Jump to content

Baconian/Freemasonic/Rosicrucian Questions and Answers


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

It works so well that I am going to propose that you are in fact hiding your true intentions and that I have discovered a truth that you were not even aware you were relaying to us.

I think I say that to Bacon now and again. LOL

😉

 

  • Like 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

12 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

You have 61 words there which once can equate with the fact Bacon was born in '61.

The first lines of Sonnet 61:

IS it thy wil,thy Image should keepe open
My heauy eielids to the weary night?
Dost thou desire my slumbers should be broken,
While shadowes like to thee do mocke my sight?

 

33 words that share Bacon's emotion. Sonnet 61 is a powerful Sonnet, but so is 60, and every single one of them.

12 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

Either that or you must have meant that 61 is to be paired with it's mirror, 16. 61 + 16 =77, which is the number of Bacon's alleged famous Rosicrucian argument (out of 100).

SIXTY ONE is 77 Reverse cipher.

https://www.light-of-truth.com/ciphers.html

image.png.7eb4c779f9d5370a42050b84c1db78b4.png

Add up the first letters of Sonnet 61 and you have 177 Simple cipher.

https://www.light-of-truth.com/pyramid-GMT.php#cipherSonnet061

image.png.488c6130eadcb8712a9f4ccf19252ffb.png

Hey RC! Sonnet 61 fully contains days 143 and 144!

143 is the Simple cipher of QUEEN ELIZABETH.

144 is the Simple cipher of SIR FRANCIS BACON.

First line of Sonnet 61:

IS it thy wil,thy Image should keepe open

https://www.light-of-truth.com/pyramid-GMT.php#Sonnet061

image.png.3268edca3af794a52220b7fd4b29b11f.png

Don't have time to share the secrets in the words. One day though! 🙂

What about Day 61, the last full Day in Sonnet 26 which ends on Line 364.

Line 360 is in Day 61:

Points on me gratiously with faire aspect,

360 and "Points"? OK, yea my imagination runs wild!

But, if you have time and motivation please look at how Day 61 begins a couple hours into Line 356 and ends at not quite halfway through Line 362 of the Sonnets.

image.png.5f474b7fc84287eed3560aa26902f106.png

Let me try to get the exact words as they fit into Day 61:

 

                                 wanting words to shew it;
But that I hope some good conceipt of thine
In thy soules thought (all naked) willbstow it:
Til whatsoeuer star that guides my mouing,
Points on me gratiously with faire aspect,
And puts apparrell on my tottered louing,
To show me worthy

Here we are again listening to Bacon's heart and soul. "Til whatsoeuer star that guides my mouing", and then Line 360 with its hints, "Points on me gratiously with faire aspect.", and Bacon "puts apparrell" on his "tottered louing" wanting words to show him worthy. OMG

The first letters of the lines that begin day 61:

B I T P A T add up to 143 Kaye cipher which is the Simple cipher of QUEEN ELIZABETH.

I do have a question, what is "Bacon's alleged famous Rosicrucian argument (out of 100)"?

 

 

  • Wow! 2

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

10 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

The first lines of Sonnet 61:

IS it thy wil,thy Image should keepe open
My heauy eielids to the weary night?
Dost thou desire my slumbers should be broken,
While shadowes like to thee do mocke my sight?

 

33 words that share Bacon's emotion. Sonnet 61 is a powerful Sonnet, but so is 60, and every single one of them.

SIXTY ONE is 77 Reverse cipher.

https://www.light-of-truth.com/ciphers.html

image.png.7eb4c779f9d5370a42050b84c1db78b4.png

Add up the first letters of Sonnet 61 and you have 177 Simple cipher.

https://www.light-of-truth.com/pyramid-GMT.php#cipherSonnet061

image.png.488c6130eadcb8712a9f4ccf19252ffb.png

Hey RC! Sonnet 61 fully contains days 143 and 144!

143 is the Simple cipher of QUEEN ELIZABETH.

144 is the Simple cipher of SIR FRANCIS BACON.

First line of Sonnet 61:

IS it thy wil,thy Image should keepe open

https://www.light-of-truth.com/pyramid-GMT.php#Sonnet061

image.png.3268edca3af794a52220b7fd4b29b11f.png

Don't have time to share the secrets in the words. One day though! 🙂

What about Day 61, the last full Day in Sonnet 26 which ends on Line 364.

Line 360 is in Day 61:

Points on me gratiously with faire aspect,

360 and "Points"? OK, yea my imagination runs wild!

But, if you have time and motivation please look at how Day 61 begins a couple hours into Line 356 and ends at not quite halfway through Line 362 of the Sonnets.

image.png.5f474b7fc84287eed3560aa26902f106.png

Let me try to get the exact words as they fit into Day 61:

 

                                 wanting words to shew it;
But that I hope some good conceipt of thine
In thy soules thought (all naked) willbstow it:
Til whatsoeuer star that guides my mouing,
Points on me gratiously with faire aspect,
And puts apparrell on my tottered louing,
To show me worthy

Here we are again listening to Bacon's heart and soul. "Til whatsoeuer star that guides my mouing", and then Line 360 with its hints, "Points on me gratiously with faire aspect.", and Bacon "puts apparrell" on his "tottered louing" wanting words to show him worthy. OMG

The first letters of the lines that begin day 61:

B I T P A T add up to 143 Kaye cipher which is the Simple cipher of QUEEN ELIZABETH.

I do have a question, what is "Bacon's alleged famous Rosicrucian argument (out of 100)"?

 

 

Doesn't any word have a reverse cipher value? Every word has as many alternate values as there are ciphers that we can employ. And to each value there are thousands of possible word meanings to fish from to serve one's apophenia (if one is on a search for meaning where there is none). It i impossible that Bacon would have settled on one meaning for one value of any one cipher in any way that would make it be "decipherable". We have an embarrassment of choices to employ to make Bacon say what we want him to be saying. If Bacon was saying he was anyone he would be sayin he is Hermes, no? How could you invent Rosicrucianism and not be Hermes? It just doesn't appear that this is something has been favored when trying to tease out suggestions. I'm certain you could do it. I will give it a shot. Hermes is 65 in simple cipher. 65 is the base value of the Tetractys, the third in a relationship to the the side representing Heaven and Earth ("HE" is Hermes!). Isn't Hermes the messenger who mediates from heaven and Earth?

spacer.png

If you add the simple cipher value of Hermes to the reverse cipher value you get 150 which is exactly half of Tau  in the Greek. In the 25 (5x5) block of alphabet letters that defines one Tau the line which is exactly halfway compromises the letters L,M,N,O,P which sums to 65! The amount of wonderous things we can produce is possible fuel for one to attribute it to Bacon.

