures and find shining nuggets of truth if we pursue and study. As I believe Bacon says in the Sonnets 52, "Like stones of worth they thinly placed are, Or captaine Iewells in the carconet."

I suggest reading what CJ says about "beliefs" as well. Always make me squirm a little, but hey, that OK. LOL

The thing is that we can stay neutral when someone suggests something. We don't have to come down on a side of any question. The danger of not being neutral is that we start to take offense or that we we start to see the world in polarizing ways. There are people I know who I am fine being with, but they are not comfortable with the fact that I don't validate their points of view. What I find frustrating is that there isn't an easy way to be neutral with some people. They will seek to define what you "believe" so that they may "know" if you are with them or against them.

Our words are so imprecise that I often say to myself that people use "believe" when they only really mean that they are conditionally accepting something and would consider changing their position if they were forced to by their own considerations. 

Maths are useful to produce absolute statements, but lets not forget that we are only seeing the world through a mathematical lens. Math is one of those syllogisms that we use which has worked so well that many of us have accepted the suggestion that the Universe is nothing but Mathematics (that we are stuck in a Matrix of numbers as Iamblicus would say). We tend to not appreciate that Mathematic itself is on shaky logical foundations, because it is fundamentally incomplete. What I will say about it is that the empirical study of things is where we started with our "scientific" observations. Counting things and relating things to ordinal placeholders allows us to feel we know some things. That's certainly one aspect of knowledge that we ought to always consider. In nature 1+1=1 in many ways. In energy terms 1+1=2 is carved in stone. Do we really even bother to count in fractal ways? No, we stay with what is simple and manageable. That works. We also tend to love the roundness of small numbers. It pains us to say that the speed of light is 2.9970 x10^8 m/s. Surely it must have been intend to be 3, right?

The sad reality is that I have been trained to be non committal, lol. Science does that to you. No one ever tells you that knowledge is going to rain down onto you by divine intervention in the field of science even if many scientists will describe having had intuitions. We basically deal in words whose exact real meaning is unclear to us. This is true of all symbols.