Jump to content

Sir Francis Bacon and the Rosicrucians


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Gentle breath of yours, my Sailes
Must fill, or else my proiect failes

Tonight, very tired, my imagination combined with some of Bacon's ones and zeros (AI) allows me to create beyond my human skills. I'm working a prompt for an AI image. Few results so far.

 

prospero1881_In_the_midst_of_a_boundless_sea_of_ignorance_a_maj_c0b39616-32c9-4e2a-b136-db11442b1e82.png

or this one?

prospero1881_In_the_midst_of_a_boundless_sea_of_ignorance_a_maj_6d61bd9d-9154-4ee0-8dd8-dc3b7b77b4e0.png

or maybe this one

prospero1881_In_the_midst_of_a_boundless_sea_of_ignorance_a_maj_55d86137-4904-4949-a244-bd1a18c933fc.png

EDIT: This is my final choice:

prospero1881_psychedelic_In_the_midst_of_a_boundless_sea_of_ign_642d330b-cbaf-413f-9555-c69256833353.png

Love the 3rd one!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm posting here borrowing from another thread, but my Gentle beer Breath filling a coincidence Saile might fit here better in the long term. 😉

From that thread, out of context, but important for this coincidence as it is something that I just wrote a little while ago.

TWO HUNDRED ONE and/or ONE HUNDRED TWO is 157 Simple, 168 Reverse, 58 Short, and 287 Kaye ciphers (24 letter codes), the exact same cipher signature numbers as WILLIAM TUDOR I.

Right now we are in Sonnet 86 in the Sonnets Pyramid design.

https://www.light-of-truth.com/pyramid-GMT.php#Sonnet086

image.png.66a2d1325e089b20baa101ac8d32d8e3.png

Sonnet 86 began a little over two hours before Day 201 was complete. Remember TWO HUNDRED ONE from the other thread? 157, 168, 58, and 287 ciphers numbers.

This is one of Bacon's "William" Sonnets!!

The first line, "VVAs it the proud full saile of his great verse," sets the message of this Sonnet, and the bar for cipher masterpieces. Does anyone not get the Prospero "Saile" connection. So here we have Day 201 end with all that it brings in number wise, and we then have a choice of Bacon, Shakespeare, or Tudor writing to himself as Bacon, Shakespeare, or Tudor. I'll try to explain.

I have never been nailed down from year to year, but my opinions today are shared below.

I mean these three who are ALL one; "Sir Francis Bacon", "William Shakespeare", and "William (Will) Tudor."

Yet there are kind of three different perspectives or characters in Sonnet 86. Maybe all three speak with each other? I get it for sure, I swear it totally challenges my comprehension! LOL

VVAs it the proud full saile of his great verse,
Bound for the prize of (all to precious) you,
That did my ripe thoughts in my braine inhearce,
Making their tombe the wombe wherein they grew?
Was it his spirit,by spirits taught to write,
Aboue a mortall pitch,that struck me dead ?
No,neither he,nor his compiers by night
Giuing him ayde,my verse astonished.
He nor that affable familiar ghost
Which nightly gulls him with intelligence,
As victors of my silence cannot boast,
I was not sick of any feare from thence.
   But when your countinance fild vp his line,
   Then lackt I matter,that infeebled mine.

This part for me, tonight anyway, is Bacon speaking to Shakespeare about Tudor:

VVAs it the proud full saile of his great verse,
Bound for the prize of (all to precious) you,
That did my ripe thoughts in my braine inhearce,
Making their tombe the wombe wherein they grew?

There are 33 words in those four lines skipping the three in parenthesis.

image.png.0146dc41122ca8232f7007cb8c0afd88.png

And we know 33 is the Simple cipher of BACON. But what about those 13 letters and 3 words inside the parenthesis?

ALL TO PRECIOUS is 157 Simple, 168 Reverse, and 58 Short matching the same ciphers as WILLIAM TUDOR I. And of course the same three cipher numbers of TWO HUNDRED ONE (Day number that starts Sonnet 86).

image.png.b561dab7e2ecdf471ab2c0125638ccbe.png

Next is this, maybe Tudor to Bacon about Shakespeare?

Was it his spirit,by spirits taught to write,
Aboue a mortall pitch,that struck me dead ?

Then Bacon to Tudor about himself as Shakespeare?

No,neither he,nor his compiers by night
Giuing him ayde,my verse astonished.
He nor that affable familiar ghost
Which nightly gulls him with intelligence,
As victors of my silence cannot boast,
I was not sick of any feare from thence.

