Challenging the Lie in a Free Society: Even in Shakespeare Authorship Studies?

[Rob at 007]

Posted to SirBacon.org What's New today is a fascinating and powerful essay by Christina G. Waldman.

---

Download PDF

My late friend Sam had two favorite authors, William Butler Yeats and Alexandr Solzhenitsyn. The latter wrote One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and The Gulag Archipelago. I have not read the latter, but the former was memorable. Solzhenitsyn’s essay, “Live Not by Lies,” was published February 12, 1974, the day after he was exiled from Russia. In it, he urges people to “never knowingly support lies.” Read more…>>

 

https://sirbacon.org/challenging-the-lie-in-a-free-society-even-in-shakespeare-authorship-studies/

[RoyalCraftiness]

The fact that no one can know what is a lie, or not, in any way that would satisfy a reasonable and undemanding skeptic, and that so many have managed to be convinced of conflicting things is the painful truth, isn't it? You can't on one hand be sad that others are convincing their audiences with what are deemed to be weak suggestions when that is the sort of thing you are trying to achieve. Rejoice in the fact that there is a mechanism that works at creating belief despite lack of knowledge. If it did not work there would be no hope for even God, because there is no other way to acceptance in him than the successful creation of the underlying belief in something that involves him. That is true for even Bacon if he wanted to suggest something to you beyond the grave. Someone has to be able to convince you that he can talk to you in unequivocal terms in exactly the way they know he does.

How is this any different from those who would defend religious views and the existence of prophets, yet not be on board unless it was in the service of their own religion and prophets? That's entirely unreasonable. If you want "evidence" to matter you better understand that everyone can play at that suggestion game.

Belief is the most unimpressive thing in the world, on one hand, but it is at the root of the existence of power dynamics which are truly impressive. The existence of a priori forms of knowledge in our world is a problem with no solution. We will never be able to stop people from claiming they know something by default. I think of it as a "chosen people" type of dynamic.

The amount of effort that has gone into trying to convince the masses of magical things like Zionism, for example, shows us how deeply related the accepted truth is to the success of the creation of a necessary unwavering belief. Christianity has unconditional acceptance baked into the cake, so to speak. You are going nowhere you are suggesting others are going without faith in it. And yet, no one knows God or of the existence of God. Belief has been created and maintained with slogans like "remember death" and countless hooks that exploit human frailty. Suggestibility is real. Why aren't we highlighting the articles that expose us as humans as fatally flawed creatures in the knowledge pursuit business?

One of the most damning realities that one can attach to Baconians is the breadth of the sister accompanying beliefs that are so often accompanying the cherished one. I do not know why some wouldn't just perform a séance and talk to Bacon directly. This sort of thing was done in the past and it is no longer put forth as evidence. This suggests that beliefs in things can erode. That would mean that there is hope for even Baconians that they might come to criticize their endeavors. 

The truth is that there are things talked about and accepted that we cannot know. To want to know is not a guarantee that one can know. There is almost never a way to know. There is a way to understand why people think they know. You can look at the strategies they use to achieve their desired ends in others. It always requires lips moving. Some fancy themselves as top notch salespeople even when it isn't the case. The troubling reality is that not that many are buying.

Edited November 15 by RoyalCraftiness

[Light-of-Truth]

3 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

The fact that no one can know what is a lie, or not, in any way that would satisfy a reasonable and undemanding skeptic, and that so many have managed to be convinced of conflicting things is the painful truth, isn't it? You can't on one hand be sad that others are convincing their audiences with what are deemed to be weak suggestions when that is the sort of thing you are trying to achieve. Rejoice in the fact that there is a mechanism that works at creating belief despite lack of knowledge. If it did not work there would be no hope for even God, because there is no other way to acceptance in him than the successful creation of the underlying belief in something that involves him. That is true for even Bacon if he wanted to suggest something to you beyond the grave. Someone has to be able to convince you that he can talk to you in unequivocal terms in exactly the way they know he does.

How is this any different from those who would defend religious views and the existence of prophets, yet not be on board unless it was in the service of their own religion and prophets? That's entirely unreasonable. If you want "evidence" to matter you better understand that everyone can play at that suggestion game.

