Shakespeare and Kabbalah - Preposterous Pseudo-Theology?
gangleri
In Karen Armstrong's 'A History of God', its central tenets were
summarized as follows:
"The most influential Kabbalistic text was The Zohar, which was
probably written in about 1275 by the Spanish mystic Moses of Leon. As
a young man, he had studied Maimonides but had gradually felt that
attraction of mysticism and the esoteric tradition of Kabbalah. The
Zohar (The Book of Splendour) is a sort of mystical novel, which
depicts the third-century Talmudist Simeon ben Yohai wandering around
Palestine with his son Eliezar, talking to his disciples about God,
nature and human life. There is no clear structure and no systematic
development of theme or ideas. Such an approach would be alien to the
spirit of The Zohar, whose God resists any neat system of thought.
Like Ibn-al-Arabi, Moses of Leon believed that God gives each mystic a
unique and personal revelation, so there is no limit to the way the
Torah can be interpreted: as the Kabbalist progresses, layer upon layer
of significance is revealed. The Zohar shows the mysterious emanation
of the ten sefiroth as a process whereby the impersonal En Sof becomes
a personality. In the three highest sefiroth - Kether, Hokhmah and
Binah - when, as it were, En Sof has only just "decided" to
express himself, the divine reality is called "he." As "he"
descends through the middle sefiroth - Hesed, Din, Tifereth, Netsakh,
Hod and Yesod - "he" becomes "you." Finally, when God
becomes present in the world in the Shekinah, "he" calls himself
"I." It is at this point, where God has, as it were, become an
individual and his self-expression is complete, that man can begin his
mystical journey. Once the mystic has acquired an understanding of his
own deepest self, he becomes aware of the Presence of God within him
and can then ascend to the more impersonal higher spheres, transcending
the limits of personality and egotism. It is a return to the
unimaginable Source of our being and the hidden world of sense
impression is simply the last and outer-most shell of the divine
reality." (Ballantine Books, 1993, p. 247)
The Ten Sefiroth are listed on p. 246. Their Cipher Value calculated
by the Saga-Shakespeare Cipher Key is 35850 as detailed below:
En Sof (Without End) = 2638
Kether (Crown) = 3025
Hokhmah (Wisdom) = 2852
Binah (Intelligence) = 1559
Hesed (Love or Mercy) = 1953
Din (Power) = 1219
Tifereth (Beauty) = 4209
a.k.a. Rakhamim (Compassion) = 3301
Netsakh (Lasting Endurance) = 3514
Hod (Majesty) = 1261
Yesod (Foundation) = 2434
Malkuth (Kingdom) = 3816
a.k.a. Shekinah = 3392
Ek ("I" in 13th century Icelandic) = 677 = 35850
The Kabbalah concept of God as "He" is introduced in line 5 of Hamlet's
opening scene -
Bernardo:
Who's there?
Francisco:
Nay answer me; stand, and unfold yourself.
Bernardo:
Long live the king!
Francisco:
Bernardo?
Bernardo:
He.
- while the Kabbalah concept of En Sof (Without End) is introduced in
the first line of the Dedication of 'The Rape of Lucrece' which reads
as follows:
TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE, HENRY VVriothesley, = 20739
Earle of Southhampton, and Baron of Titchfield. = 19243
THE loue I dedicate to your Lordship is without end: = 24594
whereof this Pamphlet without beginning = 20833
is but a superfluous Moity. = 14177
The warrant I haue of your Honourable disposition, = 24299
not the worth of my vntutord Lines = 18910
makes it assured of acceptance. = 12693
VVhat I haue done is yours, what I haue to doe is yours, = 25164
being part in all I haue, deuoted yours. = 15478
VVere my worth greater, my duety would shew greater, = 27009
meane time, as it is, it is bound to your Lordship; = 21612
To whom I wish long life still lengthned with all happinesse. = 29538
Your Lordships in all duety. = 13166
William Shakespeare. = 9322 = 296777
In the 'vocabulary' of Shakespeare Myth, 'He' alias Shake-Speare, 4951,
IS the Stratfordian OF RECORD - that is, the fellow whose baptism and
burial are 'documented' in a COPY of what purports to be original
records of Holy Trinity Church in Stratford - whose 'houre vpon the
stage', derived by the application of the Cipher Key to the names and
dates listed in the copy, has a Cipher Value of 35662.
The Great Instauration, 11203 - Francis Bacon's mission in life as
enciphered in the Shakespeare Opus and the King James Bible - is the
"death" of Shake-Speare, - 4951, through metamorphosis into Flaming
Sword, 4000, whereby En Sof of Kabbalah alias God of the Old and New
Testaments is manifested in the world as I or Ek, as in 11203 + 296777
+ 35662 - 4951 + 4000 + 35850 = 378541.
That concludes William Shakespeare's "grauer labor" whereby "the first
heire of [his] inuention" is rid of the "deformity" which in the blunt
imagery of Saga- Shakespeare Myth, as memorably documented in John
Aubrey's 'brief life' on Edward Oxenford, is a Fart emitted by The Pope
on The Vatican alias Seat of Man's Lower Emotions.
The Cipher Value of Francis Bacon's Mission Accomplished, 378541,
mirrors that of the Dedication of 'Venus and Adonis' - the first work
of William Shakespeare to be published (1593):
TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE Henrie Vvriothesley, = 20018
Earle of Southampton, and Baron of Titchfield. = 18867
Right Honourable, I know not how I shall offend = 21943
in dedicating my vnpolisht lines to your Lordship, = 23463
nor how the worlde vvill censure mee for choosing = 25442
so strong a proppe to support so vveake a burthen, = 25266
onelye if your Honour seeme but pleased, = 17161
I account my selfe highly praised, = 13387
and vowe to take aduantage of all idle houres, = 18634
till I haue honoured you vvith some grauer labour. = 23217
But if the first heire of my inuention proue deformed, = 23437
I shall be sorie it had so noble a god-father: = 15796
and neuer after eare so barren a land, = 12970
for feare it yeeld me still so bad a haruest, = 16690
l leaue it to your Honourable suruey, = 17417
and your Honor to your hearts content, = 18884
vvhich I wish may alvvaies answere your ovvne vvish, = 27199
and the vvorlds hopefull expectation. = 17766
Your Honors in all dutie, = 11662
William Shakespeare = 9322 = 378541
The Shakespeare Authors - principally Edward Oxenford, Francis Bacon,
and Ben Jonson - viewed themselves as "translators of the bible" in
that their works served as 'hidden poetry' on Old and New Testament
themes which recognized no essential difference between Judaism and
Christianity.
