Major Paradigm Shifts
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
shifts. My impression is that there have been four major ones in what
we might call modern times, but I may have missed some. My four:
1. Copernicus's work, circa 1540, which began a paradigm shift from the
view that the earth was the center of the universe to the view that it
circled the sun
2. Darwin's work, circa 1840, which began a paradigm shift from the
view that human beings were created as they now are by a deity to the
view that human beings evolved from lesser creatures
3. Wegener's works, circa 1920, which began a paradigm shift from the
view that continents were stable and always about where they now are to
the view that plate tectonics caused them to move, and that they had
all once been joined in one mass
4. Delia Bacon's works, circa 1860, which began a paradigm shift from
the view that a group of plays and poems written between 1570 and 1620
had the wrong man's name as author on their title-pages
--Bob G.
Ignoto
"Paradigm Shifts" are Kuhnian nonsense.
1, 2 and 3 are all just advances in scientific understanding (no
postmodern jargon like "paradigm shift" and "incommensurability"
required).
4, as well you know, is not an advance in anything
> --Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
You paradigm-shift-deniers are all the same.
--Bob G.
gangleri
"paradigm shifts" and related issues under the title:
Scientific Revolution? Error Correction!
I take epistemology to be concerned with the validity of claims to
knowledge - science.
All claims to scientific knowledge are the product of the mind's
processing of a sub-set of the universe of sense impressions.
Thus, invalid claims to knowledge are the result either of mental
malfunction or mis-specification of the sub-set in question.
In principle, invalid claims to knowledge may be the result of two
distinct kinds of mental malfunction.
The first kind - error in deductive reasoning from a given set of
axiomatic premises - is easily caught.
The other kind - error in the specification of axioms appropriate to a
given sub-set - is the seed of scientific revolutions. (Planck,
Einstein, et al.)
>From the vantage point of epistemology, scientific revolution is mere
label for correction of some gargantuan error of axiom specification.
Hence Einstein's comments in his August 1954 letter to Michele Besso
cited earlier:
"I concede, however, that it is quite possible that physics cannot be
founded on the concept of field - that is to say, on continuous
elements. But then, out of my whole castle in the air - including the
theory of gravitation [General Relativity], but also most of current
physics - there would remain almost nothing."
Let me add in this respect that it is crystal clear that the "field"
axiom is untenable - for example, a photon of light propagating through
the solar system along a straight line will appear to an observer
outside (hence not rotating with) the solar system to be moving along a
curved path.
In the context of relativistic physics, this implies that "the concept
of field" breaks down at the solar system's boundary - that universal
space is discontinuous.
Gargantuan errors of axiom specification are not unique to economic
"science"!
Elizabeth
> 4. Delia Bacon's works, circa 1860, which began a paradigm shift from
> the view that a group of plays and poems written between 1570 and 1620
> had the wrong man's name as author on their title-pages
That's not a paradigm shift, Delia Bacon
only triggered panic among Strats who in turn,
did everything they could to destroy Bacon.
That's cost us.
Kuhn gets credit for rescusitating Bacon's
reputation but Kuhn was wrong about paradigms.
We don't want to see paradigms, Bob. Paradigms
are a sign that something is wrong with
the interface between language and phenomena.
When we can see paradigms its an indication that
we're superimposing some picture on the world,
we're not describing the natural world according
to its properties.
John W. Kennedy
> Always seeking enlightenment, I've recently been reading about paradigm
> shifts. My impression is that there have been four major ones in what
> we might call modern times, but I may have missed some. My four:
> 1. Copernicus's work, circa 1540, which began a paradigm shift from the
> view that the earth was the center of the universe to the view that it
> circled the sun
The theory had been proposed in classical times.
> 2. Darwin's work, circa 1840, which began a paradigm shift from the
> view that human beings were created as they now are by a deity to the
> view that human beings evolved from lesser creatures
Evolution was already well established before Darwin published; indeed,
it has already been in the air before Darwin was born. Darwin's
innovation was his proposal of natural selection as the specific driving
force behind evolution.
> 3. Wegener's works, circa 1920, which began a paradigm shift from the
> view that continents were stable and always about where they now are to
> the view that plate tectonics caused them to move, and that they had
> all once been joined in one mass
Wegener knew nothing of plate tectonics. He had a wacky theory about
solid rock continents being dragged through Earth's (supposedly) solid
rock crust by the tides. He was, in the event, right about the
continents moving, but plate tectonics were discovered after his death
by researchers working in a completely different area.
> 4. Delia Bacon's works, circa 1860, which began a paradigm shift from
> the view that a group of plays and poems written between 1570 and 1620
> had the wrong man's name as author on their title-pages
Wordsworth's works, ca. 1800, which gave humanity a new sense of the
word "Nature".
Somewhat earlier, the development of Courtly Love, ca. 1100, which for
the first time treated romantic love as something to be taken seriously,
and not as a form of madness or, at best, a subject for comedy.
We are still living under the influence of both.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Ignoto
Catullus?
Propertius?
Sappho?
Theocritus?
Ovid? [eg from metamorphoses: Orpheus and Eurydice; Philemon and
Baucis; Pygmalion; Iphis and Ianthe; see also Heroides]
bookburn
<bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
news:1149158533.8...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Always seeking enlightenment, I've recently been reading about paradigm
> shifts. My impression is that there have been four major ones in what
> we might call modern times, but I may have missed some. My four:
>
> 1. Copernicus's work, circa 1540, which began a paradigm shift from the
> view that the earth was the center of the universe to the view that it
> circled the sun
Began? Yes, the earth is where it's at, man is the measure of all things, and
I am the center of my universe. What goes around, comes around, and we are
not flying off into infinity at the speed of light after some center of cosmic
explosion. It's best for us to imagine we are part of a Great Chain of Being
in which everything is connected with divine love and light.
> 2. Darwin's work, circa 1840, which began a paradigm shift from the
> view that human beings were created as they now are by a deity to the
> view that human beings evolved from lesser creatures
Began? In what way are humans more evolved from classical times? Natural
selection might infer going from simple to complex, but how are humans better
creatures than the lesser? "Ripeness is all," says Shakespeare in Lear, but
I'm afraid he is not complimenting humans.
> 3. Wegener's works, circa 1920, which began a paradigm shift from the
> view that continents were stable and always about where they now are to
> the view that plate tectonics caused them to move, and that they had
> all once been joined in one mass
Not sure I understand that plate tectonics caused continents. To this day, I
don't think scientists agree what caused earth's ranges of mountains.
> 4. Delia Bacon's works, circa 1860, which began a paradigm shift from
> the view that a group of plays and poems written between 1570 and 1620
> had the wrong man's name as author on their title-pages
Seems like your philosophy of history, shaped by paradigm shifts, depends on
the works of publishing individuals. If this is the case, then we should be
able to look at Shakespeare's FF as ideal in some respects, deducing a sort of
zeitgeist, or time-spirit at work. Problem is, this sounds a metaphysical
approach that plays into the agenda of conspiracy theorists.
Let's see; maybe you could have:
5. Shakespeare's works, circa 1600, began a paradigm shift from the view that
the arts represent classical models, to acceptance of an English vernacular
language and thought, and popular taste mediating a public theater and private
reading.
bookburn
> --Bob G.
Tom Reedy
news:1149174355.6...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
But Bob. The paradigm is not due to shift until Dec. 5, 2019.
TR
>
> --Bob G.
>
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Dang, that's right, Tom! I've been misled again!
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
in a cluster of ideas and theories that actually gets the shift going.
The final nudge.
Thanks for the ideas about the two other paradigm shifts. Could be. I
would call Impressionism in painting the START of a hugely important
paradigm shift from representationality as the only kind of serious
visual art to non-representationality--though there were predecessors.
But between you an me, this thread was intended as a joke, not a real
quest for knowledge, alas.
--Bob G.
Art Neuendorffer
---------------------------------------------------------
The police were convinced...
The witnesses were positive...
Yet he was... *The Wrong Man*
Somewhere...somewhere there must be the right man!
---------------------------------------------------------
_______ *The Wrong Man* (1956)
For the first time Alfred Hitchcock goes to real life for his thrills!
It's *ALL TRUE & ALL SUSpense* -- the ALL-round biggest Hitchcock hit
EVER to hit the screen ! Warner Bros. present HENRY fonda, VERA MILES
& the exciting city of New York in Alfred Hitchcock's [The Wrong Man]
25 steps down into a subway and
for the first time he doesn't come home that night.
Lt. Bowers (Harold J. Stone as Harold J. Stone):
"An innocent man has NOTHING to FEAR, remember that."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Director Cameo: [Alfred Hitchcock] narrates the film's prologue.
The only time he actually spoke in any of his films.
Alfred Hitchcock filmed one of his usual cameos,
. standing in a restaurant as Manny sits, but
. decided on using a narrated prologue instead.
-------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
John W. Kennedy
> John W. Kennedy wrote:
>> Somewhat earlier, the development of Courtly Love, ca. 1100, which
>> for the first time treated romantic love as something to be taken
>> seriously, and not as a form of madness or, at best, a subject for
>> comedy.
> Catullus? Propertius? Sappho? Theocritus? Ovid? [eg from
> metamorphoses: Orpheus and Eurydice; Philemon and Baucis; Pygmalion;
> Iphis and Ianthe; see also Heroides]
They whined about love and laughed at it, and occasionally acknowledged
the existence of such a thing as a Dear Old Couple, but only the Greeks
ever thought that being in love made a man more manly, and, even when
they did, they were talking about -- ahem! -- the ultimate form of male
bonding.
seaker
Elizabeth - You are the Delia Bacon of the 21st century! You are
fooling yourself if you think Delia, Looney, the Ogburns, Mark
Anderson, etc. triggered panic among Shakespeare scholars. Each new
article and book is the same old same old.
Groundling
Seems to me, the key shift (and foundation of the others) was the
application of reason to medicine by Hippocrates of Cos. When faced
with their own impending mortality and all else fails, people will try
reason as a last resort. Traditional religionists, acting in bad faith,
are currently in unholy alliance with postmodernist ideologues in
seeking to deconstruct and undermine these Enlightenment values. Will
they succeed?
Ted R.
"All saints should be presumed guilty until proven innocent." Orwell
Elizabeth
seaker wrote:
> Elizabeth wrote:
> > bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
>
> Elizabeth - You are the Delia Bacon of the 21st century! You are
> fooling yourself if you think Delia, Looney, the Ogburns, Mark
> Anderson, etc. triggered panic among Shakespeare scholars. Each new
> article and book is the same old same old.
What are you, like twelve? You run through here
making all these declamatory statements. How is that
characteristic of a SEAKER? Your mother ought to
take your i-pod away.