Belief is the most unimpressive thing in the world, on one hand, but it is at the root of the existence of power dynamics which are truly impressive. The existence of a priori forms of knowledge in our world is a problem with no solution. We will never be able to stop people from claiming they know something by default. I think of it as a "chosen people" type of dynamic.

The amount of effort that has gone into trying to convince the masses of magical things like Zionism, for example, shows us how deeply related the accepted truth is to the success of the creation of a necessary unwavering belief. Christianity has unconditional acceptance baked into the cake, so to speak. You are going nowhere you are suggesting others are going without faith in it. And yet, no one knows God or of the existence of God. Belief has been created and maintained with slogans like "remember death" and countless hooks that exploit human frailty. Suggestibility is real. Why aren't we highlighting the articles that expose us as humans as fatally flawed creatures in the knowledge pursuit business?

One of the most damning realities that one can attach to Baconians is the breadth of the sister accompanying beliefs that are so often accompanying the cherished one. I do not know why some wouldn't just perform a séance and talk to Bacon directly. This sort of thing was done in the past and it is no longer put forth as evidence. This suggests that beliefs in things can erode. That would mean that there is hope for even Baconians that they might come to criticize their endeavors. 

The truth is that there are things talked about and accepted that we cannot know. To want to know is not a guarantee that one can know. There is almost never a way to know. There is a way to understand why people think they know. You can look at the strategies they use to achieve their desired ends in others. It always requires lips moving. Some fancy themselves as top notch salespeople even when it isn't the case. The troubling reality is that not that many are buying.

Christie expressed what you say all the time. Did you read her essay? I definitely thought of you when reading ALL of her well footnoted and referenced essay. I have a hunch she was writing to you as well as anyone who would read her masterpiece. It is about the quest for Truth and the value of whatever that is. Truth is often your soapbox speech to we who seek with an end in mind which you dismiss as weak.

What is missing from your typical CJ reply is whether you agree or not with her research which you have not performed or verified.

"How is this any different from those who would defend religious views and the existence of prophets, yet not be on board unless it was in the service of their own religion and prophets?"

You are not talking about Christie's essay, obviously. Are you agreeing with her message while not giving her credit?

Or maybe I missing what you are saying.

What did you think of her very serious work?

Can you do better with the subject matter she speaks?

I do not think you read it. I think even you would have to acknowledge the Baconian quality of what she clearly spent some time working on.

[Light-of-Truth]

10 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

The truth is that there are things talked about and accepted that we cannot know. To want to know is not a guarantee that one can know. There is almost never a way to know.

By now, anyone reading who does not have a passion to know the things not talked about will go to another web page. 😉

One can almost never know. Almost, that is.

 

[RoyalCraftiness]

18 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Christie expressed what you say all the time. Did you read her essay? I definitely thought of you when reading ALL of her well footnoted and referenced essay. I have a hunch she was writing to you as well as anyone who would read her masterpiece. It is about the quest for Truth and the value of whatever that is. Truth is often your soapbox speech to we who seek with an end in mind which you dismiss as weak.

What is missing from your typical CJ reply is whether you agree or not with her research which you have not performed or verified.

"How is this any different from those who would defend religious views and the existence of prophets, yet not be on board unless it was in the service of their own religion and prophets?"

You are not talking about Christie's essay, obviously. Are you agreeing with her message while not giving her credit?

Or maybe I missing what you are saying.

What did you think of her very serious work?

Can you do better with the subject matter she speaks?

I do not think you read it. I think even you would have to acknowledge the Baconian quality of what she clearly spent some time working on.

There's no research that will help, unless we are talking about researching better ways to create acceptance of suggestions. It's all attempts at promoting beliefs which exist from a time when unconditional acceptance was created based on someone else's successful efforts at convincing. Nothing ever gets discovered. It's a process of creating narratives.  How do you expect anyone to know anything when they are being constantly guided by crafty narrative peddlers who claim to speak for the dead in ever evolving ways?

Everything that ever reaches us is a suggestion in the information sphere. I hardly know what my spouse is up to, let alone what Francis Bacon was up to based on someone's reading of the tea leaves found in the printed remnants of some project to do God knows what.