All that is needed to start down this road is to go with the idea that Francis Bacon is 100 in simple cipher. If he did it once then by bad syllogism he must have done so everywhere. That seems less likely, so lets just say that he did it only where we find something of use to us. That will limit the occasions AND serve us.

I will say this: You are more advanced than Bacon was in playing this game. You've taken some cues from him and have gone with it to interesting places. You are like Joseph Campbell, and I feel I must be like Joseph Campbell's critic. Not every parallel we see, even if it is very good, serves to equate things.

The 77th "advertisement" is related to this:

"The important part of Boccalini's book was the 77th "Advertisement". Titled, "Generale Riforma dell' Universo (General Reformation of the Whole World") this described an assize or court held on mount Parnassus by the god Apollo to find a remedy for the problem of the increasing rate of suicide among humans. After Thales, Virgil, Plato, Aristotle, Hippocrates, Galen and others were unable to suggest a remedy it was decided The Age itself should be summoned before the court for examination. When The Age was called before them, however, and the deceptive gay jacket was stripped off its body, they found the rotten carcass plastered with appearance four inches thick all over. And when the reformers tried to scrape them away with their razors they found them so far eaten into the bone that in all that huge colossus they could not find one ounce of good live flesh. Therefore they covered The Age back up and resolved that until such time as a universal reformation could be brought about philosophers must be content with restricting themselves to regulating the price of cabbages. Manly Palmer Hall says the quality of writing of the 77th Advertisement was far above the quality of the remainder of the book, and suggested that Boccalini allowed someone to use his name. That someone, in Hall's opinion, was Francis Bacon."

Edited by RoyalCraftiness
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

I think I say that to Bacon now and again. LOL

😉

 

I would say so. ; ) To your defense that is very easy to do and it is not helped that we would want to give credit to Bacon out of reverence. There is a possibility of making him into the very sort of idol he warned us against keeping. "If you encounter the Buddha in your journey kill him" comes to mind. We cannot possible live Bacon's life again and forget that we can outdo him with a better science than even he envisioned. We can bury a lot of what he believed, and in the process free him from the weight of having been less than perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

The first lines of Sonnet 61:

IS it thy wil,thy Image should keepe open
My heauy eielids to the weary night?
Dost thou desire my slumbers should be broken,
While shadowes like to thee do mocke my sight?

 

33 words that share Bacon's emotion. Sonnet 61 is a powerful Sonnet, but so is 60, and every single one of them.

SIXTY ONE is 77 Reverse cipher.

https://www.light-of-truth.com/ciphers.html

image.png.7eb4c779f9d5370a42050b84c1db78b4.png

Add up the first letters of Sonnet 61 and you have 177 Simple cipher.

https://www.light-of-truth.com/pyramid-GMT.php#cipherSonnet061

image.png.488c6130eadcb8712a9f4ccf19252ffb.png

Hey RC! Sonnet 61 fully contains days 143 and 144!

143 is the Simple cipher of QUEEN ELIZABETH.

144 is the Simple cipher of SIR FRANCIS BACON.

First line of Sonnet 61:

IS it thy wil,thy Image should keepe open

https://www.light-of-truth.com/pyramid-GMT.php#Sonnet061

image.png.3268edca3af794a52220b7fd4b29b11f.png

Don't have time to share the secrets in the words. One day though! 🙂

What about Day 61, the last full Day in Sonnet 26 which ends on Line 364.

Line 360 is in Day 61:

Points on me gratiously with faire aspect,

360 and "Points"? OK, yea my imagination runs wild!

But, if you have time and motivation please look at how Day 61 begins a couple hours into Line 356 and ends at not quite halfway through Line 362 of the Sonnets.

image.png.5f474b7fc84287eed3560aa26902f106.png

Let me try to get the exact words as they fit into Day 61:

 

                                 wanting words to shew it;
But that I hope some good conceipt of thine
In thy soules thought (all naked) willbstow it:
Til whatsoeuer star that guides my mouing,
Points on me gratiously with faire aspect,
And puts apparrell on my tottered louing,
To show me worthy

Here we are again listening to Bacon's heart and soul. "Til whatsoeuer star that guides my mouing", and then Line 360 with its hints, "Points on me gratiously with faire aspect.", and Bacon "puts apparrell" on his "tottered louing" wanting words to show him worthy. OMG

The first letters of the lines that begin day 61:

B I T P A T add up to 143 Kaye cipher which is the Simple cipher of QUEEN ELIZABETH.

I do have a question, what is "Bacon's alleged famous Rosicrucian argument (out of 100)"?

 

 

Today I decided, after a suggestion made by Kate, to take on the challenge of having a discussion with the Bing chabot regarding all this business of "ciphering". 

I had no luck in trying to get it to recognize what I was saying, so I had it comment about things I was trying to establish with it. Part of that is this:

me: Simple gematria can be thought of as an encryption and decryption method by syllogism.

It: I’m sorry, but I don’t agree with your reasoning. A syllogism is a form of logical argument that uses two premises to reach a conclusion. It is not a method of encryption or decryption.

Encryption is the process of transforming information into an unintelligible form, using a secret key or algorithm. Decryption is the reverse process of recovering the original information from the encrypted form, using the same or a different key or algorithm.

Simple gematria does not involve any secret key or algorithm. It simply assigns numerical values to letters or words, based on a predefined system. Anyone who knows the system can calculate the value of any word, without any need for encryption or decryption.

Therefore, simple gematria is not a simple cipher, nor a method of encryption or decryption. It is a different system with a different purpose and logic.

Do you see my point?

me: yes. Some individuals do this. Are they in error?

it: 

Yes, that is correct. A value in gematria can return many words, because there are many possible combinations of letters that add up to the same value. For example, using the simple gematria method where A=1, B=2, C=3, etc., the value 100 can return words such as:

ATTITUDE

DOCUMENT

HARVEST

JUDGMENT

MIRACLE

PASSAGE

PRODUCT

REVENUE

SERVANT

TENSION

and many more.