Towards the end of the Dedication of the King James Bible, 'the
translators of the bible' expressed their confidence in history's
ultimate judgment of their labours as follows:
"And now at last, by the mercy of God, and the continuance of our
labours, it being brought unto such a conclusion as that we have great
hopes that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby; we hold
it our duty to offer it to Your Majesty, not only as to our King and
Sovereign, but as to the principal Mover and Author of the work: humbly
craving of Your most Sacred Majesty, that since things of this quality
have ever been subject to the censures of illmeaning and discontented
persons, it may receive approbation and patronage from so learned and
judicious a Prince as Your Highness is, whose allowance and acceptance
of our labours shall more honour and encourage us, than all the
calumniations and hard interpretations of other men shall dismay us.
So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at
home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor
instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto
the people, whom they desire to still to keep in ignorance and
darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by
selfconceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto
nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil;
we may rest secure, supported within by the truth and innocency of a
good conscience, having walked the ways of simplicity and integrity, as
before the Lord; and sustained without by the powerful protection of
Your Majesty's grace and favour, which will ever give countenance to
honest and christian endeavours against bitter censures and
uncharitable imputations."
Amen!
In a message posted on Apr 29, at 8:53 pm on the thread "Re: Question:
Who's there? Answer: Christopher Marlowe!", Tom Veal asserted:
"It happens, however, that none of their insights [they = ancient
sages] bears any resemblance to your cipher key and the preposterous
pseudo-theology
that accompanies it. I'm the one who agrees with the "ancient sages" on
these matters; you, the inventor of incoherent "insight" that you
fantastically attribute to them."
It may not be Tom Veal's cup of tea, but dismissing the world-view of
the great minds which shaped the Augustan-Saga-Shakespeare tradition as
"preposterous pseudo-theology" is quixotic arrogance on par with the
self-anointed Vicar of Christ's condemning the Jews as Killers of
Christ.
gangleri
Historical Facts', authors Tom Reedy and Dave Kathman write, inter
alia, as follows:
"In the [First Folio], Ben Jonson wrote a poem "To the memory of my
beloved, The Author Mr. William Shakespeare," in which he says,
Sweet Swan of Avon! what a sight it were
To see thee in our waters yet appeare,
And make those flights upon the bankes of Thames,
That so did take Eliza, and our James!
"Here not only does Jonson tie the author to William Shakespeare of
Stratford-upon-Avon, but he puts him in James I's court."
It is axiomatic in modern science, that "facts" are conclusions drawn
from given premises - that, as Stephen Hawkings put it in 'A Brief
History of Time', a scientific theory "exists only in our minds and
does not have any other reality, whatever that may mean" (quoted from
memory).
In the present case, the above construction of Ben Jonson's words is
predicated on the Queen Gertrude view of reality in Act III, Sc. iv:
Queen:
To whom do you speak this?
Hamlet:
Do you see nothing there?
Queen:
Nothing at all; yet all that is I see.
An alternative construction would take Ben Jonson's address as its
point of departure:
To the memory of my beloved, The AVTHOR = 16479
Mr. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE = 10685
And what he hath left us. = 10274 = 37438
In the context of Augustan-Saga-Shakespeare Myth, Ben Jonson speaks
here of Light of the World alias Jesus Patibilis or The Passible Jesus
of Gnostic Thought - what one writer has termed the "original and
profound interpretation of the figure of Christ." (See below) The
frontispiece of 'Minerva Britanna' (1612) contains a symbolic
representation of that which Ben Jonson had been "left" - on the
assumption that readers are familiar with the subject matter, the three
associated Latin inscriptions may be placed in context as follows:
Light of the World = 1000
MENTE.VIDEBORI = 6339
In the Mind I Shall be Seen
Sweet Swan of Avon = 10805
VIVITUR IN GENIO = 8642
Resurrected by the Talent
The End = 100
CÆTERA MORTIS ERUNT = 10552 = 37438
All Else by Death Concealed.
In the Augustan-Saga-Shakespeare tradition, this "original and profound
interpretation of the figure of Christ" is viewed as God or Monad
incarnate upon the advent of Christ which is held to have been
prophesied by Virgil in the 1st century B.C. as follows:
Monad = 1
MAGNUS AB INTEGRO SAECLORUM NASCITUR ORDO = 20087
Voici Qui Recommence Le Grand Ordre Des Siècles
The mighty March of Time resumes from nil
The great roll-call of the centuries is born anew
In Shakespeare Myth, Jesus Patibilis is held to have been passed to
Ben Jonson = 4692
in order that, at Seventh Day's end, his Psyche might be transformed by
metamorphosis into
Flaming Sword = 4000
Accordingly, Ben Jonson declares himself Shakespeare's equal up front:
TO draw no envy (Shakespeare) on thy name, = 17316
Am I thus ample to thy Booke, and Fame: = 13629
While I confesse thy writings to be such, = 20670
As neither Man, nor Muse, can praise too much. = 19164
'Tis true, and all mens suffrage. But these wayes = 21369
Were not the paths I meant unto thy praise; = 20516
For seeliest Ignorance on these may light, = 17686
Which, when it sounds at best, but eccho's right; = 23213
Or blinde Affection, which doth ne're advance = 17565
The truth, but gropes, and urgeth all by chance; = 19375
Or crafty Malice, might pretend this praise, = 18692
And thinke to ruine, where it seem'd to raise. = 19456
These are, as some infamous Baud, or Whore, = 18294
Should praise a Matron: - What could hurt her more? = 23199
But thou art proofe against them, and indeed = 18170
Above th'ill fortune of them, or the need. = 16465
provided only that his Shake-Speare (Penis) may 'rise, shake, and die'
in a 'well' on Virgin's Mons Veneris at Day's End - hence:
I, therefore, will begin. Soule of the Age! = 16324
The applause! delight! the wonder of our Stage! = 20370
My Shakespeare, rise! = 8288 = 378541
This mirrors the Cipher Value of the Dedication of 'Venus and Adonis'
which served as reference value in my original message on this thread.