For me, or for you, to have any hope in knowing anything is limited to our own efforts to understand and accept the impossible limitations which we face. Information is not preserved in the Universe. It's a challenge for it to persist at all. There are many more ways to be wrong about the past lives of people than to guess correctly. Worse, no one can show up and inform us that we have guessed correctly. We would have to be satisfied by getting feedback from the process of creating similar beliefs in others. Humans are therefore biased in the direction of creating persistence in streams of information and by creating mimetic behaviors. The only validity that can come is from the utility of the preserved information. If there isn't something in a suggestion that delivers a measurable gain in utility then how are we to ever favor any form of suggestion? The forms which allow us to do things better matter. All other forms may be equal. Truth and non truth may offer the same nothingness. If they do, expect both to be promoted purely on the basis of mimetic phenomena. The coexistence is testament to the lack of utility. 

We can say something like "this convinces me", but we must also realize that "this should not be able to do that". The fact that some things do convince is incredibly interesting. Human suggestibility is the main parameter to be gauging in ourselves and in others. 

I don't read anyone to have to agree with it. I typically read  to see how the author(s) are doing about trying to make their point. We can look to see how people think. How they think tells us a bit about they would want us to think. We can read Bacon to try and discern how he thinks. We can also read what others would have you believe he was thinking. 

I would challenge you to show me why any of this matters. Why must there be a cult of Francis Bacon based on what few want to accept out of a legitimate concern for being recruited into a meaningless belief?

Bacon is dead. Beliefs about him will not build a better aircraft or solve our worldly problems. There is no reason to get upset with anyone who refuses to get recruited into Baconian narratives. What is curious is that those who try and promote ideas do get upset when they describe how pigheaded the non believers are in the face of their pristine efforts.

The way out for a believer is often to ask: "So, what do you believe?" It is not acceptable to believe. That would be the original reasonable objective position to cling to if we wanted a life without conflict.  It is, however, extremely useful to have people believe. In that regard there's a reasonable imperative to create belief and to forge narratives. The size of factions matters more than the truth. The struggle has always been recruitment. 

 

 

 

[RoyalCraftiness]

12 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

By now, anyone reading who does not have a passion to know the things not talked about will go to another web page. 😉

One can almost never know. Almost, that is.

 

You don't always get what you want.

 

 

[Light-of-Truth]

2 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

You don't always get what you want.

But if you try sometime, you'll find
You get what you need. 🙂

 

[Light-of-Truth]

8 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

I would challenge you to show me why any of this matters. Why must there be a cult of Francis Bacon based on what few want to accept out of a legitimate concern for being recruited into a meaningless belief?

Oh CJ, you pouting old curmudgeon. We've been through this before. But I'll share again for anyone who might stumble on this conversation in the future.

The Baconian passion I enjoy provides me joy, pleasure, excitement to seek and explore, to discover something new about the man who besides his scientific contribution very well may have been Shakespeare. I wake up in the morning and go to bed at night thinking about what we kick around here on the B'Hive. It's been over 25 years for me on this Baconian journey and from the first day it has been fuel for my life. I don't know that I can show you how it matters, but I can tell you it does.

I am never bored as I can always pursue the next path of inquiry. Since I began this I feel I have a purpose, something to work on. No matter how bad life might seem, no matter the stress and fear, I have a passion that makes me happy. This is not something you can buy at Walmart or in a shopping mall. You can't even purchase this kind of  passion from Amazon and have it delivered.

It is a gift, a treasure, beyond description.

That you, on a Baconian forum, suggest we who are interested in Bacon's legacy and life are a cult based on a meaningless belief only shows how absolutely stupid and blind you are. No offense, please. Just sayin'.

I do accept that you, like most people, are too wrapped up in your own little skin encapsulated world of personal drama and ego based importance to share in what makes many of us so happy.

What is your passion? Peeing on people's parades?

I am sad for you. And I am thankful to be a Baconian.

 

[RoyalCraftiness]

14 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Oh CJ, you pouting old curmudgeon. We've been through this before. But I'll share again for anyone who might stumble on this conversation in the future.

The Baconian passion I enjoy provides me joy, pleasure, excitement to seek and explore, to discover something new about the man who besides his scientific contribution very well may have been Shakespeare. I wake up in the morning and go to bed at night thinking about what we kick around here on the B'Hive. It's been over 25 years for me on this Baconian journey and from the first day it has been fuel for my life. I don't know that I can show you how it matters, but I can tell you it does.