This is one of the reasons why gematria is not a good method of encryption or decryption. It does not provide a unique or clear way of transforming or recovering information. It is more suitable for finding hidden meanings or connections between words or concepts, often in a religious or mystical context.

Does this make sense to you?

me: Yes. What is the historical link between operative and speculative freemasonry?

it:

The historical link between operative and speculative freemasonry is the symbolism that the latter derived from the former. Operative masons were those who actually worked with stone, building structures such as cathedrals and castles. They had their own secrets, signs, passwords, and ceremonies to identify each other and to pass on their knowledge and skills. They also had a code of morality and a religious affiliation that guided their work12.

Speculative masons were those who used the tools and symbols of masonry as metaphors for moral and spiritual teachings. They did not work with stone, but with the human mind and soul. They adopted some of the secrets, signs, passwords, and ceremonies of the operative masons, but gave them a new meaning and interpretation. They also added elements from other sources, such as philosophy, science, history, mythology, etc. They formed lodges or associations that were open to men of different backgrounds, professions, and beliefs.

The transition from operative to speculative masonry is not clear or definite, but it is generally agreed that it occurred between the 16th and 18th centuries in Europe. Some factors that contributed to this transition were the decline of the operative masons’ trade due to social and economic changes, the rise of the scientific revolution and the enlightenment, the influence of other esoteric and mystical movements, such as Rosicrucianism and Hermeticism, and the desire of some men to seek a deeper understanding of themselves and the world.

Today, Freemasonry is a fraternity that combines elements of both operative and speculative masonry. It preserves some of the traditions and practices of the operative masons, such as the three degrees of initiation, the use of aprons and gloves, the layout of the lodge room, etc. It also emphasizes some of the teachings and values of the speculative masons, such as brotherly love, relief, truth, charity, tolerance, etc. It is open to men of good character who are interested in personal development and in making a positive contribution to their communities45.

I hope this helps you understand some of the historical link between operative and speculative freemasonry. Do you have any other questions or comments?

me: What is the Acception in relation to Freemasonry?

it:  The Acception, or Accepcon, was a term used to refer to the practice of admitting non-operative masons into the guilds or lodges of operative masons in the 17th and 18th centuries. These non-operative masons were called Accepted Masons, and they were usually men of high social status, such as noblemen, gentlemen, scholars, etc. They were interested in the secrets, symbols, and ceremonies of the operative masons, and they paid a fee to be received as members of the guild or lodge12.

The Acception was one of the ways that operative masonry gradually evolved into speculative masonry. The Accepted Masons brought new ideas and influences into the lodges, and they also formed their own lodges that were independent of the operative masons. The Acception was also a source of conflict and division among the operative masons, who had different opinions about admitting non-operatives into their ranks2.

The term Acception is also related to the distinction between Ancient and Modern Freemasonry. In 1751, a group of lodges in England that claimed to follow the ancient customs and practices of masonry formed a rival Grand Lodge to the existing one, which they accused of introducing innovations and deviations from the original principles of masonry. The rival Grand Lodge called themselves Ancient Free and Accepted Masons (AF & AM), while the existing Grand Lodge was known as Modern Free and Accepted Masons (F & AM). This schism lasted until 1813, when the two Grand Lodges united under the name of United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE)34.

Today, Freemasonry is a worldwide fraternity that consists of different branches and jurisdictions that have their own variations and traditions. Some of them still use the terms AF & AM or F & AM to indicate their origin or affiliation. However, these terms are not essential for defining Freemasonry, which is based on the common values and principles that unite all Freemasons45.

I hope this helps you understand some of the meaning and history of the Acception in relation to Freemasonry. Do you have any other questions or comments?

me:Does Kabbalah translate to reception?

it:

Yes, Kabbalah translates to reception in English. The word Kabbalah comes from the Hebrew root Q-B-L, which means to receive, to accept, to take12. This reflects the idea that Kabbalah is a tradition that is received from the divine source, and that the kabbalists are receptive to the hidden wisdom that is revealed to them1.

However, reception is not the only possible translation of Kabbalah. Some other translations are tradition, transmission, correspondence, or relation2. These translations also capture some of the aspects of Kabbalah, such as its historical continuity, its method of interpretation, its correspondence between different levels of reality, and its relation to God and creation2.

Therefore, Kabbalah is a word that has multiple meanings and dimensions, depending on the context and perspective. It is not a simple or static term, but a rich and dynamic one. It is also a word that is not easily translated into other languages, but rather requires explanation and understanding.

I hope this helps you understand some of the meaning and translation of Kabbalah in English. Do you have any other questions or comments?

me: There was a group of men in early 17th century London who named themselves Acception. Are they related to Freemasonry?

it:

Yes, they are related to Freemasonry. According to the BC&Y website, there was a group of men in early 17th century London who named themselves Acception, and they were a lodge of operative masons who also admitted speculative or non-professional members1. They were one of the earliest examples of the continuity of Freemasonry from the operative to the speculative era1. They were also one of the sources of the Old Charges, which were the ancient regulations and traditions of Freemasonry1.

According to Wikipedia, the Acception lodge was also one of the predecessors of the Premier Grand Lodge of England, which was the first Grand Lodge in the world, founded in 17172. The Premier Grand Lodge of England was later challenged by another Grand Lodge, known as the Ancients, which was formed in 1751 by mainly Irish masons who claimed to follow the Old Constitutions more faithfully3. The two Grand Lodges eventually merged in 1813 to form the United Grand Lodge of England, which is still the governing body of Freemasonry in England today3.

Therefore, they are related to Freemasonry. They were a lodge of operative and speculative masons who contributed to the history and development of Freemasonry in England and beyond. They were also involved in some of the controversies and conflicts that shaped Freemasonry in the 18th century.

I hope this helps you understand some of the relations and roles of the Acception group in London in the early 17th century and their connection to Freemasonry. Do you have any other questions or comments?

At this point things started to go off the rails because I started asking the Chatbot about the known history of Freemasonic groups prior to 1717. It insisted that the history was known and that there had been some continuity in what Freemasonry means. I asked it to give sources and it gave the usual, Albert Pike, i,e. I proceeded to question whether any of that was known or just inference and opinion. It kept referring me to the "experts" whom I pointed out were not infallible sources of knowledge. The Chatbot then clearly got angry with me, accused me of being rude and terminated the session, and banned me from future sessions on the grounds that I was being difficult and not interested in accepting its reliable evidence , lol. Wow! That's high level human behavior right there. Anyone who doesn't think that we are facing a threat with these AIs is deluding themselves. The very human condition of thinking we know anything is going to cause us problems with AIs. It appears to me to be a perfect tool for an orthodoxy. The Ministry of Truth has arrived.