I'll give Bacon and Tudor this line to Shakespeare:

But when your countinance fild vp his line,
Then lackt I matter,that infeebled mine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Wow! 1

T A A A A A A A A A A A T
157     www.Light-of-Truth.com     287
<-- 1 8 8 1 1
O 1 1 8 8 1 -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/16/2023 at 2:58 PM, Christie Waldman said:

I think this is a beautiful piece that helps to meet a current need for Baconians to let others know we are here and what we are about, so let's share it! Those who make it to this website will soon find the arguments and evidence. We don't all believe exactly the same things, but we have much in common. Each of us is on our own personal journey of knowledge, is how I see it. There is no "creed" to being a Baconian, thank goodness. I like it that Kate was able to mention her book, which she tactfully did at the end. Well done Kate! 

It is very beautiful. 

I hope it is not about what we believe, and that it can be about what one can suggest that is reasonably stateable. Belief is a red flag to me. There's no doubt that when we describe the landscape we must address the existence of beliefs in the past and why they still exist (if they still exist). One of the things I have been led to learn about belief by looking into the Baconian philosophy is that it can only really get going in the world with a revelation based entirely in trust or solid reason. Like the Christian who believes because of Paul's trusted revelation, there would have to be something similar going on with Bacon to produce belief.  I don't know who that person is who we should trust. I am not partial to even trusting Bacon, since he has shown himself to be a capable mind with the attributes of a prankster. My hang up with the stating of an authorship mystery comes form the fact we are exploring much older beliefs (in at least some cases). The thing has not been recognized by a scholarly mass. Is it even outside of the realm of belief? Are there reasonable suggestions that can be made to advance the theory? That's certainly worth exploring. I'd be disappointed if anyone jumped the shark, assumed there was a mystery, and that the game was about proving Bacon is the answer to it. It's not something I would present to a young person as a starting point. I would say: there's a mystery as to why there are factions who are convinced that different men wrote Shakespeare. I might follow that up with the question: "why do you think that is?".  Why is it possible for humans to be convinced of different things? 

Anyway, it is probably too pedantic for the average joe who is just curious.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Random thoughts:  Well, a person might start out as an average joe, just curious, having "Shakespeare authorship" as a bit of a hobby, and then one day it becomes much more than that, as it did for me when Lawrence suggested I write that first book review.

Bacon: if we begin with certainties, we end with doubts. If we begin with doubts, we end with certainties. 

If you are talking about proof, then it is proof to whose satisfaction? Who is the judge? Is each person his own individual judge? There need to be standards. Legal standards work for me. But truth, as we know, does not depend on what humans believe or don't believe--I think that is what you were saying. R.C.?

If you mean, with regard to trusting Bacon, as to something specific he has said, as to authorship or being the son of the Queen, I would agree that if he has set up subterfuges intentionally (dissimulation I think he calls it), for a purpose, they may be extremely hard to see through, by design, the design of a Master. 

As for a  scholarly mass, I think there was a significant scholarly mass in the 19th century, with writers of the books written then, most of which I have not yet had time to read--just like with most of what A. Phoenix has written.  I'm not saying it was a majority.  I don't think Bacon ever saw that it would be a majority who would care about the truth enough to search for his clues. Look at the way good evidence in favor of Bacon is ignored by those who, for whatever reasons, are not receptive to it (or are not willing to publicly say so).

It's an interesting pursuit. It's an exercise in critical thinking. It's the focus on the journey, the tilling of the soil, the fertilization of the mind, that Bacon had in mind for us all, I think, rather than ever convincing most people. Of course, it is hard to see others being intentionally misled. Most people would rather believe an attractive lie than the truth, as Bacon observed. He sure knew a lot! 

Edited by Christie Waldman
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Wow! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Christie Waldman said:

Random thoughts:  Well, a person might start out as an average joe, just curious, having "Shakespeare authorship" as a bit of a hobby, and then one day it becomes much more than that, as it did for me when Lawrence suggested I write that first book review.

Bacon: if we begin with certainties, we end with doubts. If we begin with doubts, we end with certainties. 

If you are talking about proof, then it is proof to whose satisfaction? Who is the judge? Is each person his own individual judge? There need to be standards. Legal standards work for me. But truth, as we know, does not depend on what humans believe or don't believe--I think that is what you were saying. R.C.?

If you mean, with regard to trusting Bacon, as to something specific he has said, as to authorship or being the son of the Queen, I would agree that if he has set up subterfuges intentionally (dissimulation I think he calls it), for a purpose, they may be extremely hard to see through, by design, the design of a Master. 

As for a  scholarly mass, I think there was a significant scholarly mass in the 19th century, with writers of the books written then, most of which I have not yet had time to read--just like with most of what A. Phoenix has written.  I'm not saying it was a majority.  I don't think Bacon ever saw that it would be a majority who would care about the truth enough to search for his clues. Look at the way good evidence in favor of Bacon is ignored by those who, for whatever reasons, are not receptive to it (or are not willing to publicly say so).