I am never bored as I can always pursue the next path of inquiry. Since I began this I feel I have a purpose, something to work on. No matter how bad life might seem, no matter the stress and fear, I have a passion that makes me happy. This is not something you can buy at Walmart or in a shopping mall. You can't even purchase this kind of  passion from Amazon and have it delivered.

It is a gift, a treasure, beyond description.

That you, on a Baconian forum, suggest we who are interested in Bacon's legacy and life are a cult based on a meaningless belief only shows how absolutely stupid and blind you are. No offense, please. Just sayin'.

I do accept that you, like most people, are too wrapped up in your own little skin encapsulated world of personal drama and ego based importance to share in what makes many of us so happy.

What is your passion? Peeing on people's parades?

I am sad for you. And I am thankful to be a Baconian.

 

Why not get joy out of pushing a GIza pyramid powerplant theory? There's a faction looking for more recruits. They produce lots of evidence they have it all figured out, and they are also defenders of the common sense of the masses which is under assault from idiotic experts. No one is claiming that a deluded con man doesn't get joy out of his efforts to convince others. It is absolutely about the fulfillment he gets from creating an exploitable belief in himself and in others. You should interview Graham Hancock, Peter Amundsen and and Peter Dawkins about it. These people find personal meaning in what they do to others. Each has his preferred narratives, and all require magical thinking based in the spiritual power of something they have no knowledge of. If you are at all interested in bullshit there is much to wade in to criticize. Criticizing the critics is pointless unless you want to get to even better criticisms.  Criticizing suggestions meant to create belief where that can exist is what is required of all of us. You seem to want to gloss over all sorts of feel good stories that clearly at odds with what is known as long as it does some of the required lifting  you need. That is to say that it would divide the world into factions that are at odds over exposing the truth that some allege exists a priori to be sampled by spiritual means (open and highly suggestible minds).  How do you feel about critics of religion? They must exist. You cannot deny that. Do you do your part?

If you don't care that what gives you pleasure is based solely in what tickles your sensibilities just the right way then why even pretend to be doing research? The pursuit of pleasure is hedonism; and that, off course, is part of the authentic American discourse and what it means to be American. What if the truth was not pleasure inducing? Can there be such truths? Global warming? Are there people who unconditionally accept suggestions that they truly abhor? It would seem to be the way to anxiety and, in the end, suicide. To want to live a satisfied life is to want to be deluded, it would appear. 

The conclusions were made 25 years ago? I doubt it. Some already existing suggestions were encountered, weighed and tested and found to be pleasing enough to work to expand promote.  From what I can tell, the need to continuously convince yourself is very real in case doubt might set in and cause discomfort, and it does also appear that the thing you want to be convinced of must grow in reach and in stature for the feelings to not get stale.

30 years ago I thought I realized something when I was just starting to look at some things. Over time the work to destroy that unwelcomed conviction was done, and that impulse was internal. So, joy can come from doing good critical work and destroying belief if it found a way in. That is what criticism offers. It can free you if you only dare to turn it onto yourself. We all speak as if there is  lack of critical thinking in the world, but it's clear that we don't want that applied to just anything.

You are are more of a creator than you give yourself credit for. It's easy to fall in love with one's creation and not realize that the thing is just a monster built in one's image. This is the point of Shelley's "Frankenstein" which was a criticism of the secret societies who pranced around as examples of factions that acted as if they possessed some righteous knowledge and a plan to promote it.  The creation is a means to a manipulation.  The manipulator has his joy, the world, and all its minds to gain. 

Surely you must recognize that I am interested in working back some of the suggestions that snagged poor old Bacon. It's hard to know what to think because too many people are speaking for him. I will always have an interest in what convinces others. This is important to me because that is the thing that we must play defense against.

Are you aware that people can be "born again" in an instant? Very powerful unconditional acceptance of a suggestion can appear that quickly. This is a frightening reality that is a property of human minds. 

I would encourage you to look into the claim that Bacon was an experimentalist. He was mainly a philosopher and a statesman. Our society no longer values philosophers or statesmen. They are all shouted down today by those who already know the secret knowledge they have accessed on Youtube.

Would your life have meaning if Bacon did not write Shakespeare?  Surely it could. There are other things you could be convinced of that would satisfy. A "spiritual" impulse would guarantee that it would show up to be nurtured.