Shake-Speare's 'rise' begins from the Seat of Man's Lower Emotions -
hence his identification in the Dedication of 'Shakespeares Sonnets' as
Mr. W. H. = 3637
as in JHWH's rear end, whence emanates the "sound and fury" which is
held to attend mythical
Stratfordian's Houre Vpon The Stage = 35662
The prophecy of the Foole in Act III, Sc. ii of 'King Lear' concerns
Houre's End -
Foole:
This is a braue night to coole a Curtizan. = 18279
Ile speake a Prophesie ere I go: = 11474
When Priests are more in word, then matter; = 21520
When Brewers marre their Malt with water; = 22944
When Nobles are their Taylors Tutors, = 19413
No Heretiques burn'd, but wenches Sutors; = 21530
When euery Case in Law, is right; = 15028
No Squire in debt, nor no poore Knight; = 17202
When Slanders do not liue in Tongues; = 17970
Nor Cut-purses come not to throngs; = 19028
When Vsurers tell their Gold i' th'Field, = 18668
And Baudes, and whores, do Churches build; = 16748
Then shal the Realme of Albion come to great confusion: = 22454
Then comes the time, who liues to see't, = 18310
That going shalbe vs'd with feet. = 14148
This prophecie Merlin shall make; for I liue before his time. = 24357
Exit. = 2594
The Globe burned to the ground on St Peters Daye 1613.
In 1612, the following inscription was made on the facade of St.
Peter's Basilica in Rome to mark completion of its construction:
IN HONOREM PRINCIPIS APOST PAVLVS V BVRGHESIVS = 23501
ROMANVS PONT. MAX. AN. MDCXII PONT. VII. = 14074 = 378541
Again, this is mirrors the Cipher Value of the Dedication of 'Venus and
Adonis' - a French translation of the inscription reads: Paul V
Borghèse, pape, a fait ceci en l'an 1612, en l'honneur du prince des
apôtres.
In the context, the Prince is Christ as Jesus Patibilis, alias Prince
Hamlet of Saga-Shakespeare Myth - a Son sworn to avenge his Father's
Murder Most Foul as per Hamlet's words to his Father's Ghost in Act I,
Sc. v (First Folio text):
Hamlet:
Hast, hast me to know it, = 11813
That with wings as swift = 15426
As meditation, or the thoughts of Love, = 17684
May sweepe to my Revenge. = 11099
In the Quest of the Holy Grail, the 'miraculous vessel' that carries
the Prince to his revenge is
Faith = 2082
with the vessel reaching harbor at Ben Jonson's Poem's End:
Looke how the fathers face = 11599
Lives in his issue, even so, the race = 15715
Of Shakespeares minde and manners brightly shines = 20651
In his well torned and true-filed lines: = 17328
In each of which, he seemes to shake a Lance, = 15712
As brandish't at the eyes of Ignorance. = 14757
Sweet Swan of Avon! what a sight it were = 21616
To see thee in our waters yet appeare, = 17318
And make those flights upon the bankes of Thames, = 19678
That so did take Eliza and our James! = 14184
But stay, I see thee in the Hemisphere = 15161
Advanc'd, and made a Constellation there! = 14530
Shine forth, thou Starre of Poets, and with rage = 22500
Or influence, chide or cheere the drooping Stage; = 19541
Which, since thy flight fro hence, hath mourn'd like night, = 24007
And despaires day, but for thy Volumes light. = 18824
BEN: IONSON. = 4692
The imagery concerns Ben Jonson's overcoming his Mr. W. H. rear-end
self alias
Shake-Speare = -4951
with Ben's success in that respect being 'documented' through his
burial STANDING UPRIGHT in a 2x2 grave in Westminster Abbey, his
Shake-Speare having 'risen, shaken, and died' in a 'well' on a Virgin's
Mons Veneris -
- on St Peter's Daye:
IN HONOREM PRINCIPIS APOST PAVLVS V BVRGHESIVS = 23501
ROMANVS PONT. MAX. AN. MDCXII PONT. VII. = 14074 = 378541
"I am dead, Horatio. Wretched queen, adieu!"
With these words, Prince Hamlet closes a circle of symbolic reasoning
on the theme of things "in heaven and earth" that must be seen through
the Mind's Eye - things that Stratfordian scholars disregard, having
thrown in their lot with Queen Gertrude's perception of reality.
Background - Jesus Patibilis
....Jesus is here the god with the mission of revelation to man, a more
specialized hypostasis or emanation of the Messenger, whose mission was
to the captive Light in general and preceded the creation of man. That
it is he who makes Adam eat from the Tree of Knowledge explains the
Christian accusation that the Manichaeans equated Christ with the
serpent in Paradise. Of the content of this revelation, the doctrine
concerning "his own self cast into all things" requires comment.
It expresses the other aspect of this divine figure: in addition to
being the source of all revelatory activity in the history of mankind,
he is the personification of all the Light mixed into matter; that is,
he is the suffering form of Primal Man. This original and profound
interpretation of the figure of Christ was an important article of the
Manichaean creed and is known as the doctrine of the Jesus patibilis,
the "passible Jesus" who "hangs from every tree," "is served
up bound in every dish," "every day is born, suffers, and dies."
He is dispersed in all creation, but his most genuine realm and
embodiment seems to be the vegetable world, that is, the most passive
and the only innocent form of life. Yet at the same time with the
active aspect of his nature he is transmundane Nous who, coming from
above, liberates this captive substance and continually until the end
of the world collects it, i.e., himself, out of the physical dispersal.
(Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion - The Message of the Alien God and
the Beginnings of Christianity, Second Edition, revised, Beacon Press,
Boston, 1963, pp. 228-229)
Fryzer
> In their essay 'How We Know That Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare - The
> Historical Facts', authors Tom Reedy and Dave Kathman write, inter
> alia, as follows:
>
> "In the [First Folio], Ben Jonson wrote a poem "To the memory of my
> beloved, The Author Mr. William Shakespeare," in which he says,
>
> Sweet Swan of Avon! what a sight it were
> To see thee in our waters yet appeare,
> And make those flights upon the bankes of Thames,
> That so did take Eliza, and our James!
>
> "Here not only does Jonson tie the author to William Shakespeare of
> Stratford-upon-Avon, but he puts him in James I's court."
>
> It is axiomatic in modern science, that "facts" are conclusions drawn
> from given premises - that, as Stephen Hawkings put it in 'A Brief
> History of Time', a scientific theory "exists only in our minds and
> does not have any other reality, whatever that may mean" (quoted from
> memory).
Modern physics is of course predicated upon a berkleyian assumption
about the world- esse est percepi. That this is a ridiculous assumption
is amply shown by schodengers cat. QM is not complete.