The Baconians panicked the Strats and the Strats dropped
a megaton of bricks on Bacon and the Baconians.
This is extremely well documented in a book published by
Yale University Press, History of A Character Assassination
(needs a new title). Tiny print, 800-pages, 120 page of footnotes.
I have noticed, since I started posting here that the number
of Google hits for Earl of Oxford has increased by oh prolly
1500%, the number of EO websites has more than tripled,
and the fight I saw in the Strats has turned to catatonia.
It's unbelievable that Strats are so passive. Oxfordianism
is a H O A X. It can be refuted in about 5 minutes. There
is no evidence other than evidence that refutes the Oxfordian
case yet the Strats are
d e p r e s s e d.
Get off your asses and put up an Oxfordian 'evidence' website.
Start with Looney's faked letter.
Im going to start a blog proving the Bacon, contra Gore, was
a Christian. Gore runs around calling Bacon the 'secularist'
that destroyed planet earth. Gore has never read Bacon. He doesn't
realize the science -- which Bacon discovered in the Book of
Genesis -- is EDENIC science. We could have kept the Garden.
I can't believe Gore is such an asshole.
Bianca Steele
> Im going to start a blog proving the Bacon, contra Gore, was
> a Christian. Gore runs around calling Bacon the 'secularist'
> that destroyed planet earth. Gore has never read Bacon. He doesn't
> realize the science -- which Bacon discovered in the Book of
> Genesis -- is EDENIC science. We could have kept the Garden.
Yes, "Edenic" science would be bad. We might accidentally reproduce
paradisiacal conditions, and that might cause to come into being a kind
of forbidden fruit that would cause some kind of fall, and then we
would be expelled from the Garden of Eden, and being expelled from the
Garden of Eden is the worst thing in the world. This is ENTIRELY in
line with Christian thought, as any non-Christian can see by noting the
prominence of the idea of the Fall. Our goal is to prevent the Fall by
ensuring that we do not ever come to think we are living in Edenic
times.
Except it makes no sense, in any way at all (unless your idea is that
"theology" does not need to make sense, and thus that any attempt at it
AUTOMATICALLY must make sense). (It also has nothing to do with
Francis Bacon that I know of.) Do you have a version that does make
sense?
In any event, you're doing a good job on this thread ensuring science
doesn't become successfully "Edenic." I can't be the only person who
is infuriated by this kind of thing.
--
Bianca Steele
Tom Reedy
news:1149290950.3...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It's always been a big worry for me. Good thing Elisabeth is on the job.
Let's keep her there, I say.
TR
>
> --
> Bianca Steele
>
Miss Glamour
NH3/EtOH solution and injecting a known volume or mass of the sample
into a
volume of dilute sulfuric acid of know normality. Back titrate the
sulfuric
acid solution with standard base and do the math to get the result.
We did similar analyses a few years back used a 1-mL syringe with 50 mL
of
0.1 N H2SO4 (primary standard) and backtitrated with 0.1 N NaOH. The
NaOH
needs to be standardized against the H2SO4 periodically as it loses
strength
slowly with time
Bianca Steele
Ah, but would Lavoisier have understood what you're saying? We need
bookburn to tell us that, it seems.
I'd bet it would be possible to convince a lot of knowledgeable people
that your post shows less understanding of science than the others on
this thread.
--
Bianca Steele
conra...@gmail.com
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> Always seeking enlightenment, I've recently been reading about paradigm
> shifts. My impression is that there have been four major ones in what
> we might call modern times, but I may have missed some. My four:
>
Could add all kinds. Sigmund Freud, for
example. A very productive few centuries.
Keep in mind that a paradigm shift (for Kuhn)
results in a new operational language in
which the anomolies of the old science are
no longer expressable.
For another view of scientific progress, take
a gander at Karl Popper, who is also pretty
cool.
Conrad.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
1. Fire
2. Navigation
3. Writing
4. That the wrong name as author was on a set of plays and poems
written in England between 1570 and 1620.
--Bob G.
gangleri
What about sliced bread?
Art Neuendorffer
--------------------------------------------------
> 1. Fire
--------------------------------------------------
. Macbeth Act 2, Scene 2
.
LADY MACBETH: What hath quench'd them hath given me fire.
--------------------------------------------------
> 2. Navigation
--------------------------------------------------
Macbeth Act 4, Scene 1
MACBETH
I conjure you, by that which you profess,
Howe'er you come to know it, answer me:
Though you untie the winds and let them fight
Against the churches; though the yesty waves
Confound and swallow *NAVIGATION* up;
Though bladed corn be lodged and trees blown down;
Though castles topple on their warders' heads;
Though palaces and pyramids do slope
Their heads to their foundations; though the treasure
Of nature's germens tumble all together,
Even till destruction sicken; answer me
To what I ask you.
--------------------------------------------------
> 3. Writing
--------------------------------------------------
http://bobgrumman.com/Shakespeare-and-the-Rigidniks/Index
--------------------------------------------------
> 4. That the wrong name as author was on a set of plays
> and poems written in England between 1570 and 1620.
_____ *WRONG NAME*
_____ *GWEN MANOR*
_____ *NEW MORGAN*
--------------------------------------------------
Shakespeare in Love (1998)
[Whispering at Viola's bedroom door]
Nurse: My lady, the house is stirring. It is a new day.
Viola De Lesseps(Gwen Paltrow): It is a new WORLD.
--------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth
> Elizabeth wrote:
> > Im going to start a blog proving the Bacon, contra Gore, was
> > a Christian. Gore runs around calling Bacon the 'secularist'
> > that destroyed planet earth. Gore has never read Bacon. He doesn't
> > realize the science -- which Bacon discovered in the Book of
> > Genesis -- is EDENIC science. We could have kept the Garden.
>
> Yes, "Edenic" science would be bad.
Why would edenic science be bad? Bacon's Renaissance
science was strictly natural science and it wasn't done with
slippery math, it was done with scientific aphorisms.
Gore thinks of Bacon as a modern who created the current
scientific catastropy.
With what, aphorisms?
> We might accidentally reproduce
> paradisiacal conditions . . .
We can't reproduce Paradise. It's a metaphysical realm.
Paradise is not an earthly horticultural Eden, it comes from
from Gr. para deisos for 'park.' When Jesus says
Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. Luke xxiii 43
he's referring a place of eternal bliss.
> and that might cause to come into being a kind
> of forbidden fruit . . .
It's a fruit that rots pretty fast. In the non-metaphysical
real world paradise (as in 'worker's paradise') is too high
entropy. The Soviet Socialist Republic fell because it was
too high maintenance. Millions and millions of lifetimes
wasted in committee meetings.
> that would cause some kind of fall,
Every utopia contains the seed of its own dystopian fall.
They all go down messy.
> and then we
> would be expelled from the Garden of Eden, and being expelled from the
> Garden of Eden is the worst thing in the world.
The ultimate Fall would be to fall from Paradise as Satan
did; the 'fall' from Eden is more like a lateral move --getting
kicked outside the gates. This was common practice in the
walled towns of . . . you've read Foucault, why am I telling you
this.
> This is ENTIRELY in
> line with Christian thought, as any non-Christian can see by noting the
> prominence of the idea of the Fall.
We're talking about the Hebrew scriptures where Eden is meant
to be taken literally. Christianity is focused on the spiritual
Kingdom of God which is not physical in the literal sense.
> Our goal is to prevent the Fall by
> ensuring that we do not ever come to think we are living in Edenic
> times.
There's no prohibition in Genesis against living 'edenically' in
the real world. The Chinese kept their version of a horticultural
eden going for 4,500 years. Until they got marxed.
> Except it makes no sense, in any way at all (unless your idea is that
> "theology" does not need to make sense, and thus that any attempt at it
> AUTOMATICALLY must make sense).
. . . can't follow that.
> (It also has nothing to do with
> Francis Bacon that I know of.)
The Book of Genesis is central to Bacon's scientific
philosophy.
> Do you have a version that does make
> sense?
Not a 'version.'
> In any event, you're doing a good job on this thread ensuring science
> doesn't become successfully "Edenic."
Really? I can 'ensure that science doesn't become
successfully edenic just by posting in this thread?'
Wow. I'm good.
> I can't be the only person who
> is infuriated by this kind of thing.
You're probably right. Out there, there's another person
who's infuritated by this kind of thing. Try Craig's List.
Art Neuendorffer
>
>>1. Fire
>>
>>2. Navigation
>>
>>3. Writing
>>
>>4. That the wrong name as author was on a set of plays
>> and poems written in England between 1570 and 1620.
gangleri wrote:
> What about sliced bread?
---------------------------------------------------------------
July 7, 1852: Dr John Watson, Sherlock Holmes's chronicler born
July 7, 1930: Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes's chronicler dies
<<On July 7th, 1930, Arthur Conan Doyle sat with his
family in the rose garden of his house at Windlesham,
looked out over the South Downs, and went to the
afterlife in which he so fervently believed. On his
headstone is carved a simple testimonial to the kind
of man that he was -- *Steel TRUE, Blade Straight*
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sliced bread: born in Chillicothe, Missouri, on July 7, 1928.
.
http://www.chillicothecity.org/bread.html
.
<<It was recently discovered that sliced bread was first
offered for sale - EVER - in Chillicothe, Missouri. A product
of the Chillicothe Baking Company, it was sliced on a machine
called the Rohwedder Bread Slicer. Invented by Iowa inventor,
Otto Rohwedder, the bread slicer was put into practice in 1928
in beautiful downtown Chillicothe. A committee has recently
been formed in Chillicothe to promote its new status as
the "Home of Sliced Bread." Our poster briefly outlines the
history of sliced bread, and we published a brochure recently.
.
Order a Sliced Bread poster featuring authentic photos from
Chillicothe's Sliced Bread history. Cost is $17.50 per poster
(includes shipping & handling).
.
Also available...Our Sliced Bread Candle. Enjoy the
fragrance of fresh sliced bread. Cost is $2.50 per candle.
.
Wonder Bread - the first mass-marketer of sliced bread as a
product - launched a 1930s ad campaign touting the innovation.
As one source reports, "[s]oon EVERy new innovation of convenience
was being touted as the 'greatest thing since sliced bread.'"
---------------------------------------------------------
July 7
1456 Joan of Arc acquitted (but she had already been executed).
1535 Sir Thomas More (Utopia) beheaded for refusing to
acknowledge Henry VIII as the supreme authority of the Church.
1860 Gustav Mahler born (d. 1911)
1887 Marc Chagall born (d. 1985)
1906 Leroy Satchel Paige born (d. 1982)
---------------------------------------------------------
Carry my bones before you on your march, for the rebels
will not be able to endure the sight of me, alive or dead.