 Why are Indian numerals called arabic, and why does an AI come to suggest it can find an answer?

Show me things you think are convincing. That makes me happy. It gives me something to consider about how minds work.

 

[Christie Waldman]

When we frame the argument, we must be careful that the assumptions upon which we would build are valid. If we label Bacon as "philosopher" and "statesman," as C. J. has done, we leave out Bacon's other roles: his acknowledged literary genius, without even considering whether or not he wrote the works attributed to "William Shakespeare" (practically the only kind of writing "Bacon" didn't try his hand at was the writing of plays, wrote James Shapiro in "Contested Will"); his contributions as a historian; his writing of masques and "devices"; his humanitarian aims of restoring a golden age of mankind through the advancement of learning.

When you paint a picture, it is all the little dabs of paint taken together that make up the picture. Bacon was a fascinating person. He is not dead to us; his ideas live on through his writing. Yes, he got some things wrong, because learning did increase since his time, based upon a foundation of facts (hypotheses subject to perpetual challenge). The advancement of learning depends upon making adjustments in the course of knowledge as we go along, like a person steering a ship.

But to say we can never know when a thing is true or false is dangerous, if that is what you are saying, C. J. Bacon did not want people to be gullible, vulnerable to the mercies of charlatans who would exploit their trust. He tried to give them the tools for separating true facts from fallacies.  He presented antipathies, pairs of opposites--just as "Shakespeare" did--because that was where the sharpest contrasts could be seen. Yes, it is an aesthetic principle as well.

In a free society, people need to be educated to self-govern most effectively. Queen Elizabeth translated classical authors in order to keep her mind sharp for statecraft. Education matters, not just show you can get a better job and have a higher standard of living, but so you can be your best self, so you can know yourself, so you can be a responsible citizen.

What I was trying to say in my essay is that those with the loudest voice are not always the ones to follow. We need to think for ourselves. The truth is usually not simple. It is gray, not black and white. But it does matter. It has an independent existence, and it is worth pursuing.

When we know a thing is true, or false, we have an obligation to say so, if we reasonably can. The world would be a better place if people would do that, would it not. With the Shakespeare authorship controversy, we have a lot of educated people pretending a lie does not matter. And what have been the consequences? We do not have that foundation of historical truth upon which to build. That does not seem to me to be a good way to operate. Do we even know what all the consequences of that have been?

What will be the consequences if the Oxfordians convince everyone that, since it obviously wasn't Shaxpere, and it "couldn't" have been Bacon (without really examining whether or not that is a true statement), why, it must be Oxford! Even though he did not have the legal background to have written the law in the Shakespeare plays and sonnets. Even though he was not the compassionate humanitarian servant of God and his fellow man that Bacon was; rather, Oxford served Oxford.

I used to think the Oxfordians were operating in good faith, but if they were, they would not be continually ignoring good Baconian evidence as they press forward their own candidate. This is not to say that all Oxfordians care more about their agenda than about the truth. Labeling is useful, but dangerous. Words fail us, a topic which Bacon explored.

What I am saying is that it is the method by which we go about determining what is true and false that must be protected. It is the method that matters. There are scientific standards; journalistic standards, legal standards for maintaining objectivity and defeating those "four idols" Bacon identified. We have Bacon to thank for the scientific method. It can't just be about selling books or winning the propaganda war. As Bacon said, "If we begin with certainties, we will end with doubts. If we begin with doubts, we will end with certainties." It is also about giving credit where credit is due. If a person borrows ideas from someone else, he ought to give the other person credit. A person who knowingly fails to acknowledge sources lays himself open to a charge of dishonesty. We have the freedom now to explore Shakespeare authorship. I hope we will always have that freedom. But I don't think the truth needs to tiptoe about so as not to offend anybody.

 

[Light-of-Truth]

3 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

You are are more of a creator than you give yourself credit for. It's easy to fall in love with one's creation and not realize that the thing is just a monster built in one's image.

I can't speak for other Baconians, but for myself I will argue that my journey is not a "monster" whether it is merely my own creation or not. If I ride out my next 30 years pursuing bacon treasures it will be good for me. You don't seem to understand how to enjoy a typical day in your life. I do, maybe because of the hedonistic American lifestyle I have always lived. I grew up with multi-colored sugar coated crunchy cereal and Looney Tunes cartoons as my reality base.