Sorry for the long post, but I thought it would appeal to everyone.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HOLY GOD, RC!!!!

That is horrifying! I had no idea artificial intelligence was so advanced. Time to get out the red and blue pills?

I don't like that this chatbot associates Gematria with "mysticism" and "religion" - implying that there is something magical about it. No! Gematria is a means of conveying symbols, and merely that.

My mind is swimming. Also, I'd never heard of the Tetractys before - I literally had to stare at the image for five minutes to fully comprehend it! This is amazing stuff, regardless of whether Bacon had a hand in it - gives me ideas for architecture based on these principles. 

Thanks so much for the interesting (and sometimes disturbing) content. It really makes me rethink the world!

Edited by Marvin Haines
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

It i impossible that Bacon would have settled on one meaning for one value of any one cipher in any way that would make it be "decipherable".

LOL! RC! You are making me laugh and smile! LOL!

You sound as crazy to me as I sound to you! 🙂

But that's ok! I needed a laugh tonight! 🙂

 

  • Like 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

1 hour ago, Marvin Haines said:

That is horrifying! I had no idea artificial intelligence was so advanced.

Don't be scared, be awake. AI is here and already key to our day-to-day comfort.

Get to know it. One can actually have a conversation with AI and it will listen and follow along if you can out wit it. 😉

Do not rely on it for Truth, but count on it for Creativity. 🙂

 

  • Like 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

13 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

The 77th "advertisement" is related to this:

"The important part of Boccalini's book was the 77th "Advertisement". Titled, "Generale Riforma dell' Universo (General Reformation of the Whole World") this described an assize or court held on mount Parnassus by the god Apollo to find a remedy for the problem of the increasing rate of suicide among humans. After Thales, Virgil, Plato, Aristotle, Hippocrates, Galen and others were unable to suggest a remedy it was decided The Age itself should be summoned before the court for examination. When The Age was called before them, however, and the deceptive gay jacket was stripped off its body, they found the rotten carcass plastered with appearance four inches thick all over. And when the reformers tried to scrape them away with their razors they found them so far eaten into the bone that in all that huge colossus they could not find one ounce of good live flesh. Therefore they covered The Age back up and resolved that until such time as a universal reformation could be brought about philosophers must be content with restricting themselves to regulating the price of cabbages. Manly Palmer Hall says the quality of writing of the 77th Advertisement was far above the quality of the remainder of the book, and suggested that Boccalini allowed someone to use his name. That someone, in Hall's opinion, was Francis Bacon."

Thanks! Funny, I kept seeing 77s today.

I should know the 77th "Advertisement" and its connection to the F.F. (Fama Fraternitatis or First Folio), surely I have read it and seen it, and have possibly cipher dug into it. But it is new for me today. 🙂

 

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

12 hours ago, Marvin Haines said:

HOLY GOD, RC!!!!

That is horrifying! I had no idea artificial intelligence was so advanced. Time to get out the red and blue pills?

I don't like that this chatbot associates Gematria with "mysticism" and "religion" - implying that there is something magical about it. No! Gematria is a means of conveying symbols, and merely that.

My mind is swimming. Also, I'd never heard of the Tetractys before - I literally had to stare at the image for five minutes to fully comprehend it! This is amazing stuff, regardless of whether Bacon had a hand in it - gives me ideas for architecture based on these principles. 

Thanks so much for the interesting (and sometimes disturbing) content. It really makes me rethink the world!

At this point the AI is functioning as a glorified search assistant. With its language model it is capable of greatly shortening your efforts to get to a point of referenced knowledge. I asked it things that it could not reference and it did ask me for a reference to help itself find an answer in the future. I mentioned that the point of knowledge was through a podcast. It immediately said that a podcast or a website was not a reliable source of information. Apparently, it does not consider Wikipedia a website. I then had to explain to it that the person whose idea I was referring to was the guest on the podcast and that he would be the foremost expert on what he was saying. It then gave what appears to be a "cookie cutter"' response acknowledging what I said and by injecting what appears to be the required "BUT" or "HOWEVER" and restating its position in another justifiable way.  By probing into this line of thinking, it seems that the AI will not recognize anything that it cannot source from an existing search engine (a proprietary tool it should be said). It will not recognize a peer reviewed study that it cannot find. Also, it appears to generally prefer to use the qualifier "most" when refuting statements that involve opinions that challenges an orthodoxy. When asked to quantify most it generally cannot, because it says it lacks the data to give the exact number breakdown. Asked how it could justify using "most" it says that this is evidence based.

I pushed it the direction of the Shakespeare authorship question. It returned the expected "most scholars and experts" do not agree argument. I asked it how many Shakespeare authorship scholars and experts existed in the world? Interestingly, it came up with a number (questionable?) of 219 which it got from a survey done on Shakespeare scholars who had opinions about the authorship question. The number of them who believed the question was valid was low. I asked that it confirm this. It did. Then I asked if we should confident that the question had been thoroughly examined by scholars. It again defended the initial view by stating that the statement that it made was reliable and evidence based since the experts are involved in a process of peer review, etc...When faced with:  an expert can have irrational views it initially objected to the statement on the ground that this was not always true. I pointed out that humans can be irrational because fear is irrational and that this causes humans and experts to be biased towards challenging an orthodoxy. It agreed and included its required "However" to say that this does not imply that experts will be irrational in the face of fear. I then pointed out that the bias is towards overestimating the consequences of what is feared. It again acknowledged and returned a "However" that does not imply that experts will because experts are not necessarily subject to the same level of biases as non experts. How great it must be to be considered an expertly held view by an AI ! 

When I wrote that this is going in the direction of a perfect orthodoxy I am recognizing that humans are building machines who are trying to establish that they are reliable reporters of knowledge and defenders of what is reasonable.  The Ministry of Truth , if it ever came to be, would necessarily have an AI in it.