Edward I's last words, to his troops as they prepared to
meet the Scottish army of Robert the Bruce, July 7, 1307
---------------------------------------------------------
"I am absolutely undone." Last words of Irish dramatist
RB Sheridan, who died in poverty July 7, 1816
---------------------------------------------------------
. William UNDERHILL (d. July 7, 1597, Fillongley)
<<An existing copy of the Latin 'fine' of May 4, 1597 assigns to
Shakspere a MESSUAGE with two barns & *2 gardens* . William UNDERHILL,
who lived part of the year at Idlicote, was a Catholic recusant
who appeared to Stephen Burman to be 'CRAFTY'. Two months after
the sale, UNDERHILL was killed by HIS SON FULKe, then a legal minor,
to whom he had orally bequeathed his lands. UNDERHILL died at
Fillongley near Coventry on July 7, 1597. As a result, New Place was
forfeited to the state for felony, and FULKe was hanged for murder
in 1599. The crime kept his right to the house insecure until the
victim's 2nd son Hercules UNDERHILL came of age in 1602.>> -P. Honan
---------------------------------------------------------------
. Sir Thomas Lucy (d. July 7, 1600, Charlecote)
http://harlem.eb.com/shakespeare/micro/359/61.html
(b. April 24, 1532, Charlecote, near Stratford-on-Avon, Warwickshire),
English squire whom William Shakespeare may have caricatured as
Justice Shallow in Henry IV, Part 2 and The Merry Wives of Windsor.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paine, Herold, Atzerodt, and Mary Surratt was executed by
hanging on July 7, 1865. She wore a black dress & black veil.
Her last words on the scaffold were "Don't let me fall.">>
------------------------------------------------------------
<<At 61 years of age, Jean Baptiste Charbonneau headed
out to find his fortune, but he found trouble instead.
Jean Baptiste contracted pneumonia after crossing Oregon's
icy Owyhee RiVER. His companions carried him to Inskip
Station in Danner, where he died on May 16, 1866.
"The reported discoveries of gold in Montana, and the rapid
peopling of the Territory, excited the imagination of the
old trapper, and he determined to return to the scenes of
his youth," read Charbonneau's obituary in Auburn's Placer
Herald on July 7, 1866. "Though strong of purpose,
the weight of the years was too much for the hardships
of the trip undertaken, and now he sleeps alone
by the bright waters of the Owyhee." >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://w3.one.net/~bzimov/clue/Professor/To%20Ms.%20Anne.html
<<["Sic transit gloria mundi"] is used during the coronations of Roman
Catholic pontiffs and was first spoken aloud at the coronation of
Alexander V, which occurred in *Pisa* on the 7th of July in 1409.>>
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~awilcox/msletter.html
.
. *Pisa* August 15th 1822
.
<<Finally, Mary Shelley seems to summon the energy to complete
the ring composition of her story by recounting a dream, dreamt
by one of their acquaintance, Mrs. Mason, who saw Shelley last
on Sunday, July 7. On the night of July 8, the day the
Don Juan sailed and sank, Mrs. Mason dreamt:
.
--that she was somewhere--she knew not where & he came looking very
pale & fearfully melancholy--she said to him--"You look ill, you are
tired, sit down & eat." "No," he replied, "I shall never eat more; I
have not a soldo left in the world."--"Nonsense," said she, "this is
no inn--you need not pay--"--"Perhaps,{"} he answered, "it is worse
for that." Then she awoke & going to sleep again dreamt that my
Percy was dead & she awoke crying bitterly...she said to herself-"why
if the little boy should die I should not feel it in this manner.
.
Mrs. Mason experiences a vision of Shelley like Jane Williams, and
dreams about death as Shelley did, and most oddly, she fears for the
safety of the child, Percy Shelley, rather than his father, just as
Mary did when she was overwhelmed by "wretchedness" on Shelley's
departure. The resemblance our author strikes between Mrs. Mason
and her heroine, herself, closes the body of the letter.>>
---------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth wrote:
The second piece of evidence that Sir Tobey Matthew's
'excellent author Sir John Falstaff' was known to the
Court is found in a piece of gossip written in a letter
dated July 7, 1599 from Elizabeth Vernon, Countess
of Southampton to her husband the Earl.
---------------------------------------------------------
Saints CYRIL ['the PHILOSOPHER' d. February 14, 869] &
Methodius [d. April 6, 884] are regarded
as the founders of Slavic literature.
.
Feast day: February 14 (formerly July 7)
.
". . . We pray Thee, Lord, give to us, Thy servants, in all time
of our life on earth, a mind forgetful of past ill-will, a pure
conscience and sincere thoughts, and a heart to love our brethren."
. --From the Coptic Liturgy of Saint CYRIL.
.
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/99.html
.
<<CYRIL (originally Constantine) & Methodius were brothers, from
a noble family in Thessalonika, a district in northeastern Greece.
Constantine was the younger, born in about 827, and his brother
Methodius in about 825. They both entered the priesthood. Constantine
undertook a mission to the Arabs, and then became a professor of
PHILOSOPHy at the imperial school in Constantinople and librarian at the
cathedral of Santa Sophia. Methodius became governor of a district that
had been settled by Slavs. Both brothers then retired to monastic life.
In about 861, the Emperor Michel III sent them to work with the Khazars
northeast of the Black Sea in the Dnieper-Volga region of what was later
Russia. They learned the Khazar language and made many converts, and
discovered what were believed to be relics of St. Clement.
.
In about 863, Prince Rotislav, the ruler of Great Moravia (an area
including much of what was later Czecko-Slovakia), asked the emperor for
missionaries, specifying that he wanted someone who would teach his
people in their own language (he had western missionaries, but they used
only Latin). The emperor and the Patriarch Photius sent Methodius and
his brother Constantine, who translated the Liturgy and much of the
Scriptures into Slavonic.
.
Since Slavonic had no written form, they invented an alphabet for it,
the Glagolitic alphabet, which gave rise to the CYRILlic alphabet (named
for Constantine aka CYRIL), which is used to write Russian and (with
modifications) several related languages today. They used the Greek
alphabet as their basis, writing a letter in two forms when two similar
sounds in Slavonic each needed a letter (hence, in modern Russian, we
have "plain a" written "A" and "fancy a" written like a backward "R"
representing the sounds of hard and soft (or unpalatalized and
palatalized) a, represented approximately in English by "ah" and "yah").
When no Greek letter was close, then they borrowed from Hebrew (the
letter Tzaddi for the sound "ts" as in "tsar", and the letter Shin for
the sound "sh", and a variant on it for the sound "shch" as in
"Khrushchev", and so on). The resulting alphabet had 43 letters. It has
since undergone development, chiefly simplification and the omission of
letters. Thus, the modern Russian alphabet has only 32 letters. The
CYRILlic alphabet with minor variations is used today for Russian,
Ukrainian, and other languages of the former Ussr, and also for
Bulgarian and Serbian and formerly for Rumanian. (Serbs and Croats both
speak Serbo-Croatian, but the Serbs, who are traditionally East
Orthodox, write it with the CYRILlic alphabet, while the Croats, who are
traditionally Roman Catholic, write it with the Latin alphabet. Before
the first World War, there were many muslims (regarded as Turks) living
in Greece, and many Christians (regarded as Greeks) living in western
Turkey. Each group spoke the language of the country in which it lived,
but the Greek-speaking Turks in Greece wrote Greek using the Arabic
script that was then standard for writing Turkish, and the
Turkish-speaking Greeks in Turkey wrote Turkish in the Greek alphabet.
For some reason, the alphabet matters to rival religious groups.)
.
The brothers encountered missionaries from Germany, representing the
western or Latin branch of the Church, and more particularly
representing the Holy Roman Empire as founded by Charlemagne, and
committed to linguistic, and cultural uniformity. They insisted on the
use of the Latin liturgy, and they regarded Moravia and the Slavic
peoples as their rightful mission field. When friction developed, the
brothers, unwilling to be a cause of dissension among Christians, went
south toward Venice, and then from Venice to Rome to see the Pope,
hoping to reach an agreement that would avoid quarreling between
missionaries in the field. They brought with them the above-mentioned
relics of Clement, third bishop of Rome after the Apostles. They arrived
in Rome in 868 and were received with honor. Constantine entered a
monastery there, taking the name CYRIL, by which he is now remembered.
However, he died only a few weeks thereafter. He is buried in Rome in
the Church of San Clemente.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintp35.htm
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9061581
.
Saint PROSPER (Also known as PROSPERO)
.
Memorial: 25 June (day after Oxford's official death!)
Feast day: 7 July (day after Oxford's official burial!)
.
Saint PROSPER of Aquitaine
born c. 390, Lemovices, Aquitania
died c. 463, probably Rome; feast day July 7
(day after Oxford's burial at the church of St. AUGUSTINE!)
.
Before 428, PROSPER moved to Marseille, where he lived as a monk.
Reacting to the rise of Semi-Pelagianism, he wrote (428)
an appeal for help to AUGUSTINE, who replied with
De praedestinatione sanctorum ('Concerning the Predestination
of the Saints') and De dono perseverantiae ('Concerning the
Gift of Perseverance'). In response to continuing Semi-Pelagian
attacks, PROSPER single-handedly rose to AUGUSTINE's defense.
.
In his writings he opposed one of the most revered monks of the era,
Abbot John Cassian of Saint-Victor, as well as Vincent of Lérins.
.
He also wrote a reply to the general attack
on AUGUSTINE, Ad objectiones Gallorum calumniantium
('To the Objections of the Gallic Calumniators').
.
After AUGUSTINE's death (430) in Hippo, PROSPER
went to Rome in 431 to enlist the aid of Pope
Celestine I, who wrote a letter praising AUGUSTINE
.
PROSPER then returned to France, but
by 435 he had established himself at Rome
as secretary to Pope Leo I the Great.
.
Before his death he composed a collection of Augustinian propositions
called Liber sententiarum Sancti AUGUSTINI ('The Book of the
Sentences of St. AUGUSTINE'), which was used in the decrees of
the 2nd Council of Orange in 529 refuting Semi-Pelagianism.>>
------------------------------------------------------------
July 6th 1604 - *Edward VeARE* earl of oxford (burial)
. at the church of St. AUGUSTINE
---------------------------------------------------------
Susanna Shak. born on St. AUGUSTINE's day May 26, 1583
__ Susan Vere born on St. AUGUSTINE's day May 26, 1587
----------------------------------------------------
VÆRE : (Danish) : TO BE
......................................................
Hamlet(Danish) : TO BE, or NOT TO BE,
-----------------------------------------------------
*VARE* : A wand or *STAFF* of authority or justice.
.....................................................