It's an interesting pursuit. It's an exercise in critical thinking. It's the focus on the journey, the tilling of the soil, the fertilization of the mind, that Bacon had in mind for us all, I think, rather than ever convincing most people. Of course, it is hard to see others being intentionally misled. Most people would rather believe an attractive lie than the truth, as Bacon observed. He sure knew a lot! 

Hi Christie. Thank you for your wisdom and sanity.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

Belief is a red flag to me.

I guess that is a belief? Is this one of the puzzles where the statement makes one dizzy? Like an M. C. Escher design.

10 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

Why is it possible for humans to be convinced of different things? 

Evolution. Do the wisest survive? The most creative? Do the most exciting ideas win? Or do Lies bring power and wealth that control Truth?

5 hours ago, Christie Waldman said:

It's an interesting pursuit. It's an exercise in critical thinking. It's the focus on the journey, the tilling of the soil, the fertilization of the mind, that Bacon had in mind for us all, I think, rather than ever convincing most people.

There was a brief time I thought I would convince the world about Bacon 20 years ago. There was that rather rude awakening for me and I am still not sure I have convinced one single person. But the passion in the pursuit continues without the distraction of trying to be convincing. 😉

As far as what I believe, how can anyone not have a belief?

image.png.8b5c9f549ddeb7b80365aaa4794358bb.png

  • Like 1
  • Wow! 3

T A A A A A A A A A A A T
157     www.Light-of-Truth.com     287
<-- 1 8 8 1 1
O 1 1 8 8 1 -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Light-of-Truth said:

I guess that is a belief? Is this one of the puzzles where the statement makes one dizzy? Like an M. C. Escher design.

Evolution. Do the wisest survive? The most creative? Do the most exciting ideas win? Or do Lies bring power and wealth that control Truth?

There was a brief time I thought I would convince the world about Bacon 20 years ago. There was that rather rude awakening for me and I am still not sure I have convinced one single person. But the passion in the pursuit continues without the distraction of trying to be convincing. 😉

As far as what I believe, how can anyone not have a belief?

image.png.8b5c9f549ddeb7b80365aaa4794358bb.png

In the theatre, suspension of disbelief is necessary in order to understand the characters emotionally. Similarly, history without empathy is like dust without water - nothing can grow.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to say, I do intend to read everything A Phoenix has written eventually! (if I can keep up). And Kate's book too.

Also at the top of my list are the three books of the English churchman Walter Begley. He is easy to read. E. Winkler in her new book made one brief reference to Begley. She said he was the one who first suggested Bacon might be gay (Or was it Shakespeare? I get the two confused!).  She cited no source.

Also, if I may edit myself, all of Bacon's secrets were not put there just for us to find as a splendid treasure hunt. He had real state secrets to conceal and confidences to keep. 

Eric, there is so much in those two brief sentences you just wrote.

On 7/31/2023 at 11:19 PM, Eric Roberts said:

In the theatre, suspension of disbelief is necessary in order to understand the characters emotionally. Similarly, history without empathy is like dust without water - nothing can grow.

I'd love to hear you expand on those thoughts.  I hear the possibility of an essay or more! That is such a beautiful comparison you have made.

Light-of-Truth, I'm sure I thought my book would convince the world. LOL.  But you never know who might pick up the torch on what we do here.  It is so odd to me that I would be the one to read and not be able to forget Mark Edwin Andrews' book, written when he was a law student (in 1935, rediscovered and published in 1965, first seen by me in 1980, and nothing done until 2015 when Lawrence suggested I write a review of it. It has been five years since my book was published, and I'm feeling kind of retrospective. My gratitude and loyalty are to SirBacon. 

 

Edited by Christie Waldman
I do want to read Kate's book too!
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

I guess that is a belief? Is this one of the puzzles where the statement makes one dizzy? Like an M. C. Escher design.

Evolution. Do the wisest survive? The most creative? Do the most exciting ideas win? Or do Lies bring power and wealth that control Truth?

There was a brief time I thought I would convince the world about Bacon 20 years ago. There was that rather rude awakening for me and I am still not sure I have convinced one single person. But the passion in the pursuit continues without the distraction of trying to be convincing. 😉

As far as what I believe, how can anyone not have a belief?

image.png.8b5c9f549ddeb7b80365aaa4794358bb.png

You will be confused to the degree that you allow a flimsy definition of the word. If you want to forever make belief have the meaning that is encapsulated in "I believe it is going to rain" then there is a problem isn't there? Those who believe in God will say that belief is so much more than that. Most people who use belief that way are not in fact unconditionally accepting that it will rain. The aren't actually believing in the prognostication. What they are trying to say is that they have a conditionally accepted the suggestion that it will rain, for whatever reason. And that is fine. They can be wrong and that will not surprise them. Until it rains rain is but a suggestion. That would  be a very precise way of speaking. If we compare that with what is encapsulated by sayin: "I believe that Francis Bacon is not at all who he is portrayed to be by historians" then belief takes on a more affirmative nature.  Do you or don't you? is that an overstating of the position? Would you want that use of belief to count as a statement about unconditional acceptance or conditional acceptance? It is not hard to wrap one's head around the difference. I don't understand why you would want to try and dumb it down to make it sound confusing. Those who have their minds made up before they start tilling the soil are unconditionally accepting of something. Believing of something is a proper expression to use to describe it. They are the ones who are entitled to use belief and have it mean something with teeth. If you were open to having things fall either way then belief in that case is not that informative. 