As a young adult my life was more about Grateful Dead shows and Monty Python which was a perfect segue into the Bacon/Shakespeare path.

Yea, I am more simple than you think, CJ. I am an old hippy, burned out from years or psychedelics and drinking a ton of beer. As much you might not believe it, I don't have a sinister plot in my head to manipulate the masses on planet Earth. Your opinions are so alien to me. "Where is he coming up with this stuff? What happened to him when he was young to make him so paranoid?"

Here is the reality of what we do here, CJ:

• We are a handful of good-natured people who enjoy pursuing the Baconian theory among ourselves.
• We share our Baconian enthusiasm and passion freely with anybody who is also interested. It is fun if nothing else.
• We are not scheming to take over the world and control people's minds in some kind of a sinister plan. How strange to even think it.
• We are definitely taking a stand for the real possibility that Bacon was Shakespeare. Evidence suggests that liars have been telling Bacon's story while leaving him out.
• Truth does matter to us. Lies frustrate us. Christie's essay is an excellent highly professional work.

Even as we speak, there are countless forums, parties, clubs, gatherings, and other social arenas where like-minded friends are hanging out and just have pure healthy fun and good times. Love is the key.

I even heard there is a bunch of people who have a Giza pyramid power-plant theory. I am not very afraid they will take over the world. I do hope they enjoy their passion though.

 

 

[Light-of-Truth]

7 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

What if the truth was not pleasure inducing? Can there be such truths? Global warming? Are there people who unconditionally accept suggestions that they truly abhor? It would seem to be the way to anxiety and, in the end, suicide. To want to live a satisfied life is to want to be deluded, it would appear. 

Truth is often horrible, but I still prefer truth over lies.

I have dismissed your fears of a Bacon cult on the B'Hive forum taking over the world, and I think for solid reason. Although just now the idea made me grin. LOL

BUT, you remind of a con artist who was based in Williamsburg VA named Fletcher Richman. From 2003 into a few years I was talking online about Williamsburg and my own discoveries and ideas, plus I love that town being so beautiful and full of history, a guy started to pop up. He sounded interesting enough. He was all about Bacon and the Bruton Vault concept. That didn't connect with my Williamsburg ideas, but it was someone who seemed to be looking for the same treasures. I asked my Baconian friends about him and the unanimous response was a serious warning that he is bad news. Shocked, but I paid attention and kept a distance. I'd still email a little, but did feel he had a "sales" pitch about his thing he was doing. After a while I swear it sounded like a cult using Bacon's name.

So then I just ignored his emails that were seeming more desperate. But then I'd hear from other "names" who may have started out a little different yet always ended up sounding like Fletcher again. Doing simple forensics they were him using fake email handles from the same IP address, etc.

Weirdo.

But then I began to see news stories and articles by people who claim they were financially and emotionally destroyed by this guy. Then family members of victims also spoke out, sometimes saying they were being sued by him to not discuss what happened.

I was shaken a little by even conversing with him. I do have a built in warning flag that pops up red when I feel like someone is trying to get me to do something I don't want to do. And that flag was up with him. He never got a dime from me, I never did any work for him, and I sure as Hell never attempted to meet him in person.

It's been some years since I thought of him, and I know he took a lot of wind from my Williamsburg sails which upsets me.

So yes, it is possible that Bacon's name and honor can be hijacked by a dark magician who has the potential to make a cult and ruin people's lives, to the point of suicide. And it has happened, in Williamsburg VA of all places. UGH

CJ, are you aware of that guy? I promise I am not him. 🙂

 

EDIT: Another article I had not read before:

https://jeromeciok.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/dangerous-sociopath-known-a-fletcher-richman/

 

 

[Light-of-Truth]

CJ, please don't confuse my personal little happy Baconian rodeo with a snake oil salesman fake Baconian. I don't know if the image below is legible, but I remember the thread live and a lot of "Sir Francis Bacon's Sages of the Seventh Seal" strangeness. By the time this dialog was happening I knew to not respond to anything Richman sent. It is good to be aware of slight of hand. Though I think you overreact with us, CJ. We might have a vision of a big movie some day, but I don't think any of us wants to be a cult leader.