PROSPERO: This airy charm is for, I'll break my *STAFF*
. Bury it certain fathoms in the earth,
. And deeper than did *EVER* plummet sound
. I'll drown my book.
----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth
STOP BURYING OUR HEADERS.
Sick of it ARt. Spamming, strategic burying of headers.
How would you like it if we treated you the way you
treat us?
I don't know if we have enough grounds to get you tossed
out of this newsgroup but if not we can switch to a moderated
forum with one click so even if it's temporary I would love a one
week vacation from your abuse, Neuendorffer.
bookburn
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1149400737.8...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Methinks you protest too much, Elizabeth. By answering the posts you complain
about, you perpetrate the problem; by not blocking the posts with your news
reader, you perpetrate the problem: so it looks like you want to use Art as a
"whipping boy," someone to beat up. Don't worry, substituting a minor but
controllable foible for other ignored quirks is probably a good idea. But I
think you should at least let Art know he functions valuably for you as a
surrogate, jester, vacation, or something. He might be nice to you, then.
(:-> bookburn
Art Neuendorffer
Oh, grow up, Elizabeth!
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Art, she's absolutely right. No one else in the group needs to start
ten or fifteen threads at a time, much less fills them almost always
with so much irrelevant disconnected who knows what. You obviously
have an Internet version of Tourette's, and you really should see a
specialist about it.
--Bob G.
Art Neuendorffer
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> STOP BURYING OUR HEADERS.
>>
>>
>> Sick of it ARt. Spamming, strategic burying of headers.
>>
>> How would you like it if we treated you the way you
>> treat us?
>>
>> I don't know if we have enough grounds to get you tossed
>> out of this newsgroup but if not we can switch to a moderated
>> forum with one click so even if it's temporary I would love a one
>> week vacation from your abuse, Neuendorffer.
>
>
> Methinks you protest too much, Elizabeth. By answering the posts you
> complain about, you perpetrate the problem; by not blocking the posts
> with your news reader, you perpetrate the problem: so it looks like you
> want to use Art as a "whipping boy," someone to beat up. Don't worry,
> substituting a minor but controllable foible for other ignored quirks is
> probably a good idea. But I think you should at least let Art know he
> functions valuably for you as a surrogate, jester, vacation, or
> something. He might be nice to you, then. (:-> bookburn
Old Baconians don't die; they just go crazy.
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
passerby wrote:
> I'm afraid it's no use, Elizabeth. Arthur just can't stop doing so.
> As you already know every time he goes to his bathroom he meets that
> garrulous spook of Oxford, and every time he meets the spook it gives
> him a new list of quotations and ciphers or a new story and commands
> him to post it on HLAS. Since the ghost is an earl and Arthur is a
> commoner he just can't disobey. The only way to solve the problem
> is to destroy Arthur's bathroom which is impossible, I'm afraid.
Since I live in a 3 bathroom house it would only slow me down.
passerby wrote:
> But don't be upset, Elizabeth.
> You can console yourself by the thought that our
> situation is much better than Shakespeare's.
> Shakespeare wanted Art, and we don't.
I Donne *DEsERVE* hanging!
Art Neuendorffer
---------------------------------------------------------
http://books.guardian.co.uk/authors/author/0,,-247,00.html
<<Conversations with Drummond, a collection of Jonson's thoughts
on his life and his contemporaries, is the frankest insight
available into the mind of a Jacobean writer.
It includes the opinions that Shakespeare "wanted art" and that,
for the lax rhythms of his poetry, John Donne "deserved hanging".>>
---------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
>>>STOP BURYING OUR HEADERS.
>>>
>>>Sick of it ARt. Spamming, strategic burying of headers.
>>>
>>>How would you like it if we treated you the way you
>>>treat us?
>>>
>>>I don't know if we have enough grounds to get you tossed
>>>out of this newsgroup but if not we can switch to a moderated
>>>forum with one click so even if it's temporary I would love a one
>>>week vacation from your abuse, Neuendorffer.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
>> Oh, grow up, Elizabeth!
>
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> Art, she's absolutely right. No one else in the group needs to
> start ten or fifteen threads at a time, much less fills them
> almost always with so much irrelevant disconnected who knows what.
O, reason not the need!
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> You obviously have an Internet version of Tourette's,
> and you really should see a specialist about it.
Sounds to me like it deserves a Grummy name
(e.g., "H.L. Artourette'shaksper" )
Art Neuendorffer
Bianca Steele
have no idea what you are talking about.
Elizabeth wrote:
> Bianca Steele wrote:
> > Elizabeth wrote:
> > > Im going to start a blog proving the Bacon, contra Gore, was
> > > a Christian. Gore runs around calling Bacon the 'secularist'
> > > that destroyed planet earth. Gore has never read Bacon. He doesn't
> > > realize the science -- which Bacon discovered in the Book of
> > > Genesis -- is EDENIC science. We could have kept the Garden.
> >
> > Yes, "Edenic" science would be bad.
>
>
> Why would edenic science be bad?
I misunderstood what you said and misremembered what you had posted
before. I mistakenly thought you were familiar with the theory. It
seems you're not doing anything more than quoting people you disagree
with.
--
Bianca Steele
Bianca Steele
>>> paradisiacal conditions . . .
>>
>>
>> We can't reproduce Paradise.
We can take drugs that make us feel we are in paradise. We can imagine
societies that would be like paradise, and decide they are so nice to
think about that we would kill people (or "merely" ignore realities) in
order to bring them about. Many people think that leads to bad
results. You consistently appear to be among them.
>It's a metaphysical realm.
>> Paradise is not an earthly horticultural Eden,
Are you saying that the Genesis chapters on Eden (in Hebrew, "_gan
eden_", _gan_ literally meaning "garden") are not to be read with a
literal meaning?
>it comes from
>> from Gr. para deisos for 'park.' When Jesus says
>>
>> Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. Luke xxiii 43
>>
>> he's referring a place of eternal bliss.
It's good to see you are qualified to state exactly and definitively
what the Bible means.
>>
>>
>>
>>> and that might cause to come into being a kind
>>> of forbidden fruit . . .
>>
>>
>> It's a fruit that rots pretty fast.
This appears to be a bad translation of a bad translation.
>>In the non-metaphysical
>> real world paradise (as in 'worker's paradise') is too high
>> entropy.
This appears to be a bad translation of a made-up speculation
concerning a possible competent opinion concerning a bad translation of
a made-up "fact."
>>The Soviet Socialist Republic fell because it was
>> too high maintenance. Millions and millions of lifetimes
>> wasted in committee meetings.
If we might stick to the subject, many people feel Communism fell
because it was an attempt to bring about paradise through violent
means. There are those who believe the French Revolution "failed"
(yes, I do believe they feel the French Revolution failed), or more
plausibly, turned into the Terror and required another hundred or so
years to settle down, for a similar reason; for example, the English
Romantic poets demonstrate their realization that earthly revolution is
a mistake; they believe that this happens in every generation. Thus
the American campuses started with SDS and ended up with Movement
Conservatism.
Nobody likes meetings. Nobody likes rules. And nobody likes being
told what to do. Too many of the Americans, both pro- and
anti-Communist, (and some Brits, including Russell, and I'm sad to say
even Orwell) engaged from the beginning in "moral equivalence," and
were really writing about their own "modern" society, which they
basically hated. It is no "miracle" that their writings seem to apply
to the West -- they never stopped to think about anything else.
>>
>>
>>> that would cause some kind of fall,
>>
>>
>> Every utopia contains the seed of its own dystopian fall.
>> They all go down messy.
It is because you say things like this that you confuse people. You
just contradicted this, in your preceding paragraphs.
>>
>>
>>
>>> and then we
>>> would be expelled from the Garden of Eden, and being expelled from the
>>> Garden of Eden is the worst thing in the world.
>>
>>
>> The ultimate Fall would be to fall from Paradise as Satan
>> did; the 'fall' from Eden is more like a lateral move --getting
>> kicked outside the gates. This was common practice in the
>> walled towns of . . . you've read Foucault, why am I telling you
>> this.
You're mixing things up. People who actually do scholarship do not mix
up theories from one period or topic with facts from a different period
and topic. If you have a reliable source that combines all these
elements, provide a reference; otherwise, I'm not going to take this
seriously.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> This is ENTIRELY in
>>> line with Christian thought, as any non-Christian can see by noting the
>>> prominence of the idea of the Fall.
>>
>>
>> We're talking about the Hebrew scriptures where Eden is meant
>> to be taken literally. Christianity is focused on the spiritual
>> Kingdom of God which is not physical in the literal sense.
Are you channeling poor Ken Kaplan who feels compelled to address
Christian issues he doesn't totally understand, or are there really
Christians who believe this? It does not match what I've read.
>>
>>
>>> Our goal is to prevent the Fall by
>>> ensuring that we do not ever come to think we are living in Edenic
>>> times.
>>
>>
>> There's no prohibition in Genesis against living 'edenically' in
>> the real world.
Prudence does not encourage pretending to be in Eden.
>>The Chinese kept their version of a horticultural
>> eden going for 4,500 years. Until they got marxed.
>>
>>
>>> Except it makes no sense, in any way at all (unless your idea is that
>>> "theology" does not need to make sense, and thus that any attempt at it
>>> AUTOMATICALLY must make sense).
>>
>> . . . can't follow that.
Yet last week or the week before, you accused certain supposed
"scholars" of "whatever you can get away with." I supposed myself to
mean the same thing as you.
>>
>>> (It also has nothing to do with
>>> Francis Bacon that I know of.)
>>
>>
>> The Book of Genesis is central to Bacon's scientific
>> philosophy.
I know you've read Bacon: I know you're lying. Or else your brain's
been captured by the Straussians (read neo-conservatives) who believe
in the Platonic and Jesuitical "Noble Lie." I wrote a paper (actually
a reading report for a seminar) on Bacon's application of his
interpretation of Genesis to his defense of scientific research, I've
since reread The Great Instauration and the evidently Straussian intro
to the edition I have, and I think you are wrong.
--
Bianca Steele
Elizabeth
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149400737.8...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > STOP BURYING OUR HEADERS.
> Methinks you protest too much, Elizabeth.
All I wanted to do is check for replies.
It it took me a lot of searching find my last post. I tried going
to my profile page -- I couldn't find it there -- I tried searching
the headers-- I went to Art's profile page to try to figure out the
headers he was using to block my posts, etc.
I would identify a header but when I searched it, Art's
fake headers would come up.
Art's motive is to keep anyone who might be reading HLAS
from seeing posts that might ridicule Looney.
He literally buries the post by tacking on a string of his
headers.
This is intentional, he's done it hundreds of times and not
only to me.
It is effectively an abuse of speech.
No one in HLAS is doing this or anything else to Art, yet
we have to endure this behavior.