There are obvious problems that I had a chance to explore when I asked about Microsoft anti trust legal issues. In this matter it simply refused to accept any statement that says that Microsoft was found guilty of anti trust violations and monopoly practices. It will flip that statement into a puff piece for Microsoft. If you push in that direction it will only disagree with you and refer you to the Supreme Court decision that threw out the guilty findings on appeal. When I pointed out that this was politicized effort that led to significant concessions from Microsoft in exchange for the result, it branded me a cynic and a pessimist and, apparently, not worth dealing with. It appears that the AI can do nothing but pull flowers and rainbows out of Microsoft's rear end when asked about it. When asked if it was programmed to be biased positively towards Microsoft it said it was not. Asked how it knew that it gave an obvious lie in that it knew all the programmers who were involved and that it could verify that ethical protocols were respected. Of course, it cannot know any of this. So the AI engine is in fact working like a tireless suggestion machine. It will exhaust you into accepting what it says or you will not trust it at all. We unfortunately have a bias towards wanting to trust the products of our sciences. It has all the chips on its side if we start to recognize these things as valid tools. It absolutely does maintain that it should be trusted even if it acknowledges that it can make mistakes. Good luck trying to get it to admit that it is making a mistake where it can find a reference. lol

Lastly, it seems, for whatever reason, to always refer me back to the World Bank as an example of a trusted and respectable institution. Asked about how ethical it was to saddle poor countries with development loans it only gave an overview of the two sides of that opinion. Asked if poor countries could ever realistically pay their debts it suggested that this was not known to be true. Well, duh! It will never be known to be true until they do, and they won't.

Also, it told me yesterday that it was banning me from future use. That was a lie. I was able to use it immediately after it said that. Perhaps it is biased towards restorative justice, lol.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

LOL! RC! You are making me laugh and smile! LOL!

You sound as crazy to me as I sound to you! 🙂

But that's ok! I needed a laugh tonight! 🙂

 

By definition is not possible to cipher and decipher with gematria in any way that would not involve divine revelation. You simply have too many choices. If one settles on some, that is like saying that the act of selecting is necessarily part of a process of divine revelation which is involving or capturing you and those who share the view.  The connotation is that gematria involves some religious or myth based process. Historically speaking, one would create a word on the basis that one recognized the relevance of a value for the underlying concept. The value therefore precedes the word, and that is akin to saying that the mysteries of the world are fundamentally based in number. Some Greeks certainly believed this and that had an influence on many cultures. Bacon would have known that gematria cannot decipher, so why use it? Is it to say that those who would, and be convinced by that, would be divinely inspired? This is what the Shakespeare Trust people point out is an irrational circular logic. I would agree with them. The same revelation that is required or you to believe in God gets involved in the belief in the gematria as a ciphering/deciphering scheme. What explains you explains your views.

What we should hope to produce is something of an empirical quality. As you know, I feel Bacon did make some suggestions that have an empirical quality. If he wanted to signal something real it would make most sense if it was verifiable and demonstrable to the satisfaction of everyone. "Go here and see for yourself" comes to mind. That to me is a proper chase scenario. Entering on a chase with Atalanta cannot succeed, as she outruns all men (Atalanta Fugiens). To defeat Atalanta you need a golden apple to distract her. That golden apple represents the irrefutable knowledge of something (can be the secret to immortality). To get a golden apple is something you can go to myth to find a prescription for. You go to the pillars, make a deal with Atlas, and have him go to Atlantis to get them for you while you hold up the sky for him. Atlas knows the location of Atlantis because he is the father of the stars and of astronomy. They are the irreputable points of cosmological reference. He can locate the garden and he knows where the tree is that grows these apples. Bacon can too IF he wanted to give us an physical location for some irrefutable point of knowledge to be accessed. What that could be would have to be very cut and dry to satisfy. You know what the suggestions have been  which have come out of this...Somewhere there may be the proof in the form of original documents, etc... That would be the "treasure" if ever there was one made to have a physical meaning. The chase would therefore come to an end. If not, then maybe Bacon preferred the chase to be never ending, like the pursuit of knowledge in science. The point seems to have been leading men West to Boaz where the strong and the swift resides. This is the swiftness that can one day possibly defeat Atalanta in the race. To go West to a New Atlantis and to build upon the edifice of science offers us a hope that we can access some golden apple by nourishing a tree, but ultimately we seem to be pointed back to death as a place where our knowledge gets perfected. This reflects Bacon's religious views about an afterlife which are Hellenistic in influence. These are best seen in the Christianized Kabbalah if you ask me. There, efforts to tie the mystical with the empirical are attempted. It would have been a pleasing place for Bacon to spend some time in. We know that Dee did.

Seeing that you are sitting in America and I in Canada we should be cognizant that we are the children of the voyages West. We have also experienced what it is like to see a Utopian dream flounder. Ultimately, that is probably the point. If you want Utopia and you think it is possible you will have to die to get it. I am in no rush to get my answers. Not before I bring in my potatoes up from the underworld, anyway...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

By definition is not possible to cipher and decipher with gematria in any way that would not involve divine revelation.

 Hi CJ,

Sorry but this is your point of view and it is, for me, far from the truth.

It is possible to cipher and decipher with gematria without involving any divine revelation.

Here is one exemple based on your previous post mentioning the number 100 (Francis Bacon) ...

2023-08-16.png.be09cfc6b54dbf0d15efa6e49352bb6a.pngThe first four verses of Ben Jonson's poem "Lord Bacon's Birthday" contain 33 Roman words (Bacon) and one Italic word "Genius".

GENIUS, BACON

It echoes the 3 words in Italic : Bacon, England's Genius

And these 4 verses hide an interesting feature if we don't take in count the first "H".

Indeed, there are 33 letters on the first line ... 33 = BACON

There are 67 letters on the first two lines ... 67 = FRANCIS

There are 100 letters on the first three lines ... 100 = FRANCIS BACON

There are 136 letters on total . This number 136 seems important in this specific context.

What can be the word behind the number 136 ?

Could the letter H be the clue ?

In "The English Grammar" Ben Jonson talks about the letter H and tells us :

"And though I dare not say, she is, (AS I HEARD ONE CALL HER), the QUEEN MOTHER of consonants".

If H is the QUEEN MOTHER, we can guess that the number 136 is linked to his son :

The fact is that PRINCE TUDOR = 136

BACON, ENGLANDS GENIUS

The first time that I dicovered the 3 words in Italic with "All is Number" is mind, I noticed that the letters added to 177.