If this guy is still alive and around, I have not heard or seen anything of him.

https://ahatmose2002.proboards.com/thread/504/great-seventh-seal-francis-bacon

 

 

 

[Eric Roberts]

8 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Truth is often horrible, but I still prefer truth over lies.

I have dismissed your fears of a Bacon cult on the B'Hive forum taking over the world, and I think for solid reason. Although just now the idea made me grin. LOL

BUT, you remind of a con artist who was based in Williamsburg VA named Fletcher Richman. From 2003 into a few years I was talking online about Williamsburg and my own discoveries and ideas, plus I love that town being so beautiful and full of history, a guy started to pop up. He sounded interesting enough. He was all about Bacon and the Bruton Vault concept. That didn't connect with my Williamsburg ideas, but it was someone who seemed to be looking for the same treasures. I asked my Baconian friends about him and the unanimous response was a serious warning that he is bad news. Shocked, but I paid attention and kept a distance. I'd still email a little, but did feel he had a "sales" pitch about his thing he was doing. After a while I swear it sounded like a cult using Bacon's name.

So then I just ignored his emails that were seeming more desperate. But then I'd hear from other "names" who may have started out a little different yet always ended up sounding like Fletcher again. Doing simple forensics they were him using fake email handles from the same IP address, etc.

Weirdo.

But then I began to see news stories and articles by people who claim they were financially and emotionally destroyed by this guy. Then family members of victims also spoke out, sometimes saying they were being sued by him to not discuss what happened.

I was shaken a little by even conversing with him. I do have a built in warning flag that pops up red when I feel like someone is trying to get me to do something I don't want to do. And that flag was up with him. He never got a dime from me, I never did any work for him, and I sure as Hell never attempted to meet him in person.

It's been some years since I thought of him, and I know he took a lot of wind from my Williamsburg sails which upsets me.

So yes, it is possible that Bacon's name and honor can be hijacked by a dark magician who has the potential to make a cult and ruin people's lives, to the point of suicide. And it has happened, in Williamsburg VA of all places. UGH

CJ, are you aware of that guy? I promise I am not him. 🙂

 

EDIT: Another article I had not read before:

https://jeromeciok.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/dangerous-sociopath-known-a-fletcher-richman/

 

 

Hi Rob. For every psycho there's a genius. Take Bruce Hornsby from Williamsburg, Virginia (former member of the Grateful Dead). Anyway, this should cheer you up!

 

[Christie Waldman]

14 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Truth is often horrible, but I still prefer truth over lies.

 

 

 

The very wise Francis Bacon observed that people tend to prefer an appealing lie to the truth.

[Christie Waldman]

I am not sure where the right place to put this is, but Bacon is given credit as the founder of the "scientific method." So people think of it like modern science where you test a hypothesis in the experimental method and try to reproduce results. But I see his interest as being even more basic: how do we know things? He knew that scholasticism with its reliance on Aristotle and authorities was holding back the increase of knowledge (which he called "science"). We can't limit Bacon to just the "scientific method" as that term is understood today. He knew that increasing knowledge comes from following hunches and clues, from not being afraid to make a guess and be wrong, or to be made to look foolish in the eyes of others, although he did try to protect his new ideas, with his "exoteric" and "esoteric" divisions. Not all knowledge was for all people at all times. That is one thing that this internet format does not really accommodate.

New discoveries come from exploration, insight, following trails which may lead to nowhere, trying and trying again, the passage of time while ideas simmer, and then one day it comes to a person, maybe in a dream, maybe seemingly by accident, but by being aware, by not missing opportunities because one has done the groundwork. Participating in learning like this has to be one of the most exciting things in life. 

If we follow the hints in the works (of Bacon, "Shakespeare"), they take us deeper and deeper. You can never really go deep enough. There is always another layer to explore. And there are ways of knowing things that are mysteries, that can never be proven, maybe.

It is easy to read too much of what we want to find in Bacon, as Daniel R. Coquillette warned in his book on Bacon's jurisprudence, Francis Bacon (Stanford Univ. Press, 1992), p. 2. We have to be careful of that. Bacon did stay close to the Latin, literal meanings of words he used that came from Latin, Spedding observed. The word "scientia" in Latin meant "a knowing, knowledge of, acquaintance with, skill in." His use of the term was broader than the term "science" usually means in use today.