> By answering the posts you complain
> about, you perpetrate the problem;
Sorry, but that is not true. I'm not doing anything to put
a damper on Art's speech in this forum.
I object to his spamming and I object to his deliberate
burying of headers.
You must be blocking Art's post.
> by not blocking the posts with your news
> reader,
I post from the HLAS homepage.
> you perpetrate the problem:
> so it looks like you want to use Art as a
> "whipping boy," someone to beat up.
Not true. I endured Art's anti-social behavior for a couple
of years before I complained. I used to read Art's exchanges
with Webb but after Art got agressive I stopped reading
anything he posted.
> Don't worry, substituting a minor but
> controllable foible for other ignored quirks is probably a good idea.
I'm hardy the only one who's sick of Art's behavior. Greg
and others have confronted him.
This was once a flourishing forum and at a time when
interest in the authorship question is exploding--it's
even being taught at Harvard, this forum is being strangled.
We just saw what happened to Lynne because of
the bad atmosphere in this forum.
I have repeatedly asked people to be civil and I predicted
what in fact did happen.
Who is going to take this forum seriously when they come
in and see that more than half the posts are by Neuendorffer
and all those headers are off-topic word salad.
And I will point out that Art has admitted several times that
he's only recycling this spam because he's engaged in some
kind of contest.
He hasn't explained the contest but we have been made
INVOLUNTARY CONTESTANTS.
I don't want to be in this contest.
This is just one more way of Art exerting his will in a situation
he knows we have to endure.
Art should be posting in an S & M forum. If you're reading
this Art, find one. Go there.
> But I
> think you should at least let Art know he functions valuably for you as a
> surrogate, jester, vacation, or something.
Maybe he functions as a jester for you but you're not
getting crapped on.
He might be nice to you, then.
> (:-> bookburn
I don't care how Art feels about me, I don't get emotionally
involved with people I don't know personally. I care about
how he behaves.
The Oxfordians are a cult, not because theres is something
wrong with them but because there is something wrong with
Looney's rhetoric. Looney wrote in a particular binary
rhetoric of 'conversion.'
This is why you can point out that Looney redacted Oxford's
letter and it simply doesn't register with them. If Looney
had written his book in the plain style, the Oxfordians would
have their own wills. They would see the ethical problem with
Looney's faking Oxford's letter and they would issue a disclaimer.
This is why Art feels justified, even sanctimonious,
whenever he 'protects Oxford.' He's not protecting the
historical Oxford, he's protecting Looney's romantic
rhetorical duffus.
If Art were obsessed with the historical Oxford we
could have a conversation.
You're basically right. however, and I'm going to
take your advice in the sense that I'm going to
stop measuring this forum by what it once was and
accept what it is now.
LynnE
Nothing has happened to me, Elizabeth. I am just taking some quiet time
as I've been unwell. Hope to be back soon.
Regards,
Lynne
Elizabeth
> Elizabeth wrote:
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > STOP BURYING OUR HEADERS.
>
>
> already know every time he goes to his bathroom he meets that garrulous
> spook of Oxford, and every time he meets the spook it gives him a new
> list of quotations and ciphers or a new story and commands him to post
> it on HLAS.
That explains it!. Art's posts are garbled because Oxford's
transmissions are bad. (Oxford garbled everything he wrote).
> Since the ghost is an earl and Art is a
> commoner he just can't disobey.
I can just see Art down on one knee on the way to the bathroom.
Oxford, my liege, can you wait until I pee?
> The only way to solve the problem is to
> destroy Art's bathroom which is impossible.
Art must live in one diocese or another. What about an
exorcist priest?
Oxford would doubless love to r.i.p. after eighty-five years of
psychic harassment by Oxfordians.
> But don't be upset,
> Elizabeth. You can console yourself with the thought that our situation
> is much better than Shakespeare's. Shakespeare wanted Art, and we don't.
lol!!
Elizabeth
> Elizabeth wrote:
> > We just saw what happened to Lynne because of
> > the bad atmosphere in this forum.
>
> Nothing has happened to me, Elizabeth. I am just taking some quiet time
> as I've been unwell. Hope to be back soon.
I'm sorry, I suppose that I did think that you'd had enough of
what goes on in this forum and I would include my own needling
of Looney and Oxford (not the historical Oxford). Oops, I did
it again. ; )
Feel better and when you do come back because we miss you.
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Bianca Steele wrote:
> >>> We might accidentally reproduce
> >>> paradisiacal conditions . . .
> >>
> >>
> >> We can't reproduce Paradise.
>
> We can take drugs that make us feel we are in paradise.
I don't take any drugs. I have imbibed Pepto Bismal after
accidently drinking rain water.
> We can imagine
> societies that would be like paradise, and decide they are so nice to
> think about that we would kill people (or "merely" ignore realities) in
> order to bring them about.
Whadda ya mean 'WE?'
I just said that all attempts to make paradise on earth lead
to hell on earth. The Hebrew Testament has things sorted out
just right. Paradise 'up there.' Eden 'here' if we can keep it.
Hell is 'here' if we attempt to bring Paradise down 'here.'
> Many people think that leads to bad
> results.
Killing people to cure them of a rhetorical fixation always
produces unintended results as I'm afraid we're about to find out.
The people are dead but the rhetoric lives on with a vengeance.
What we needed, post-Orwell, was a massive international program
to find cures for these rhetorical viruses. Did I say that the instant
Marx
put pen to paper millions of peasants were contemned to die in wars
of ideology? Rhetoric is more dangerous than nukes.
> You consistently appear to be among them.
Among what? The people who want to kill to make heaven on
earth.
Allow me to clarify:
I'VE BEEN SAYING EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE, BIANCA.
Do you only see what you want to see?
> >It's a metaphysical realm.
> >> Paradise is not an earthly horticultural Eden,
>
> Are you saying that the Genesis chapters on Eden (in Hebrew, "_gan
> eden_", _gan_ literally meaning "garden") are not to be read with a
> literal meaning?
I'm saying that the Eden in Genesis is meant to be read as
a literal garden. It's not to be read as a metaphysical space.
Literal gardens can be read metaphorically. This is how
Pembroke and Bacon read North America. It was mankinds'
chance to get Eden right.
There's nothing in the Bible that condemns horticulture. There's
a huge amount in the Bible on good husbandry.
> >it comes from
> >> from Gr. para deisos for 'park.' When Jesus says
> >>
> >> Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. Luke xxiii 43
> >>
> >> he's referring a place of eternal bliss.
>
> It's good to see you are qualified to state exactly and definitively
> what the Bible means.
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> and that might cause to come into being a kind
> >>> of forbidden fruit . . .
> >>
> >>
> >> It's a fruit that rots pretty fast.
>
> This appears to be a bad translation of a bad translation.
>
> >>In the non-metaphysical
> >> real world paradise (as in 'worker's paradise') is too high
> >> entropy.
>
> This appears to be a bad translation of a made-up speculation
> concerning a possible competent opinion concerning a bad translation of
> a made-up "fact."
What. ARe you a Commie? There's a rule. The more you deny
nature or human nature, the more labor you have to perform.
You have to battle entropy.
When you deny the natural tendency of humans to organize
themselves then you have to build huge bureaucracies to
organize humans.
What would you rather do, go to the beach or sit at a desk?
> >>The Soviet Socialist Republic fell because it was
> >> too high maintenance. Millions and millions of lifetimes
> >> wasted in committee meetings.
>
> If we might stick to the subject, many people feel Communism fell
> because it was an attempt to bring about paradise through violent
> means.
Who doubts that? Everybody believes it. Marx was a utopian.
The Continent produced many utopian groups and theorists due to
the psychologically catastrophic rupture of Roman Catholicism.
Look at More's Eutopia. Utopian works are normally rare, Henry VIII's
assault on English Catholic culture (a beatiful culture that worked)
caused an outburst of utopian works including Bacon's.
> There are those who believe the French Revolution "failed"
> (yes, I do believe they feel the French Revolution failed), or more
> plausibly, turned into the Terror and required another hundred or so
> years to settle down, for a similar reason; for example, the English
> Romantic poets demonstrate their realization that earthly revolution is
> a mistake; they believe that this happens in every generation. Thus
> the American campuses started with SDS and ended up with Movement
> Conservatism.
I'm a Burkean on that subject. I think the French Revolution
failed. And yes, I've read the whole book. I didn't agree with
all of Burke's arguments but I generally agree with his conclusions.
I didn't like his sucking up to his patrons. That was irritating.
> Nobody likes meetings. Nobody likes rules. And nobody likes being
> told what to do.
I disagree. There are more people who eat that up than those
who don't. It's a sort of substitute for human bonding in a
society which doesn't bond around marriage anymore.
> Too many of the Americans, both pro- and
> anti-Communist, (and some Brits, including Russell, and I'm sad to say
> even Orwell) engaged from the beginning in "moral equivalence," and
> were really writing about their own "modern" society, which they
> basically hated. It is no "miracle" that their writings seem to apply
> to the West -- they never stopped to think about anything else.
It's not a 'modern' society and we expect too much of it.
Western culture swings back and forth between its two
mutually hostile parts; classical Greece and the ancient
Near East. The medieval (moderni) period reacted
against the classical (destroyed all its parchments, kiled
anyone in a toga) and then we had a swing back in the
15th century to the classical that lasted 30 years in Italy
(only the upper 2 % of the population noticed it) and oh,
maybe 50 years in England in a more energetic form.
We did live in a double culture that FINALLY came together in
the Shakespeare works and Bacon's works -- both harmonize
the classical with the bibilical without losing the essence of
either-- but we've essentially lost the influence of the Shakespeare
works and Bacon is being sliced and diced as usual.
Yamada thought that the Shakespeare works had to be
translated before republics could be founded. I think the
Shakespeare works have to be read to keep the republic.
I do know for certain that we can't keep any republic with
the earlish reading of the Shakespeare works and worse,
it will serve neo-feudal corporatism.
> >>> that would cause some kind of fall,
> >>
> >>
> >> Every utopia contains the seed of its own dystopian fall.
> >> They all go down messy.
>
> It is because you say things like this that you confuse people. You
> just contradicted this, in your preceding paragraphs.
I didn't contradict myself. Utopias are artificial rhetorical
constructs, the people enrolled in them are stressed out becaues
all utopias are against nature, eventually the utopia cracks up,
often with the murder of the leader. Branch Davidian is not
untypical.
> >>> and then we
> >>> would be expelled from the Garden of Eden, and being expelled from the
> >>> Garden of Eden is the worst thing in the world.