What Hawking means above I am not. It could be trivial and it could be
something more fundamental. If however he means that we entirely invent
the facts, then that is a nonsense and he is well on the way to a
sceptical solipsism.
As for your method, it is entirely subjective and its veracity rooted in
faith. You would do well to so acknowledge and stop attempting to draw
comparisons between proper (objective) scientific method and your own.
gangleri
Modern physics is of course predicated upon a berkleyian assumption
about the world- esse est percepi. That this is a ridiculous assumption
is amply shown by schodengers cat. QM is not complete.
Comment:
I have detailed my views on the epistemological aspects of modern
physical science in several threads which I have started in the Forum
section of www.wolframscience.com. As shown therein, I regard
Einstein's critique of QM as irrefutable.
Re:
What Hawking means above I am not. It could be trivial and it could be
something more fundamental. If however he means that we entirely invent
the facts, then that is a nonsense and he is well on the way to a
sceptical solipsism.
Comment:
I take Hawking to mean that a scientific theory is a mental construct
whereby we impart order to some sub-set of the universe of sense
impressions. As such, it is subjective and "has no other reality
whatever that might mean."
But Hawking is not consistent - for in 'A Brief History of Time' he
also writes of Einstein that he did not "believe in the reality" of
quantum mechanics.
Re:
As for your method, it is entirely subjective and its veracity rooted
in faith. You would do well to so acknowledge and stop attempting to
draw comparisons between proper (objective) scientific method and your
own.
Comment:
First. There exists NO "(objective) scientific method" - so your
reading of my messages in this respect is mistaken.
Second. The only comparison which I do draw between the method of
modern science and my own work relates to objectivity in the sense of
doing experiments/calculations to see if they accord with some given
hypothesis as to how one thing relates to another within a given
sub-set of observations/texts.
Chess One
much older 'hu', though pronounced in a similar way [!]
Of course, Kepler was a neo-Platonist, as was Newton! It is difficult to
find exceptions of inclusion for any leading figure since Dee openly
professed to own it. It is the tradition to reclothe every age from the
spirit of the time.
It is not a 'fantastical' device, as is said below, it is a canonical set of
references to which one needs a key to enter. Gematria being only one [if
abstruse] form of key or device to studies that are otherwise called
Christian Kabbalah. Another exoteric form of gematria is obviously mundane
codes&cipher.
This field of inquiry has seemed to occupy every great mind of every age -
but to demystify it, is only a symbol system, and does not uncover hidden
knowledge as much as observe the patterning of the world's energy.
So we have mundane knowledge as a surface factor supplemented by the daimon
of natural intelligence 'from below'.
A common example is to look at mundane mathematics and its method of
determinations, and make a comparison with nature. Mathematics uses the
abstraction pi as an interrogative, which is useful for analytical purposes
only.
Nature does not. It uses phi, as a regulator for its pattern cycles.
The philosophical difference is profound. When Newton was asked about his
'belief' on these researches he replied 'Sir, I have studied them, you have
not." Which I think resolves a certain difference between those who would
believe or not believe, and those who know.
Caledfwlch, Phil Innes
"gangleri" <gunnar....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1114884364.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Chess One
> But Hawking is not consistent - for in 'A Brief History of Time' he
> also writes of Einstein that he did not "believe in the reality" of
> quantum mechanics.
It's only relatively recently that the terms subjective and objective have
been reversed in value!
Two things of note - the implacably subjective Descartes: cogito ergo sum, I
think therefore I am [or exist], is the very foundation of individual
veracity.
An analysis of 'objective scientific' thought reveals nothing else than
another /belief/ system.
I'll illustrate it anon.
Phil
Fryzer
>>But Hawking is not consistent - for in 'A Brief History of Time' he
>>also writes of Einstein that he did not "believe in the reality" of
>>quantum mechanics.
>
>
> It's only relatively recently that the terms subjective and objective have
> been reversed in value!
>
> Two things of note - the implacably subjective Descartes: cogito ergo sum, I
> think therefore I am [or exist], is the very foundation of individual
> veracity.
> An analysis of 'objective scientific' thought reveals nothing else than
> another /belief/ system.
Says the man typing away on a *computer*...
bernt_b...@hotmail.com
doing gematria, and it would make no difference to its plausibility.
You're arguing from authority, not from evidence.
You may think that you're claiming that the universe can be described
mathematically, but since all your numbers are extrapolated from words,
what you're actually claiming is that the natural universe is
arranged according to words. This would be implausible even if only one
language had ever existed. However, if your theory is to work, the same
transcriptions must be capable of being made in every language that
ever existed. You're claiming that the universe is arranged according
to the words of all languages that ever existed - simultaneously.
Even if the universe were arranged that way, how could we possibly know
we have the true reading? Your method consists of using numbers to draw
a connexion between two words of or sets of words, and then state that
a) the connection is not arbitrary and b) you know what the meaning is.
You provide no evidence for either claim.
This may not be necessary for you, since you, if I understand your
epistemology correctly, don't believe there is any such thing as
truth. I take this to mean that you don't think any of your claims
are true at all
BLB.
gangleri
Pythagoras, Plato, Kepler, Galileo, Newton and Einstein could all be
doing gematria, and it would make no difference to its plausibility.
You're arguing from authority, not from evidence.
Comment:
I agree on your first point.
Re:
You may think that you're claiming that the universe can be described
mathematically, but since all your numbers are extrapolated from words,
what you're actually claiming is that the natural universe is arranged
according to words. This would be implausible even if only one
language had ever existed. However, if your theory is to work, the same
transcriptions must be capable of being made in every language that
ever existed. You're claiming that the universe is arranged according
to the words of all languages that ever existed - simultaneously.
Comment:
Here are Snorri Sturluson's (d. 1241) comments on related issues in
preface to Edda:
"But in order to facilitate the telling of [ancient ideas on Creation
and Creator] and their commitment to memory, they [mankind] gave names
to all things, and these beliefs have changed in many ways as the
nations were divided and their languages diverged from one another.
But they understood all things by earthly understanding because they
were not given spiritual wisdom. It was their understanding that all
things were built from certain form of matter." (My translation.)
I construe this to mean that, in the context of ancient creation myth,
the "names of all things" are a human invention. As for the Creator's
role therein, the view of the ancients - as well as authors in the
Augustan-Saga-Shakespeare tradition - may be summarized as follows:
At the level of Man, God is Consciousness.