Bacon would certainly have been aware of this because the religious belief about a creative force is of the unconditional nature to these men. There is no arguing it. They have started off with that belief and have tilled the soil around in an attempt to adorn their belief will scholarly machinations (some of them truly bizarre as in the case of James' demonology). This is of no use to science and/or reason. The reasonable position is that there can be no beliefs to start off with when there is something about the underlying that must be shown. This idea may have had one burned in the public square in 1600. 

You have my complete blessing in correcting me if I use the word belief in a way that confuses you. I would ask that you not assume I believe in anything in the unconditional sense. One of the things you point out is that humans don't function with impeccable vocabularies. Efforts by me to try and make sure we can agree of what I am saying are just that. We actually don't know exactly what another person thinks we are saying when we are saying it. That is because we are fundamentally relying on imperfect syllogisms.  We are supposed to be confused to some degree when we listen to each other. 

There is a great reluctance to admit that we cannot know the answer to deep ontological questions. The incessant talk about how this is actually possible by some  revelatory experience ought not impress us. That is simply a primitive idea about how one should be able to use his sensory tools to be able to know an idea about some reality is correct (feel it). There's no such certainty available to us. We can impair our brains with substances and alter our states of mind and that will not give us a better footing in reason. We still do not know what is going on in these instances.

The one thing that Bacon's scientific Philosophy gets going is that we can build up a functional description of the world. The classification of nature is possible. That does not confer deep understanding. Defining phenomena with words does not confer understanding either. We did not understand gravity when we called it that. It has a functional definition that does not explain how it works. What is impressive is that we are still capable of reliably engineering things with less than complete understanding. Conditional acceptance of some imperfect suggestions is good enough to build an airplane. There's a degree of certainty that is not required. Scientists like to talk of knowing better, but  what we are really doing is developing ways to do things while still not knowing how the whole thing works at the most fundamental levels. It's very hit and miss. Things have to be tried out and confirmed. Nobody ever knows.

We've not gained an inch in understanding why things truly are the way they are (Philosophers or scientists). Because we've discovered that it really doesn't matter, we were able to section off philosophy from science. Philosophers can wrack their brains about unanswerable questions while scientists engineer a world out of repeatable phenomena imperfectly described. For the record, science cannot get you to complete understanding. The whole thing resides in a mystery kept in a vault that is unattainable (the truly ancient expressed view). In the Ancient Hebrew there wasn't any of the certainty that modern Christians have. The worst aspects of this have come to us from the Greeks, and some Hebrews managed to get themselves influenced by that Hellenism (and involve revelation as a mechanism) to get us a very confused modern picture (a snapshot) of what men have forever believed about the working of the cosmos that greatly differs from what has been believed at any given point.

The Greek influence on Bacon is profound. He's been corrupted by Pythagoras and Plato, thoroughly. Many were. We've struggled with ideas of cycles and immortality ever since. Is Bacon trying to be immortal in the sense that Alexander the Great believed it was possible (by deeds)? Again, that was not part of the original Hebrew ideas. Bacon would be resting in Sheol if he was faithful to the oldest ideas. He expresses the belief in celestial reunions and the eventual answering of questions. Efforts to harmonize the Jewish and the Christian worldviews are a feature of Bacon's time. Getting Christos married to AA and the ides of a duality of timelines hinging on some end times is an important thing to consider.  

Don't ask me what to believe. We have imperfect knowledge to make a picture with. What we do know is that there has been an evolution in thinking, as you point out. It is beyond useless to speak of lies and liars. We are all impostors when it comes to the holding of beliefs. We have to function with fragmentary knowledge which will never get us to day one. It's gets us to some future which will also be different. Today we fret about disingenuous economic liars, and the imperfection of the language is breathtaking. Power is different. We all do have a good sense that power is a zero sum game. To have it we understand we must take it from one who has it. That's probably a good enough understanding to explain the state of the world. Many have no power. It takes enormous wealth to have power. That requires enormous inequality. To have Bacon be who he is suggested to be some would have to wrestle the tile away from another. Is that why there is effort? Does a dead man deserve the effort or should he be left sleeping in Sheol where his bones are not to be stirred?

 

  • Wow! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...