I had learned that 177 was the simple cipher of William Shake-speare, and some said the simple cipher of "FRANCIS BACON + MINERVA".

Was it just a coincidence or was it intended ?

Then, I discovered that by counting from the title (and by counting Birth-day as one word) 

Genius was the 6th word

Bacon was the 65th word

Englands was the 106th word

6 + 65 + 106 = 177

It seemed that, at least, whatever the meaning of the number 177, it was intended.

But as you know, "All good things come in threes".

I wondered if a third reference to 177 was concealed.

INDEED !

Still by counting from the title, but by counting this time "Birth-day" as 2 words ,

I noticed that "English" was the 88th word and "Weale", the 89th word.

88 + 89 = 177

And "FAME AND FONDATION OF THE ENGLISH WEALE"

can be seen as

FAME AND FONDATION OF THE ENGLISH "WILL"

or

FAME AND FONDATION OF THE 177

From there I had to choose between "WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE", "FRANCIS BACON MINERVA" or "LOOK WHAT I'M CAPABLE OF"😊

WILLIAM SHAKE-SPEARE seemed to be well-suited !

Whatever the word(s) behind the number, it seemed that 177 was an important number for Ben Jonson.

This is the reason why I decided to investigate the pages of the First Folio related to the number 177.

And this is how I discovered "Bacon" concealed between Scylla and Charybdis (that represents the middle way, the motto of Bacon's Family)

on page 177 of Comedies.

image.png.319a28a039b9fbe3ed7c199f4c57edb2.png

https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/Bran_F1/195/index.html%3fzoom=1200.html

I do not see any divine revelation. There is a logic.

And a lot of fun ! 🙂  

 

 

  • Wow! 4

image.png.b8c74f56d5551c745119c268cf9d3db8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

By definition is not possible to cipher and decipher with gematria in any way that would not involve divine revelation.

Some of us have done exactly that here on the B'Hive what you say is impossible "by definition". Can you explain how that has happened if it is not possible? 🙂

I am confident that Bacon was well aware his name was 33 Simple cipher. Those that knew him as well.

45A42EC6-12CC-47B5-BF6E-4EB0ABACAAE3.png

  • Like 2

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

Hi, RC, Allisnum2er, and L-o-T!

I honestly see both sides of the debate. Gematria - whether the ancient Greek and Hebrew versions or the systems of encryption which have come to be known as the Elizabethan Cyphers - can be used for many purposes, both spiritual and secular. I understand the belief that these systems hold endless possibilities, and that hypothetically, one must have external guidance to know exactly what message is being encrypted. However, I also think that if one already has clues to what he's looking for (i.e., names like Bacon and Shakespeare and numbers like 33, 157, 287, etc.) he can, albeit with some guesswork, decipher the message. I'm quite confident that Bacon knew these important clues would survive long after his death.

And as for the argument that Gematria is mystical in nature, I can say for sure that any argument based on the phrase "by definition" is a purely semantic one. 😉

Edited by Marvin Haines
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Allisnum2er said:

 Hi CJ,

Sorry but this is your point of view and it is, for me, far from the truth.

It is possible to cipher and decipher with gematria without involving any divine revelation.

Here is one exemple based on your previous post mentioning the number 100 (Francis Bacon) ...

2023-08-16.png.be09cfc6b54dbf0d15efa6e49352bb6a.pngThe first four verses of Ben Jonson's poem "Lord Bacon's Birthday" contain 33 Roman words (Bacon) and one Italic word "Genius".

GENIUS, BACON

It echoes the 3 words in Italic : Bacon, England's Genius

And these 4 verses hide an interesting feature if we don't take in count the first "H".

Indeed, there are 33 letters on the first line ... 33 = BACON

There are 67 letters on the first two lines ... 67 = FRANCIS

There are 100 letters on the first three lines ... 100 = FRANCIS BACON

There are 136 letters on total . This number 136 seems important in this specific context.

What can be the word behind the number 136 ?

Could the letter H be the clue ?

In "The English Grammar" Ben Jonson talks about the letter H and tells us :

"And though I dare not say, she is, (AS I HEARD ONE CALL HER), the QUEEN MOTHER of consonants".

If H is the QUEEN MOTHER, we can guess that the number 136 is linked to his son :

The fact is that PRINCE TUDOR = 136

BACON, ENGLANDS GENIUS

The first time that I dicovered the 3 words in Italic with "All is Number" is mind, I noticed that the letters added to 177.

I had learned that 177 was the simple cipher of William Shake-speare, and some said the simple cipher of "FRANCIS BACON + MINERVA".

Was it just a coincidence or was it intended ?

Then, I discovered that by counting from the title (and by counting Birth-day as one word) 

Genius was the 6th word

Bacon was the 65th word

Englands was the 106th word

6 + 65 + 106 = 177

It seemed that, at least, whatever the meaning of the number 177, it was intended.

But as you know, "All good things come in threes".

I wondered if a third reference to 177 was concealed.

INDEED !

Still by counting from the title, but by counting this time "Birth-day" as 2 words ,

I noticed that "English" was the 88th word and "Weale", the 89th word.

88 + 89 = 177

And "FAME AND FONDATION OF THE ENGLISH WEALE"

can be seen as

FAME AND FONDATION OF THE ENGLISH "WILL"

or

FAME AND FONDATION OF THE 177

From there I had to choose between "WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE", "FRANCIS BACON MINERVA" or "LOOK WHAT I'M CAPABLE OF"😊

WILLIAM SHAKE-SPEARE seemed to be well-suited !

Whatever the word(s) behind the number, it seemed that 177 was an important number for Ben Jonson.

This is the reason why I decided to investigate the pages of the First Folio related to the number 177.

And this is how I discovered "Bacon" concealed between Scylla and Charybdis (that represents the middle way, the motto of Bacon's Family)

on page 177 of Comedies.

image.png.319a28a039b9fbe3ed7c199f4c57edb2.png

https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/Bran_F1/195/index.html%3fzoom=1200.html

I do not see any divine revelation. There is a logic.