> >>
> >>
> >> The ultimate Fall would be to fall from Paradise as Satan
> >> did; the 'fall' from Eden is more like a lateral move --getting
> >> kicked outside the gates. This was common practice in the
> >> walled towns of . . . you've read Foucault, why am I telling you
> >> this.
>
> You're mixing things up. People who actually do scholarship do not mix
> up theories from one period or topic with facts from a different period
> and topic.
You're making things up. Adam and Eve do not 'fall' because Eden
is earthly. Adam and Even exit via the Gate. Bounced. Kicked out.
Evicted. Catholics call it The Expulsion.
The author of this webpage thinks the arch in the background
of the drawing is the Gate of Eden from which Adam and Eve
have just been expelled.
The drawing at the right might help, because close scrutiny
also reveals the corner of a tall rectangular building or wall,
directly behind Eve's head, with the wide opening of a round
arch set in it below. I think this is the gate of Eden; some faint
details within the arch may have belonged to the 'flaming sword
which turned every way' of Genesis 3:24, or one of the
'Cherubims' also mentioned in the verse.
<http://www.paintedchurch.org/bledlod2.jpg>
<http://www.paintedchurch.org/bledlow.jpg>
> If you have a reliable source that combines all these
> elements, provide a reference; otherwise, I'm not going to take this
> seriously.
See above.
> >>> This is ENTIRELY in
> >>> line with Christian thought, as any non-Christian can see by noting the
> >>> prominence of the idea of the Fall.
> >>
> >>
> >> We're talking about the Hebrew scriptures where Eden is meant
> >> to be taken literally. Christianity is focused on the spiritual
> >> Kingdom of God which is not physical in the literal sense.
>
> Are you channeling poor Ken Kaplan who feels compelled to address
> Christian issues he doesn't totally understand, or are there really
> Christians who believe this? It does not match what I've read.
I don't know Ken Kaplan.
Eden in Genesis is meant to be taken as fact in the mundane sense.
The kingdom is mundane but the presence of Christ makes it
a spiritual, metaphysical Kingdom of God. It's both physical
and sprititual as I think most Christian denominations read it.
There are a lot of denominal exceptions, i.e., the Roman Catholic
Church which sees the Kingdom of God already established on
earth in the mundane sense of the facilities, i.e., the Vatican,
but spiritual in the sense of the Body of Christ, the Catholic
believers.
Christ will return to His Church, both literally and spiritually.
You'd have to write an encyclopedia to cover all the combinations
of the now 33,830 Christian denominations. That's an accurate count.
> >>> Our goal is to prevent the Fall by
> >>> ensuring that we do not ever come to think we are living in Edenic
> >>> times.
> >>
> >>
> >> There's no prohibition in Genesis against living 'edenically' in
> >> the real world.
>
> Prudence does not encourage pretending to be in Eden.
Eden isn't about 'pretending.' It's a vocabulary of practices.
For example, factory farming isn't edenic.
> >>The Chinese kept their version of a horticultural
> >> eden going for 4,500 years. Until they got marxed.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Except it makes no sense, in any way at all (unless your idea is that
> >>> "theology" does not need to make sense, and thus that any attempt at it
> >>> AUTOMATICALLY must make sense).
> >>
> >> . . . can't follow that.
>
> Yet last week or the week before, you accused certain supposed
> "scholars" of "whatever you can get away with." I supposed myself to
> mean the same thing as you.
I don't know what you're talking about.
> >>> (It also has nothing to do with
> >>> Francis Bacon that I know of.)
> >>
> >>
> >> The Book of Genesis is central to Bacon's scientific
> >> philosophy.
>
> I know you've read Bacon: I know you're lying. Or else your brain's
> been captured by the Straussians (read neo-conservatives) who believe
> in the Platonic and Jesuitical "Noble Lie."
Look 'Bianca,' but I'm not all over the place. I have a basic grip of
the subject matter. I waded into a two-year debate with Webb because
I'm opposed to German idealism, and the Einstein-Minkowski STR
came out of that school. My argument was that it was 'not science.'
I later found Einstein's statement that the STR is 'not science' which
makes Einstein smarter than Webb because Einstein at least knew
the difference between idealism and science. Webb never got it.
Bacon properly relegated mathematics to 'metaphysiques.'
> I wrote a paper (actually
> a reading report for a seminar) on Bacon's application of his
> interpretation of Genesis to his defense of scientific research, I've
> since reread The Great Instauration and the evidently Straussian intro
> to the edition I have, and I think you are wrong.
So you're saying that when you presented this paper -- to the
University of Chicago? -- you had originally believed that Bacon
influenced the Straussians but you subsequently reread the Great
Instauration -- all six parts? the Great Instauration is a project, not
a work -- do you mean the Novum Organum? and then deplored the
fact that you were wrongly influenced by the Straussian introduction.
That seems to suggest that you wrote the paper based on the
Straussian introduction and read the Novum Organum afterwards
because it's hard to beleve that even a superficial browsing of the
Novum
Organum would suggest that Bacon thought like a German idealist.
If you want to continue this debate, give us a precis of your
paper and a couple of quotes.
I've got stuff to do so take your time.
seaker
Elizabeth - You are just as annoying as Art. You post endless nonsense
trying to convince the world that you boy, Sir Francis Bacon, is the
real author. Yes, Bacon was a brilliant man; no he was not the author.
The so-called Bacon parallelisms are not unique. They might suggest
that Bacon read Shaksepeare. The so-called Bacon cryptograms, ciphers
and secret codes don't stand up to close examination. Finally, it is
odd that no serious Bacon scholar has ever found any credible evidence
that Bacon wrote Shakespeare.
You lament that this forum isn't what it use to be. Pity. What was it
like in the old days? Perhaps when this forum was started, it was
intended to be a place where people could exchange views about the
plays, sonnets, and narrative poems. What it quickly became was a
place where the Marlowe, Bacon, Derby, and Oxford crowd posted their
groundless claim that their guy was the real author. For the most
part, this forum is an authorship site 24/7.
>From reading this forum and the Shakespeare Fellowship Forum, someone
who was new to Shakespeare might assume that the so-called authorship
question was the center of Shakespearean scholarship. Not true. As for
your claim that the authorship question is exploding, it only looks
that way from your narrow view of the world. The same is true for Art,
Peter Farey, John H, etc. No wonder Hardy Cook does not allow any
postings about the so-called authorship question.
Elizabeth, I'm sure you will post some rant about how I am wrong. Fine.
Rant away if that keeps you happy or keeps you bile level up. Now that
I think about it Elizabeth, you and Art a lot in common. You're two
peas in a pod.
Bianca Steele
I don't care.
--
Bianca Steele
Elizabeth
seaker wrote:
> Elizabeth wrote:
>
> Elizabeth - You are just as annoying as Art.
I conform to the rules of this forum. Art violates common
decency AND the rules of this forum.
> You post endless nonsense
And you say that based on zero research.
> trying to convince the world that you boy, Sir Francis Bacon, is the
> real author.
Unlike the Strats and Oxfordians, I don't identify with
the author. My project is only to rehabilitate Bacon so
we can connect two bodies of Renaissance works that interpret
each other. The Shakespeare works and the Bacon works
are two halves of a whole. Life is short, books are long,
these bodies have had a profound influence on the founding
of the US, for example, but one is misread and the other is
ridiculed.
We can thank the Strats.
> Yes, Bacon was a brilliant man; no he was not the author.
And you've spent how many years studying the question?
> The so-called Bacon parallelisms are not unique. They might suggest
> that Bacon read Shaksepeare.
If that were true then Bacon's commonplace notebook in
the British Museum would say 'William Shakespeare' on
the cover, not 'Francis Bacon.' The Promus holds hundreds
of notes for the plays.
And there are too many that come after the broker drowned
in his beer.
This post seems familiar. Are you recycling the same old
post re Neuendorffer?
The so-called Bacon cryptograms, ciphers
> and secret codes don't stand up to close examination.
That's why I don't post on ciphers and other crap. I make
an exception for unusually probative ciphers because . . .
the Elizabethans did put them in their works.
> Finally, it is
> odd that no serious Bacon scholar has ever found any credible evidence
> that Bacon wrote Shakespeare.
<http://www.sirbacon.org/baconvsshakesp.htm>
Scroll to the bottom of the page. This is entry level.
<http://www.sirbacon.org/baconvsshakesp.htm>
> You lament that this forum isn't what it use to be. Pity. What was it
> like in the old days?
Let's just say that there was a better caliber of debaters.
> Perhaps when this forum was started, it was
> intended to be a place where people could exchange views about the
> plays, sonnets, and narrative poems. What it quickly became was a
> place where the Marlowe, Bacon, Derby, and Oxford crowd posted their
> groundless claim that their guy was the real author. For the most
> part, this forum is an authorship site 24/7.
You haven't read the HLAS Charter. This is ((ALSO))) an
authorship forum. Next time Greg posts the Charter
check it out.
> >From reading this forum and the Shakespeare Fellowship Forum, someone
> who was new to Shakespeare might assume that the so-called authorship
> question was the center of Shakespearean scholarship.
Schools are resorting to the authorship question to make
the study of the plays interesting and it does work. Of course
Bacon is alway dispensed with before it starts. Everybody
knows Bacon's style was dull and he was too busy to write.
> Not true.
Do you ever look anything up?
Paste this into your command line.
shakespeare de vere site:.edu
You can do it again for
shakespeare earl of oxford site:.edu
and get additional results.
> As for
> your claim that the authorship question is exploding, it only looks
> that way from your narrow view of the world. The same is true for Art,
> Peter Farey, John H, etc. No wonder Hardy Cook does not allow any
> postings about the so-called authorship question.
I have exactly the right degree to work on this question.
> Elizabeth, I'm sure you will post some rant about how I am wrong.
I posted two command lines.
Use them and report back.
> Fine.
> Rant away if that keeps you happy or keeps you bile level up. Now that
> I think about it Elizabeth, you and Art a lot in common. You're two
> peas in a pod.
You're just anxious. That's the appropriate response when
paradigms crash.
bookburn
> bookburn wrote:
>> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1149400737.8...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > _______________________________________________
>> >
>> > STOP BURYING OUR HEADERS.
>
>> Methinks you protest too much, Elizabeth.
>
>
> All I wanted to do is check for replies.
>
>
> It it took me a lot of searching find my last post. I tried going
> to my profile page -- I couldn't find it there -- I tried searching
> the headers-- I went to Art's profile page to try to figure out the
> headers he was using to block my posts, etc.
I get the impression that you aren't taking advantage of your newsreader's
ability to block senders and automatically save your posts to a "sent" folder
you can search. My simple but good Outlook Express that comes packaged with
Internet Explorer works this way for me. Under "tools" OE has switches for
taking care of your formatting needs as well. It will have a functioning
"spell checker," too, if you also have Microsoft Word or Works with its spell
checker in your register.