A view-point which would seem to accord with Matt. 1:23 -
"...and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is,
God with us."
Re:
Even if the universe were arranged that way, how could we possibly know
we have the true reading? Your method consists of using numbers to draw
a connexion between two words of or sets of words, and then state that
a) the connection is not arbitrary and b) you know what the meaning is.
You provide no evidence for either claim.
Comment:
I have made no claims such as a) and b).
Re:
This may not be necessary for you, since you, if I understand your
epistemology correctly, don't believe there is any such thing as truth.
I take this to mean that you don't think any of your claims are true at
all
Comment:
See preceding comment.
Robert Stonehouse
<inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> But Hawking is not consistent - for in 'A Brief History of Time' he
>> also writes of Einstein that he did not "believe in the reality" of
>> quantum mechanics.
>
>It's only relatively recently that the terms subjective and objective have
>been reversed in value!
>
>Two things of note - the implacably subjective Descartes: cogito ergo sum, I
>think therefore I am [or exist], is the very foundation of individual
>veracity.
Strictly, 'je pense, donc je suis': the Latin version of 1644
was translated by Courcelles.
But it was very soon remarked that 'cogito' includes unstated
assumptions. It should have been 'cogitatur', 'there is
thinking going on', from which Descartes' conclusion does not
seem to follow.
...
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted.
Chess One
"Fryzer" <fry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4274b...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> Chess One wrote:
>> An analysis of 'objective scientific' thought reveals nothing else than
>> another /belief/ system.
>
> Says the man typing away on a *computer*...
A tool! I don't know if you are serious about exploring the subject, but...
>> I'll illustrate it anon.
... a scientific narrative is a cultural construction and the whole thing is
built out of metaphors and mythopoeic ideas. Sometimes the metaphors are
incredibly mixed together and piled onto one another. For example, [to
follow W.I. Thompson], consider this one from Leakey and Lewin, and let us
number a word every time a new metaphor is introduced:-
One of the crucial [1] refinements [2] in brain circuitry [3] was the
evolution [4] of the ability to speak a complex language... The explosion
[5] of new cultural patterns [6] and the acceleration [7] of material [8]
advance [9] during the past fifty thousand years, which are sometimes cited
[10] as evidence [11] of a very recent invention [12] of language, are much
more likely to stem [13] from a more effective expoitation [14] of what was
already wired [15] into the brain from an improvement of the wiring itself.
The biological machinery [16] for the advance [17] was well established
fifty thousand years ago, and its speed [18] was fired [19] by the steady
accumulation [20] of knowledge which finally hit [21] a critical mass. [22]
Brain surgery, wiring, hitting, explosions, speed, critical mass... This
narrative is not simply metaphoric, it is a tossed salad of mixed metaphors.
The author adds a remark that Leakey and Lewin's book is basically a work of
fiction. It is of course based on an external reality of artifacts, but,
then, so is Homer's Illiad or Tolstoy's War and Peace.
Phil Innes
gangleri
This field of inquiry has seemed to occupy every great mind of every
age - but to demystify it, is only a symbol system, and does not
uncover hidden knowledge as much as observe the patterning of the
world's energy.
Comment:
Agree.
And to apply the Probability Calculus to the exquisitely precise manner
of the pattern's manifestation is to put to the test the single most
contentious issue in 20th century theoretical physics:
Does God play dice with the universe?
Tom Veal
> Re:
>
> Even if the universe were arranged that way, how could we possibly
know
> we have the true reading? Your method consists of using numbers to
draw
> a connexion between two words of or sets of words, and then state
that
> a) the connection is not arbitrary and b) you know what the meaning
is.
> You provide no evidence for either claim.
>
> Comment:
>
> I have made no claims such as a) and b).
>
So you do *not* claim that your method is nonarbitrary and do *not*
claim to know the meaning of your results. In other words, the version
of gematria that you have invented is a parlor trick and not a very
interesting one.
Did I ever mention that tea leaf readings show conclusively that
William Shakespeare of Stratford is the true author of Shakespeare and
that anyone who denies that fact is a mythical man-beast? And tea,
unlike searching for ciphers in the clouds, is good for you.
Chess One
> Re:
>
> This field of inquiry has seemed to occupy every great mind of every
> age - but to demystify it, is only a symbol system, and does not
> uncover hidden knowledge as much as observe the patterning of the
> world's energy.
>
> Comment:
>
> Agree.
A more common metaphor of esoteric studies is Alchemy. How is it possible
for such abstruse men to be perceived as a species of deluded and cracked
amateur chemists fondling some shangri-la practice based on species
[coin/gold]? [ROFL!]
BTW: Cymbeline is a study. Not really re-emerging until The Tempest
according to Hughes.
But both gematria dn alchemy are less common renditions than the poesy of
mythos and story-telling, which are no less profound.
> And to apply the Probability Calculus to the exquisitely precise manner
> of the pattern's manifestation is to put to the test the single most
> contentious issue in 20th century theoretical physics:
>
> Does God play dice with the universe?
The Question is: are you content to be acted on by events, or to act on
events? Which shifts our projection of God's responsibility to something to
do with ourselves and our own responsibility, (and dices with de Debil
<hoot!>)
However the Universe might be, the Cosmos is okay, and you're okay!
------------
Lets return to Shakespeare, or whatever his name is
The Historia Regnum Britanniae (c. 1137) is the major work of Geoffrey of
Monmouth.
"The first report of the Historia is that of Henry of Huntingdon who saw it
at the Abbey of Bec in Normandy in 1139. (The Leyden MSS is known to have
been in the library there before 1154 and was probably the one Henry
summarised.) Though written as a history of England from its founding by the
Trojan Brutus through the reign of the Saxon Cadwalladr and including such
well-known stories as those of King Lear and Cymbeline, its chief interest
now and in its own day lay in its presentation of the first written account
of the whole life of Arthur."
There is another thing to say about what G of M wrote and did not, but anon.
Cordially, Phil Innes
gangleri
four hundred years old, with the Chiefs vastly out-numbering the
Indians in both cases.
Newton predicated his calculus of the gravitational mechanics of the
Earth-Moon system "on the hypothesis of the earth's standing still."
('The System of the World in Mathematical Treatment', Proposition 4.
Theorem 4.) - which is NOT the case.
Whence it follows that Newton's calculus cannot in principle be
EXPLANATORY - yet, the Indians among Newton's contemporaries through
Laplace et al. in the 19th century made believe that it was
explanatory rather than descriptive.