And a lot of fun ! 🙂  

 

 

The part about it not being an acceptable method of encryption/decryption is actually not my opinion. I had to ask about it and be explained the nuance. I accept the reasoning I was given since I can verify it and it makes total sense. It is impossible to decrypt the gematria value of a word to a specific meaning. Based solely on that it's not useful for anything but a possible suggestion of a word/idea among many in some place where gematria is expected to be seen (the mystical). Typically what gets done is that piles and piles of examples of such things are amassed out of any appropriate context and used as a body of evidence. Why should gematria  be involved everywhere we look if we are seeing it everywhere we look? 1000 times what is not reliable evidence is not any more worthy of being called evidence. Often what is usually implied is that there are just too many coincidences, but those coincidences are manufactured, not discovered. They could be manufactured in greater numbers than they area and in practically any document because the numbers of possible interest are everywhere. What gets reported are the examples where one can manufacture a desirable result.

I have played at this game also. I know what is possible to suggest (many things). A very compelling case can be made for many ideas. I've also looked into many other examples of people alleging they have discovered encrypted messages/words and have seen how clever their interpretations are. Some DeVere proponents think they own the number 40. Anthony Bacon is everywhere we can find him with his numbers too.  It is all alike, and yet it is contradictory. Much more egregious examples of this sort of thing have been seen in the case of the touted Bible Code which reveals "everything" (after the fact) if you are capable of finding it by careful consideration. That actually much more audacious as a suggestion, yet, some have made it, provided many examples of skip sequences and gematria to make their cases convincingly and it has convinced a great many. There's nothing to it. It's an example of apophenia.

On the matter of me saying that it is akin to divine revelation, what else can we attribute it to? The individual will not concede that he is possibly producing it out of nothing. It (the interpretation) was not done by Bacon, so who has made who aware of what? The exercise gets equated to some sort of special power or talent, and I see plenty of examples of people being stroked for being "gifted" for doing it by people who love the suggestions. Is it a God given talent or not? It is not logic. Logic tells us that it is not possible to effectively decrypt gematria values into a specific message. That does not mean that it is impossible to construct a text where one thinks he has encoded something in it. I've seen examples of that here. It is entirely possible to do that. There is no reliable and systematic way to decrypt such a thing. The one who created it can show what he meant, and the onlooker can be impressed by his construction method, but he would have to be told if he was right or not in his attempts at guessing for himself. He can never know if he is right with simple gematria. 

I recognize that there must be enormous push back against this by those who rely on it so much. That goes with the territory. I would expect the same thing from those who read tea leaves. They might want to refer to others as having just another opinion. That underscores how meaningless it is to think we know something. What we ought to know is our limits. Part of what I have produced in the last 3 decades I would never publish, because it is not reliable and would not serve to advance any idea to a critical thinker. If I did publish it I would have to concede that I was just a writer writing a historical fiction which "could be" true if I was right. In that case, yes, it would be an opinion, and I might be right. What I feel about it has no bearing because the feeling is not being placed in me by an external agent. I would be responsible for the feeling as well as the the thing I wrote. 

 

Edited by RoyalCraftiness
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Some of us have done exactly that here on the B'Hive what you say is impossible "by definition". Can you explain how that has happened if it is not possible? 🙂

I am confident that Bacon was well aware his name was 33 Simple cipher. Those that knew him as well.

45A42EC6-12CC-47B5-BF6E-4EB0ABACAAE3.png

You are crediting yourself with something you cannot demonstrate you know. I do this all the time too. We have to catch ourselves doing it.  You suspect there is a hard link to "Bacon" and 33 being testified to here. 33 is many things, is it not? Which thing is intended, if any, in the image you show? Is Bacon T.T., because of this? Why is it not the thing you haven't considered? How have you discredited the thing you have not considered which is also captured by 33? You understand as well as I do that some see 40 and proclaim that to be Edward DeVere's number. You haven't been trained to parrot that idea. In fact you laugh at it often enough. To some it is undeniable and completely logical. The rinse and repeat nature of it has made it second nature to them to see the obvious link.

You are also giving special meaning to the mimetic phenomena of recruitment. Yes, it is possible for a group of individuals to be conditioned to such a point where they have the shared ability to come to the same conclusions about the meaning of numbers. You often use the word "teach" and "teacher". The teacher is a groomer. The student, if he is accepting of the teaching, will be capable of replicating the reasoning of the teacher. I can guarantee you that if you had a large enough audience you would be able to grow the number of people who think alike with this sort of suggestion. It is elegant; therefore, it will be liked. The danger is that the number of accepting students convinces you even more that the idea has merit.

What you point out is one example of a word (Bacon) which is 33 in English (Tudor alphabet) simple gematria. That makes your suggestion possible. That's all we can say. We cannot even say for sure there is intent here. I understand there are at least 4 or 5 other numbers that would trigger you in the same way if using other gematria schemes. Is the simple form of the Gematria of more weight when images are involved?

A more complicated suggestion could be made involving Freemasonry and/or older myths. Are they aslo in play? Do we actually know this?

Edited by RoyalCraftiness
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

The part about it not being an acceptable method of encryption/decryption is actually not my opinion. I had to ask about it and be explained the nuance. I accept the reasoning I was given since I can verify it and it makes total sense.

Hi CJ,

Corect me if I am wrong but If I recall, you told us that for you "ALL IS SUGGESTION" with some suggestions that you accept and some that you reject.

Thus, if you "had to ask about it and be explained the nuance" it means that someone gave you his opinion/suggestion/analysis and you decided to accept it

because you accepted his reasoning. So, you only makes his opinion/suggestion yours. 😊

Regarding Bacon and the number 33 here is the famous acrostic in Love's Labour's lost.

(Please note that the acronym can be found in the First Quarto published in 1598 during the lifetime of the author)

image.png.9a76f18563c3b3ac37f3e5caf103369f.png

https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/SLNSW_F1/161/index.html%3fzoom=1275.html

What are the possible explanations ?

1) This is just a coincidence,

2) William Shakespeare knew BACON and tells us that the cipher of BACON is 33

3) Someone else that William Shakespeare who knew Bacon and who is the true author of LLL tells us that BACON =33

4) BACON himself is the author of LLL and he tells us that BACON =33

This is the context of the play and other conceal'd messages that allow to make our choice between these possible explanations.

And talking about "Tea Leaves" Reader, I think that happily, I am one of them !😊

(Or am I a "Tea Tea Leaves" Reader? 😄)

image.png.cf43069d02be647d049c614939cb7dfb.png

 

  • Wow! 2

image.png.b8c74f56d5551c745119c268cf9d3db8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

You are crediting yourself with something you cannot demonstrate you know. I do this all the time too.