I think using the "block sender" filter on incoming news and mail is
necessary, because there is so much spam, cross-posting, trolling, juvenile
mucking around. Anyway, you see block posts if they are responded to. When
you feel generous, you can un-block everyone and start over.
I use Yahoo for my homepage because it has a good email program that dumps all
the spam into a separate folder for easy deleting, and I get all the
"bookburn" stuff there. My email program in Outlook Express is under my real
name, and I keep it separate, although you can divert your email from other
platforms to there as well. My ZoneAlarm suite has its own email "block
sender" switch.
Alternatively, you could consider using Mozilla Firefox instead of Internet
Explorer and Forte Agent instead of Outlook Express, both of which are free
downloads. bookburn
John W. Kennedy
> Perhaps when this forum was started, it was
> intended to be a place where people could exchange views about the
> plays, sonnets, and narrative poems.
Hope springs, of course, but, as a matter of historic fact, this forum
was started when the so-called "authorship problem" was banned on the
SHAKSPER mailing list.
But cheer up. There's a good chance that questions with no answer (e.g.,
"What did Hamlet major in at Wittenberg?") may be banned soon, and
they'll have to move here.
(For myself, I wish Hardy would ban, "Was Shakespeare Jewish?" and "Did
Shakespeare write his plays to teach a moral?"...)
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Elizabeth
> ability to block senders and automatically save your posts to a "sent" folder
> you can search.
I used a newsreader like a week but I find newsreaders
lonely. I like to post from the homepage. It has a more 'you
are there' feeling.
> My simple but good Outlook Express that comes packaged with
> Internet Explorer works this way for me. Under "tools" OE has switches for
> taking care of your formatting needs as well. It will have a functioning
> "spell checker," too, if you also have Microsoft Word or Works with its spell
> checker in your register.
Now you tell me. lol!
> I think using the "block sender" filter on incoming news and mail is
> necessary, because there is so much spam, cross-posting, trolling, juvenile
> mucking around. Anyway, you see block posts if they are responded to. When
> you feel generous, you can un-block everyone and start over.
I don't really use my e-mail. I'm sure there's 50,000 backed up
at my server.
> I use Yahoo for my homepage because it has a good email program that dumps all
> the spam into a separate folder for easy deleting, and I get all the
> "bookburn" stuff there.
I need to move my e-mail. I have to go in and delete
MM's accumulated transcendental revelations off the
e-mail site every six months or so.
> My email program in Outlook Express is under my real
> name, and I keep it separate, although you can divert your email from other
> platforms to there as well. My ZoneAlarm suite has its own email "block
> sender" switch.
>
> Alternatively, you could consider using Mozilla Firefox instead of Internet
> Explorer and Forte Agent instead of Outlook Express, both of which are free
> downloads. bookburn
I've run Foxfire because I like a tabbed browser but it lacks the
features of Opera. I thought those Norwegians would never get it
together but now Opera is perfected. It's just fun to run.
Elizabeth
> I am not doing this again. You may be an illiterate, and you may not.
>
> I don't care.
>
Now I'll never know how a Straussian introduction came to
be attached to the Great Instauration. I'm distraught.
Ignoto
> Ignoto wrote:
> > John W. Kennedy wrote:
> >> Somewhat earlier, the development of Courtly Love, ca. 1100, which
> >> for the first time treated romantic love as something to be taken
> >> seriously, and not as a form of madness or, at best, a subject for
> >> comedy.
>
> > Catullus? Propertius? Sappho? Theocritus? Ovid? [eg from
> > metamorphoses: Orpheus and Eurydice; Philemon and Baucis; Pygmalion;
> > Iphis and Ianthe; see also Heroides]
>
> They whined about love and laughed at it,
Well, so do a lot of writers that write about love.
Is there a sonnet sequence that isn;t a whining adulation of the
beloved?
Doesn't shakespeare constantly make fun of the folly of love?
> and occasionally acknowledged
> the existence of such a thing as a Dear Old Couple, but only the Greeks
> ever thought that being in love made a man more manly,
Orpheus taking a trip to hell to rescue his bride?
Paris stealing Helen back to Troy- so risking dangerous war with the
greeks?
Ovid telling his wife not to come into exile with him- because he knew
she would be happier in Rome?
Surely these are all 'manly' acts that are sprung from love.
> and, even when
> they did, they were talking about -- ahem! -- the ultimate form of male
> bonding.
Hmmm, yes, but I recall too in the "greek anthology" that there were
many amorous lines written to/of the ladies...
Mark Cipra
I disagree with you on the equivalence of Art and Elizabeth, but I wanted to
take the opportunity to commend the change of tone I've noticed in your
posts recently. I pay more attention to what you're saying when you're not
so nasty!
--
Mark Cipra
"It is as if Shakespeare said to us: 'Did you think weakness and
innocence have any chance here? Were you beginning to dream that? I
will show you it is not so.'" A.C. Bradley
Play Indiana Jones! Hide the "ark" in my address to reply by email.
Art Neuendorffer
>>> "Elizabeth" <elizabeth_w...@mail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1149400737.8...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> STOP BURYING OUR HEADERS.
>> bookburn wrote:
.
>>> Methinks you protest too much, Elizabeth.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> All I wanted to do is check for replies.
. Rep-lies?
.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> It took me a lot of searching find my last post.
.
. Your lost past?
.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> I tried going to my profile page -
>>- I couldn't find it there -- I tried searching the headers-
>>- I went to Art's profile page to try to figure out the
>> headers he was using to block my posts, etc.
Other than they're being an embarrassment to all other
anti-Strats I have no desire to block your posts, Elizabeth.
.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> I would identify a header but when I searched it,
>> Art's fake headers would come up.
. Sorta like a jack-in-the-ox.
.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> Art's motive is to keep anyone who might be reading
>> HLAS from seeing posts that might ridicule Looney.
. Oh, sure, like I talk about Looney ALL THE TIME!
.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> He literally buries the post by tacking
>> on a string of his headers.
You lie out on't, ma'am, and therefore it is not yours:
for my part, I do NOT lie in't, and yet it is mine.
.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> This is intentional, he's done it hundreds of times
>> and not only to me.
Of all the days i' the year, I came to't that day
that our last king Hamlet overcame Fortinbras.
. (You came four years later.)
.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> It is effectively an abuse of speech.
Thomas Hobbes _Leviathan_ CHAPTER IV OF SPEECH
.
There are...four correspondent abuses [of speech]:
.
First, when men register their thoughts wrong by the inconstancy of
the signification of their words; by which they register for their
conceptions that which they never conceived, and so deceive themselves.
.
Secondly, when they use words metaphorically; that is, in other
sense than that they are ordained for, and thereby deceive others.
.
Thirdly, when by words they declare that to be their will which is not.
.
Fourthly, when they use them to grieve one another: for seeing nature
hath armed living creatures, some with teeth, some with horns, and some
with hands, to grieve an enemy, it is but an abuse of speech to grieve
him with the tongue, unless it be one whom we are obliged to govern;
and then it is not to grieve, but to correct and amend.
-----------------------------------------------------------
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> No one in HLAS is doing this or anything else to Art,
>> yet we have to endure this behavior.
What, do you tremble? are you all afraid?
HLAS, I blame you not; for you are mortal,
And mortal eyes cannot *ENDURE* the devil.
.
>> bookburn wrote:
.
>>> By answering the posts you complain
>>> about, you perpetrate the problem;
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> Sorry, but that is not true. I'm not doing anything
>> to put a damper on Art's speech in this forum.
. A Pamper?
.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> I object to his spamming and
>> I object to his deliberate burying of headers.
I've seen the horror. But you have no right to call me a spammer. You
have no right to call me a spammer. You have a right to kill me. You
have a right to do that, but you have no right to judge me. It's
impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not
know what horror means. Horror. Horror has a face, and you must make a
friend of horror. Horror and mortal terror are your friends. If they
are not, then they are enemies to be feared. They are TRULY enemies.
.
>> bookburn wrote:
.
>>> by not blocking the posts with your news reader,
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> I post from the HLAS homepage.
. I post HASTE.
.
>> bookburn wrote:
.
>>> you perpetrate the problem:
>>> so it looks like you want to use Art as a
>>> "whipping boy," someone to beat up.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> Not true. I endured Art's anti-social behavior for a couple
>> of years before I complained. I used to read Art's exchanges
>> with Webb but after Art got agressive I stopped reading
>> anything he posted.
. I got agressive [sic]!!
(Talk about the pot & the kettle!)
.
>> bookburn wrote:
.
>>> Don't worry, substituting a minor but controllable foible
>>> for other ignored quirks is probably a good idea.
FW 419.13: O foibler, O flip, you've that wandervogl wail withyin!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Foible, n. The half of a sword blade or foil blade nearest the point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
FW 160.33: And from the poignt of fun where I am crying
to arrive you at they are on allfore as foibleminded
as you can feel they are fablebodied.
------------------------------------------------------------------
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> I'm hardy the only one who's sick of Art's behavior.
>> Greg and others have confronted him.
. Captain Huff-n-Puff? Confront me?
.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> This was once a flourishing forum and at a time when
>> interest in the authorship question is exploding--it's
>> even being taught at Harvard, this forum is being strangled.
"I don't know what to do!" cried Art, laughing and crying in the same
breath; and making a perfect Laocoon of himself with his stockings.
.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> We just saw what happened to Lynne because
>> of the bad atmosphere in this forum.
. Oh, tell us again about Looney & Oxford, Elizabeth.
.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> I have repeatedly asked people to be civil
>> and I predicted what in fact did happen.
. Aeschylus (525-456 B.C.). Agamemnon.
.
CHORUS: What is this cry? some dark despair of soul?
.
CASSANDRA: PAH! the house fumes with stench and spilth of blood.
--------------------------------------------------------------
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> Who is going to take this forum seriously when they come
>> in and see that more than half the posts are by Neuendorffer
>> and all those headers are off-topic word salad.
. Regis Philbin? Carrot Top?
.
http://www.voccoquan.com/images/regis%20and%20carrot%20top.jpg
.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> And I will point out that Art has admitted several times that
>> he's only recycling this spam because he's engaged in some
>> kind of contest.
. I won a contest you know!
.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> He hasn't explained the contest but we have been made
>> INVOLUNTARY CONTESTANTS.
Each player has his own START location and HOME location. The goal is to
be the first player to get all four pawns from the START square to the
HOME square. Turns are passed by the left (clockwise).
.
Each player in turn draws one card from the stack and follows its
instructions. A card is required for the player to move one of his or
her pawns a certain number of spaces counter clockwise around the board.
The player can choose any pawn they want to use.
.