Then came relativity, and the Indians took the fall-back position that
Newton's calculus was a good first approximation of the DESCRIPTION
yielded by relativity, which the Indians embraced as EXPLANATORY.
A few months before his death, Einstein observed that the ultimate fate
of General Relativity hinged on that of a single ASSUMPTION - "that
physics can be founded on the concept of field - that is to say, on
continuous elements."
Alas, the academic training of the Indians, who have basked in the glow
of the Chiefs' glory, has left them ill prepared to resolve the point
at issue for it concerns epistemological considerations about which the
Indians know nothing - and are proud of it!
Yet, if the ASSUMPTION is found inadmissible, Einstein concluded,
"then, out of my whole castle in the air - including the theory of
gravitation, but ALSO MOST OF CURRENT PHYSICS - there would remain
almost NOTHING."
Is Science a Preposterous Pseudo-Religion?
Yes.
Ditto for Stratfordian Fundamentalism IF the Shakespeare "record"
cannot be taken at face value.
gangleri
So you do *not* claim that your method is nonarbitrary and do *not*
claim to know the meaning of your results.
Comment:
What the writer suggested -
Your method consists of using numbers to draw a connexion between two
words of or sets of words, and then state that a) the connection is not
arbitrary and b) you know what the meaning is. You provide no evidence
for either claim.
- does NOT relate to any statements of mine.
Hence my reply:
> I have made no claims such as a) and b).
To set the record straight with respect to statements incorrectly
ascribed to me does not relate to the substantive aspects thereof.
As you understand very well.
Fryzer
Einstein means of course that nothing would remain of the current
theoretical underpinnings of modern physics, not that scientific
theories would cease to function as predictive devices.
> Is Science a Preposterous Pseudo-Religion?
Obviously not. Religion is based on intuitive a priori knowledge.
Science is based upon experimental a posteriori knowledge. The
assumptions of science cna be rationally challenged and demonstrated
false. The assumptions of religion cannot be rationally challenged nor
can they be demonstrated false.
> Yes.
> Ditto for Stratfordian Fundamentalism IF the Shakespeare "record"
> cannot be taken at face value.
Unlike yourself stratfordians do not suppose to invent the facts out of
subjective fantasies.
Tom Veal
yourself may not belong) can see that your method consists *exactly* of
taking sets of words with identical "cipher sums", declaring that the
identity of the sums demonstrates a connection between the two sets of
words and telling us what that connection is. That is nothing but a
parlor trick unless you (i) did not pick the two word sets arbitrarily
(that is, did not fiddle with your cipher key until you found results
that you liked, while discarding all other possibilities) and (ii) are
able to explicate what the meaning of the connection is.
You now tell us flatly that you never claimed that your method was
nonarbitrary or that you understood the "hidden poetry" that it
produced. I shan't speculate on what point you imagine your posts to
have but am beginning to remember warnings about not feeding the
trolls.
gangleri
Einstein means of course that nothing would remain of the current
theoretical underpinnings of modern physic [...] Science is based upon
experimental a posteriori knowledge.
Comment:
The concept of scientific "knowledge" which can survive the destruction
of its theoretical underpinnings is a Popperian oxymoron - something
"known" today cannot be NOT "known" tomorrow.
Yet today's scientists CLAIM to "know" all sorts of things which, by
Einstein's reckoning, may be NOT "known" tomorrow.
That's a secular version of pseudo-theology.
gangleri
Re:
You now tell us flatly that you never claimed that your method was
nonarbitrary or that you understood the "hidden poetry" that it
produced.
That's a trollish construction of what I flatly told you:
To set the record straight with respect to statements incorrectly
ascribed to me does not relate to the substantive aspects thereof.?
gangleri
Anybody who has paid any attention to your posts (a class to which you
yourself may not belong) can see that your method consists *exactly* of
taking sets of words with identical "cipher sums", declaring that the
identity of the sums demonstrates a connection between the two sets of
words and telling us what that connection is.
Comment:
Please post ONE example of my "declaring that the identity of sums
demonstrates a connection between the two sets of words and telling
[you] what that connection is."
Fryzer
> Re:
>
> Einstein means of course that nothing would remain of the current
> theoretical underpinnings of modern physic [...] Science is based upon
> experimental a posteriori knowledge.
>
> Comment:
>
> The concept of scientific "knowledge" which can survive the destruction
> of its theoretical underpinnings is a Popperian oxymoron - something
> "known" today cannot be NOT "known" tomorrow.
No, if a theory is predictive then we still *know*, sans all theoretical
underpinnings, what the outcome of certain things is likely to be.
> Yet today's scientists CLAIM to "know" all sorts of things which, by
> Einstein's reckoning, may be NOT "known" tomorrow.
Science, unlike religion never purports to know anything absolutely. SO
yes certain things science *claims* to be true today it may not *claim*
to be true tomorrow. Science only asserts what experiment has shewn to
be likely true, not what true with apodictic certainty.
Tom Veal
How about the first post on this thread, in which the pertinent sum is
378541? Are you now denying that the sets of words that share that sum
have (in your opinion) a connection? Are you denying that you tried,
albeit unintelligibly, to tell us what it is?
Bianca Steele
> "gangleri" <gunnar....@verizon.net> wrote:.
> > Re:
> >
> > This field of inquiry has seemed to occupy every great mind of
every
> > age - but to demystify it, is only a symbol system, and does not
> > uncover hidden knowledge as much as observe the patterning of the
> > world's energy.
> >
> > Comment:
> >
> > Agree.
>
> A more common metaphor of esoteric studies is Alchemy. How is it
possible
> for such abstruse men to be perceived as a species of deluded and
cracked
> amateur chemists fondling some shangri-la practice based on species
> [coin/gold]? [ROFL!]
>
> BTW: Cymbeline is a study. Not really re-emerging until The Tempest
> according to Hughes.
If you are correct, then the study of literature properly consists in
an initiation into a religion or a pseudo-religion, an initiation that
for obvious reasons cannot be acknowledged as being this, and a
religion that must logically be broadly accepted and understood (in
order to be successfully taught without its assumptions ever having
been articulated). I don't see how you are in disagreement with Gunnar
Tomasson except over details, which are necessarily unimportant. What
matters is "the (universal) creation myth," no?
>
> But both gematria dn alchemy are less common renditions than the
poesy of
> mythos and story-telling, which are no less profound.