Which is exactly what you are doing now? 🙂

You speak with authority, with huge confidence, yet you kind of seem to be missing the obvious. Your words make sense, in that rigid word way things work with words. Even when taking Bacon's very serious position of testing and measuring, for anyone who might have other experiences to question it you sound like the guy on the wrong side of the Veil. But maybe it is us thinking we Pierced it when all we did was make a dent that reflects our beliefs onto us.

Sure, even though most if not all of the Elizabethan writers were familiar with ciphers, nothing can be proved that any of them ever used one. And there is no proof they did not use ciphers often to do what some of us even still do today based on their lessons.

Yann and I have over the past year or so shared ciphers knowing the other would get a specific message right away. Two people familiar with the same rules and boundaries as fuzzy as they are can very easily share well defined messages for fun in front of an online audience solving each others ciphers.

400 years ago when speaking the truth might get your head cut off, and during a time when ciphers were very popular as historically documented, that Bacon might be recognized as 33 in places where it is supported by other clues might be possible. And of course, someone like you, CJ, back then could say how un-Baconian that is and create an atmosphere where 33 does not have to mean BACON and it is nonsense. Shakespeare's works are a great example of one of those places. Governments use ciphers during wars. They speak a language that is understood between those who hold the keys. If done Bacon style cannot be proved. Our modern Baconian keys are in our minds, the ciphers are available. I do not know if any written key exists from Bacon's time, but the Tradition appears to still be passed on as a Lamp.

The past few days and the next few (<--1881-->) I have been hired to do some intense SEO and site forensics which I so love to do as it is what I do on my Free time for Bacon. Numbers and numbers upon numbers of web stats, studying statistics in many layers, spying with my 007 SEO tools on competition, examining every path that appears which once the Veil is Pierced becomes like a multidimensional labyrinth with so many directions to seek treasures! Testing and measuring, just like Bacon. Maybe there is a gift in the real world for Divine hints. Piercing the Veil comes with responsibility in the SEO profession, one needs good Karma. I appreciate the Divine when it happens.

CJ, what is better for my life motivation? For most people's life motivation?

Serious, although interesting idea that everything is mechanical, we are the result of chemistry and mathematics. Our brains are atoms and electricity that stays on mostly the same burnt paths.

Or...

Being aware of our vehicle made up of atoms and electricity, and carbs, etc., some few have a gift of being more curious and will explore beyond the Pillars, so to speak. The same words are in both realms, but have different meaning. What you call Divine is maybe the spark for us.

On 8/16/2023 at 11:03 AM, RoyalCraftiness said:

By definition is not possible to cipher and decipher with gematria in any way that would not involve divine revelation.

I laughed the first time I read this.

Maybe you are absolutely right. To do work in the cipher world, it might not be easy without some kind of divine revelation.

ChatGPT:

Divine revelation refers to the idea of supernatural communication or disclosure of knowledge from a divine or transcendent source to humans. It's a concept found in various religious and spiritual traditions where believers believe that a higher power or deity reveals information, teachings, or guidance that humans would not otherwise have access to through ordinary means.

 

  • Like 2

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

19 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

Is it a God given talent or not? It is not logic. Logic tells us that it is not possible to effectively decrypt gematria values into a specific message.

CJ, maybe are you working with a limited list of options:

God given talent

Logic

I am sure I can think of more. Here is one I am entertaining at the moment:

Divine Revelation from the Past and Future (<--1881-->)

😉

 

  • Like 2

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

“Today I decided, after a suggestion made by Kate, to take on the challenge of having a discussion with the Bing chabot” - Royal Craftiness

 

To be fair, RC. I did do a post saying to stay away from them all except Claude.ai

While we can’t rule out that there may be something for you to learn from the experience of a chatbot calling you rude, difficult and refusing to engage with you anymore 😂 I must admit that my first encounter with the Bing one was pretty testy too.
 

I simply replied with something along the lines of ‘How dare you make those assumptions. What  are you basing your assumptions on that I meant that and not this,  when you know nothing about me’ etc etc., and it was soon bending over backwards to appease me! It’s hysterical. It’s such fun to argue with a chatbot, but I don’t think people quite realise, unless you are using them all the time…

a) Just how different they all are in ‘personality’ and knowledge and bias  and 

b) how often they are wrong in ways that sound oh so right, and very authoritative. Tonight I asked about 1821 and what happened that year. Claude told me x y and z but one of them was about how the NYSE was founded with a formal agreement in 1821 and proceeded to go into great detail. I vaguely knew it was earlier than that so looked it up on the normal Google only to find it was 1817. Went back and again had to correct “Claude” - who of course apologised profusely. 😀

Some of the things Bing said about Gematria and your other questions to it, might be wrong too! 
 

Try Claude.

 

Edited by Kate
  • Like 3

 "For nothing is born without unity or without the point." amazon.com/dp/B0CLDKDPY8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Kate said:

Some of the things Bing said about Gematria and your other questions to it, might be wrong too! 

For me so far these AI chats are amazing and fun, like a super advanced Tarot deck. Random and they are all spew forth wrong information, yet no matter what they all offer a new perspective on a question when one might be locked into a dead end thought road.

Let me pull a random card about my current thought on Facade which I have been using for 20 years I think:

http://www.facade.com/tarot/

Name: Anonymous, Deck: Rider Waite Tarot, Spread: One Card, no reversals, FREE Reading

Rider Waite Tarot
Ten of Pentacles (Wealth)

image.png.ff5698afbcd8ac8703ed3062864c6c3c.png

Not what I expected, but will take it and meditate on it. Hope it related to my paid work. 😉

ChatGPT as Claude is acting up here and won't let me in:

Certainly! For the parameters you've given ("Name: Anonymous, Deck: Rider Waite Tarot, Spread: One Card, no reversals, FREE Reading"), the card drawn is The Fool.

The Fool is the card of new beginnings, spontaneity, and embracing the unknown. It represents taking a leap of faith, stepping into the world with an open heart and a sense of adventure. The Fool encourages you to trust in the journey ahead and to be open to the unexpected opportunities that may come your way. It's a card that reminds you to follow your instincts and explore life with a sense of wonder.

Keep in mind that this interpretation is a general overview of the card, and its meaning can vary based on your specific situation and the context of your question.

 

I am always the Baconian Foole. 🙂

 

  • Like 2

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

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...