Two pawns can not occupy the same square. A pawn that lands on a square
occupied by a pawn of another color sends that pawn back to the nest. A
pawn can not be moved so it lands on a square already occupied by a pawn
of the same color.
.
If a pawn lands on the start square of a slide, it immediately moves
forward the three or four squares to the last square of the slide. All
other pawns anywhere on the slide are then sent back to the nest.
Exception: If a pawn lands on the start square of a slide marked in its
own color, no action is taken.
.
With 4 and 10, the player can move backwards. A common strategy is to
start a pawn out of the nest, and then move it backwards past the
entrance to the goal, saving a long clockwise trip around the board.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> I don't want to be in this contest.
. Sorry!
.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> This is just one more way of Art exerting his will in a situation
>> he knows we have to endure.
.
in a situation he knows you have to endure.
.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> Art should be posting in an S & M forum. If you're reading
>> this Art, find one. Go there.
. I thought this was a Shakespeare & Marlowe forum.
.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> bookburn wrote:
.
>>> But I
>>> think you should at least let Art know he functions valuably for
>>> you as a surrogate, jester, vacation, or something.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> Maybe he functions as a jester for you
>> but you're not getting crapped on.
Well you're not doing anything to put
a Pamper on Art's speech in this forum.
.
>> bookburn wrote:
.
>>> He might be nice to you, then.
>>> (:-> bookburn
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> I don't care how Art feels about me, I don't get emotionally
>> involved with people I don't know personally. I care about
>> how he behaves.
Song of Rollant/Roland/Hruodland/RUTLANDus XXXIV
.
. King Marsilies is turn'ed white with rage,
. HIS FEATHERED DART HE BRANDISHES AND SHAKES.
. Guenes beholds: his sword in hand he takes,
. Two fingers' width from scabbard bares the blade;
. And says to it: "O clear and fair and brave;
. Before this King in court we'll so behave,
. That the Emperour of France shall never say
. In a strange land I'd thrown my life away
. Before these chiefs thy temper had essayed."
. "Let us prevent this fight:" the pagans say.
--------------------------------------------------------------
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> The Oxfordians are a cult, not because theres is something
>> wrong with them but because there is something wrong with
>> Looney's rhetoric. Looney wrote in a particular binary
>> rhetoric of 'conversion.'
. Perhaps it's a Baconian binary code!
.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> This is why you can point out that Looney redacted Oxford's
>> letter and it simply doesn't register with them. If Looney
>> had written his book in the plain style, the Oxfordians would
>> have their own wills. They would see the ethical problem with
>> Looney's faking Oxford's letter and they would issue a disclaimer.
If Elizabeth would write her posts in a plain style
someone might figure out what the hell she is talking about!
.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> This is why Art feels justified, even sanctimonious,
. I've read you post, Elizabeth, and I forgive you.
.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> whenever he 'protects Oxford.'
.
. Is that what I've been doing?
.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> He's not protecting the historical Oxford,
>> he's protecting Looney's romantic rhetorical duffus.
NeuenDorffer has an "ff" but
doofus (or dufus if you prefer) has only one "f".
.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> If Art were obsessed with the historical Oxford
>> we could have a conversation.
. With Lynne over tea perhaps.
.
> Elizabeth wrote:
.
>> You're basically right. however, and I'm going to
>> take your advice in the sense that I'm going to
>> stop measuring this forum by what it once was
>> and accept what it is now.
Since Elizabeth didn't start posting at HLAS
until March 4, 2001 (about 4 years after me
and 5 years after HLAS's start) one might
ask how she knows what this forum once was.
.
seaker wrote:
.
> Elizabeth - You are just as annoying as Art.
Besides which...Shakespeare doesn't want Elizabeth
.
seaker wrote:
.
> Yes, Bacon was a brilliant man; no he was not the author.
Yes, Shaksper was a illiterate boob; no he was not the author.
.
seaker wrote:
.
> The so-called Bacon parallelisms are not unique.
> They might suggest that Bacon read Shaksepeare.
. Or even attended to a 'Shaksepeare' play.
.
seaker wrote:
.
> The so-called Bacon cryptograms, ciphers and
> secret codes don't stand up to close examination.
Some do:
------------------------------------------------------------
_ Ignatius Donnelly found the word *BACON* on both:
.
_ the *53rd* Folio page of the Comedies &
_ the *53rd* Folio page of the Histories.
.......................................................
_ The Merry Wives of Windsor Act 4, Scene 1
MISTRESS QUICKLY: 'Hang-hog' is Latin for *BACON* I warrant you.
.......................................................
_ 1 King Henry IV, Act 2, Scene 2
.
FALSTAFF: Strike; down with them; cut the villains' throats:
. ah! whoreson caterpillars!*BACON-fed* knaves!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On the Frontispiece in vol.1 of Nicholas Rowe's 1709 edition
____ of _The Works of Mr. William Shakespeare_
_________ there is "a horn on his head."
.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16275/16275-h/images/between.jpg
.
The oBoe's *DOUBLE READ* points to the number *53* on the Stratford
. Monument. (See p. 193 of Matus' _Shakespeare In Fact_.)
.
. obiit an(n)o do(min)i 1616
. AEtatis *53 die* 23 ap(rilis)
.............................................................
_ Whitney's 1586 edition of his Emblems on *page 53*
.
_ http://www.sirbacon.org/links/whitneyemblem.html
_ http://www.mun.ca/alciato/whit/w053a.html
.
_ Whitney's Choice of Emblemes *53a*
_ In *dies* meliora (Better things from day to day)
---------------------------------------------------------
St. Anthony the Great died in 356 at the age of *106* years.
.
_____ Thirteen centuries later:
.
Aubrey's _Antiquities_ (1656): published on Oxford's 106th birthday.
.
The Dugdale drawing was published in 1656 - Oxford's 106th birthday!
.
_ *Shakespeare(106 yrs)* => 2 X (AEtatis *53 die* )
_ *Shakespeare(106 yrs)* => Oxford(54 yrs) + Shakspere(52 yrs)
----------------------------------------------------------------
seaker wrote:
.
> You lament that this forum isn't what it use to be. Pity. What was it
> like in the old days? Perhaps when this forum was started, it was
> intended to be a place where people could exchange views about the
> plays, sonnets, and narrative poems. What it quickly became was a
> place where the Marlowe, Bacon, Derby, and Oxford crowd posted their
> groundless claim that their guy was the real author.
.
<< *Clamn dever* , Lenehan said to Mr O'Madden Burke.>>
.
> For the most part, this forum is an authorship site 24/7.
.
. We sometime discuss craters.
.
> From reading this forum and the Shakespeare Fellowship Forum, someone
> who was new to Shakespeare might assume that the so-called authorship
> question was the center of Shakespearean scholarship. Not true.
> As for your claim that the authorship question is exploding,
> it only looks that way from your narrow view of the world.
> The same is true for Art, Peter Farey, John H, etc.
.
Beware *the STARe* that will paralyze *THE WILL OF THE WORLD*
.
> No wonder Hardy Cook does not allow any postings
> about the so-called authorship question.
.
___ *HARD COOKY*
___ *HARDY COOK*
___ *CHOKY ROAD*
___ *HOARY DOCK*
.
> Elizabeth, I'm sure you will post some rant about how I am wrong.
> Fine. Rant away if that keeps you happy or keeps you bile level up.
> Now that I think about it Elizabeth, you and Art a lot in common.
> You're two peas in a pod.
.
. "Why do I am alook alike a poss of porterpease?"
----------------------------------------------------------------
MISTRESS QUICKLY: Well, fare thee well: I have known thee these
twenty-nine years, come peascod-time(i.e., late spring); but
an honester and TRUER-hearted man,--well, fare thee well.
----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
John W. Kennedy
> Orpheus taking a trip to hell to rescue his bride?
And blowing it because he was too infatuated to follow instructions.
> Paris stealing Helen back to Troy- so risking dangerous war with the
> greeks?
I don't know offhand of /any/ version of the story presented for its own
sake, rather than as backstory to something else, and I don't know of
any version of the tale of Troy that presents Paris as particularly
heroic, prior to the invention of the motion picture.
> Ovid telling his wife not to come into exile with him- because he knew
> she would be happier in Rome?
Hmmm.... Well, that's /one/ reading....
> Hmmm, yes, but I recall too in the "greek anthology" that there were
> many amorous lines written to/of the ladies...
Of course men and women loved in ancient times. But it wasn't seen as
something noble, or as important for its own sake -- that was an
invention of the Middle Ages. There is nothing in ancient literature
comparable to "Pride and Prejudice", or to "Persuasion", or even to
"Pamela". There is nothing comparable to Troilus & Cressida (a medieval
addition to the Troy story), or to anything by Marie de France or
Chrétien de Troyes. There is no hint of the medieval warrior dedicating
his conquests to his ladye faire. The closest thing in Greek drama to
the medieval notion of a decent plot is the "Iphegenia in Tauris", but
the key relationship in it is between brother and sister, and most
people seem to regard, say, the "Medea" as a much better play, and far
more typically Greek.
(There hardly could have been any such notion in Greece, anyway, where
women were only somewhat better off than they are in present-day Iran.
Roman women had much greater freedom, but Roman life was still
unfriendly to Romance.)
Given two stories with nearly the same plot, Shakespeare made a tragedy
of the medieval tale of Romeo and Juliet, and a farce of the ancient
tale of Pyramus and Thisbe.
Groundling
John W Kennedy writes:
> Of course men and women loved in ancient times. But it wasn't seen as
> something noble, or as important for its own sake -- that was an
> invention of the Middle Ages.
See SONG OF SONGS.
Ted R.
Groundling
John W Kennedy writes:
> Of course men and women loved in ancient times. But it wasn't seen as
> something noble, or as important for its own sake -- that was an
> invention of the Middle Ages.
See SONG OF SONGS.
Ted R.
John W. Kennedy
I do not see what you're saying here. If you are taking the traditional
allegorical reading, fine, it's an allegory -- but that removes it from
the current discussion. If, on the other hand, you are taking it
literally, then I don't see any difference from what came out of the
classical world. The fundamental axiom is still lacking:
Man X is a hero because he is in love with woman Y.
We are so accustomed to this idea that I suppose we tend to see it where
it doesn't exist. But the fact is that the idealization of romantic love
is as alien to the ancient mindset as Nature-worship of the
Wordsworthian sort is to the medieval mindset (medieval poets much
prefer gardens to forests), or as the notion that Democracy is an
intrinsic good is to the Early Modern mindset (even in the early US,
Jefferson's followers were called "Democrats" by his enemies, as a term
of abuse, and as late as the 1840's opponents of the Jacksonian
ascendancy were referring to it as "the Democracy").