You're right to say that preoccupation with mechanical versions of
Enlightenment like combining and recombining physical substances, or
obsessively adding and rearranging numbers, are certainly no more
"profound" (LOL! as you might say) than poesy versions. Do you intend
whatever implications might reside in your calling poesy the "more
common" way?
>
> > And to apply the Probability Calculus to the exquisitely precise
manner
> > of the pattern's manifestation is to put to the test the single
most
> > contentious issue in 20th century theoretical physics:
Oh, yes, by all means, let's study the manifestations of that
exquisitely precise probability calculus in the workings of Providence!
I have to say, I find this "Shakespeare religion," if that's what it
is, unconvincing. I can only assume that a Christian finds it
acceptable, and that this fact explains the difference between your
perception of it and my own -- though speaking only for myself, I find
that implausible, as well.
There are, of course, though you seem to be ignorant of this fact,
other approaches to literature than your own quasi-Jungian approach,
approaches that are (to say the least) incompatible with the idea that
a nation's literature is a concrete realization of a kind of religion.
In fact, I venture to say that all respectable approaches to literature
reject this pseudo-Jungianism.
----
Bianca Steele
Chess One
"Bianca Steele" <bianca...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> BTW: Cymbeline is a study. Not really re-emerging until The Tempest
>> according to Hughes.
>
> If you are correct, then the study of literature properly consists in
> an initiation into a religion or a pseudo-religion,
Religio [L] meaning to care for, to reverence - or latterly a systemitised
and partisan advocacy.
A greek word is /elego/ to heed. This subject has little to do with belief,
or received and formalised social forms of worship.
> an initiation that
> for obvious reasons cannot be acknowledged as being this, and a
> religion that must logically be broadly accepted and understood (in
> order to be successfully taught without its assumptions ever having
> been articulated). I don't see how you are in disagreement with Gunnar
> Tomasson except over details, which are necessarily unimportant. What
> matters is "the (universal) creation myth," no?
The confusing element is the activity of intellection implicit with any
'belief'. This is different than the result of observed actions of the
whole, any eon, the cosmos, which we call 'faith', and which can engage
other aspects of us, sensation as example.
Faith need not be intellectual, beliefs always are rationalised, willed and
systematic.
But Hughes comment was to link an observation of something very early in the
plays with some very esoteric references in Tempest.
>> But both gematria dn alchemy are less common renditions than the
> poesy of
>> mythos and story-telling, which are no less profound.
>
> You're right to say that preoccupation with mechanical versions of
> Enlightenment like combining and recombining physical substances, or
> obsessively adding and rearranging numbers, are certainly no more
> "profound" (LOL! as you might say) than poesy versions.
Joyce understood it. Did you ever note the figure from p. 293 of Finnegans
Wake?
> Do you intend
> whatever implications might reside in your calling poesy the "more
> common" way?
Common as quantity, not as quality. Words are plastic in combination, as is
music. They become evocative rather than definitive, this is a semiotic
truth, since a word [a sign] cannot wholly represent the [missing] thing for
which it is a label or signpost. To forget this is to confuse the map with
the territory.
Extreme cases of this confusion is encountered when people actually deny
that there is a territory, and art is for art's sake..
John Fowles said that only in a profoundly machine-like and materialistic
age could words be seen as definitive or exact or be valued for their
concreteness. Their value for him was the opposite. He did not choose to
confound the signpost with the thing indicated, and deliberately maintained
an inexact distance to his subjects, so that "the reader's experience could
close the gap, by imagination".
I pass on the following which is addressed elsewhere.
Cordially, Phil
gangleri
Clearly, you must have overlooked my message on "The Digges Poem and
the 46th Psalm", where I state my position on the point at issue as
follows:
It IS possible, of course, that pure chance is at work - that a Cipher
Key enciphered in a 770-year old Icelandic skin manuscript has by some
phenomenal coincidence made it seem that the Cipher Key itself, the
Seven Monument Words, Digges' First Folio poem, and the 46th Psalm were
designed to form a seamless piece of gematria-based 'hidden poetry' of
the kind which the founders of Western Civilization viewed as the means
whereby God communicated with Man.
It IS also possible that pure chance is NOT at work.
Be that as it may - arithmetic does NOT lie.
gangleri
Science, unlike religion never purports to know anything absolutely. SO
yes certain things science *claims* to be true today it may not *claim*
to be true tomorrow. Science only asserts what experiment has shewn to
be likely true, not what true with apodictic certainty.
Comment:
In experimental science, the "likely true" is shorthand for what we
take to be the invariance of Nature's attributes.
In Religion, the "likely true" may shade into "absolutely true" as a
matter of rhetoric.
In both cases, there is an over-my-dead-body attachment to the dogma of
the day - finite in one case, infinite in the other.
Tom Veal
that we inhabit the same mental universe. To reiterate, if you do not
claim that your method is nonarbitrary and that you can explicate the
significance of its "results", your arithmetic is pointless. You now
apparently assert that you have never made such claims. Therefore, you
concede the worthlessness of your enterprise. If you wish to persist,
go ahead, but I suspect that everyone here but (possibly) the endlessly
gullible Mr. Innes has stopped paying attention.
bernt_b...@hotmail.com
the connection is not arbitrary and b) I know what the meaning is."
That was my reading of what you are trying to say. I am not trying to
set you up as a straw figure. I am simply trying to put what I think
you are trying to say in my own words. That gives you the chance to
correct me if I've misunderstood your theory. If I just quoted your own
words back at you, you would not have the same opportunity.
To avoid further misunderstandings, I'll simply make a few statements
of my own. I don't believe in gematria as an explanation of or
description of the natural universe, as I don't believe the natural
universe is arranged according to words.
That's not to say that a writer might not believe in gematria and fill
his or her texts with gematric (?) clues. Since gematria consists of
using numbers to draw a connexion between two words of or sets of
words, it seems a rather pointless exercise though, since every
statement made with the use of gematria could be made without it.
Even so a writer might choose to use gematria in his writings. However,
he would be faced with a couple of problems. The number of possible
numeric values that could be ascribed to individual letters are
infinite, therefore he could never be sure that his text didn't contain
gematric connections he in no way intended. His only way out of this is
to declare all gematric connections except those in his own cipher
invalid - thereby begging the question.
But it gets worse. It would be practically impossible for him check
every word or combination of words against all other words or
combinations of words in any text of any length. Therefore he could
never know for sure that the text didn't contain unintended messages in
his own cipher. His only way out of this is to in some way mark the
appropriate words, or attach a list of them. If he marks them or
attaches a list of them, it is clearly not the gematric connections
that makes up his message - it is the marks or the lists.
At this point, he might begin to suspect that he was making an ass of
himself.
BLB
gangleri
Gematria concerns what Kepler spoke of as the "music of the spheres" -
what Mr. Innes and I agree may be termed "pattern".
The "meaning" of the "music of the spheres" - "pattern" - is on par
with that of the "music of Mozart".
Some have construed its "meaning" to be, for example, that God frowns
on the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS and marriage for
such as peddle that gospel to the world.
Chess One
"Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1115005984.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> If you think that your post responds to my point, I really don't think
> that we inhabit the same mental universe. To reiterate, if you do not
> claim that your method is nonarbitrary and that you can explicate the
> significance of its "results", your arithmetic is pointless. You now
> apparently assert that you have never made such claims. Therefore, you
> concede the worthlessness of your enterprise. If you wish to persist,
> go ahead, but I suspect that everyone here but (possibly) the endlessly
> gullible Mr. Innes has stopped paying attention.
nolens volens: tom veal confounds the Idea of gematria, with his
understanding of its application in a presumed case. it is not necessary to
either believe nor disbelieve gematria, to understand this lapsus in logic.
a secondary point is this: should the subject be entirely discredited [but
by study as Newton recommended, by not its inconvenience to other views],
does this obviate the fact that it has seen substantial use?
is this obloquy from tom veal on what is preposterous an alternate method of
discerning what is true?
phil innes
Chess One
whatever - it doesn't matter what you believe about it!
And it is not simply the substitution of any words by number values which no
significance to a frame of reference.
It is the relation of numbers to a geometric architecture as a proportion of
the whole, which establishes the relation and value of the part to the
whole. This same proportion and pattern is also evident in nature - and I do
mean in the nature of everything.
The subject of gematria relates in this way by ennumerating the /intended/
value of certain phrases [which are metaphoric], and gematria is but one
part of sacred number theory.
It does not matter if you 'believe' in number theory and use belief as a
superstitious filter for your opinion.
Chartres Cathedral and the Parthenon utilise sacred number theory - as did
all the great temples throughout antiquity in their proportions, and all
these edifices exist entirely independently of anyone's 'belief' in them.
Such 'belief' is entirely synonymous with superstition.
Phil Innes
gangleri
I don't believe in gematria as an explanation of or description of the
natural universe, as I don't believe the natural universe is arranged
according to words.
Comment:
Yale professor J. Willard Gibbs - called "America's greatest scientist"
in an Internet posting - was a man of deep insight and few words among
which the following bear directly on the subject matter:
"Mathematics is a Language."
A "language" whose "words" we use to describe the intrinsic structure
of the universe.
It wasn't always so - in fact, it is only in the past eight decades or
so that the idea has become part of the "belief" system of the
99.99....% of us who accept its validity on the word of the world's
leading theoretical physicists.
In this respect, the cutting edge of 20th century theoretical physics
has brought us to a point of view which ancient sages took for granted
- the view-point which is reflected in Gematria.
Re:
That's not to say that a writer might not believe in gematria and fill
his or her texts with gematric (?) clues.
Comment:
The ancients saw Man as a composite of Nature and Spirit - of Creation
whose intrinsic structure is mathematical and of the Cosmic Creative
Power whose "language" was on display in Nature. Hence the opening
verses of the Gospel of John:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made
by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him
was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in
the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
In the context of this world-view, Gematria is viewed as the Word's
manifestation through Inspired Poets, who 'comprehend' their place in
the natural order of things, AND Poet-Apes, who don't.
Re:
At this point, he might begin to suspect that he was making an ass of
himself.
Comment:
Poet-Ape is one up on Poet in this respect - for, as Ben Jonson put it,
"The Devil is an Ass."
Tom Veal
question" than does the music of Mozart. I think that we can agree on
that proposition.
I notice that you like to cap your posts with gratuitous anti-Catholic
slurs. That's not a habit that will discourage readers from regarding
you as a crackpot.
gangleri
I notice that you like to cap your posts with gratuitous anti-Catholic
slurs. That's not a habit that will discourage readers from regarding
you as a crackpot.
Comment:
Here is Crackpot Jesus on a related issue (Matt. 16:21-23):
>From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that
he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and
chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third
day.
Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from
thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
But he - Crackpot Jesus - turned, and said unto Peter - First Pope -
Get thee behind me, SATAN: thou art an offence unto me: for thou
savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
*****
As for the intellectual/religious atmosphere in which the Shakespeare
Opus came into being, it is mirrored in this respect towards the end of
the Dedication of the King James Bible in 1611 as follows:
And now at last, by the mercy of God, and the continuance of our
labours, it being brought unto such a conclusion as that we have great
hopes that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby; we hold
it our duty to offer it to Your Majesty, not only as to our King and
Sovereign, but as to the principal Mover and Author of the work: humbly
craving of Your most Sacred Majesty, that since things of this quality
have ever been subject to the censures of illmeaning and discontented
persons, it may receive approbation and patronage from so learned and
judicious a Prince as Your Highness is, whose allowance and acceptance
of our labours shall more honour and encourage us, than all the
calumniations and hard interpretations of other men shall dismay us. So
that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at
home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor
instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto
the people, whom they desire to still to keep in ignorance and
darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by
selfconceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto
nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil;
we may rest secure, supported within by the truth and innocency of a
good conscience, having walked the ways of simplicity and integrity, as
before the Lord; and sustained without by the powerful protection of
Your Majesty's grace and favour, which will ever give countenance to
honest and christian endeavours against bitter censures and
uncharitable imputations."
******
IF the account of Matt. 16:13-20 is properly construed as HISTORICAL
grounds for the Head of the Catholic Church to claim the mantle of
Vicar of Christ - And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and
upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it - THEN the words of Jesus to Peter in Matt. 16:23 -
Get thee behind me, Satan - must also be so construed.
In Judaic Myth, of course, Asmodeus/Satan was compelled to aid in the
building of Solomon's Temple.
Jung cautioned that it was a high-risk strategy for orthodox religion
to claim standing on the basis of MYTH misconstrued as HISTORY.
The risk was that new facts might undermine that construction whereby
orthodox doctrine would stand exposed as preposterous pseudo-religion.
Tom Veal
with anti-Catholicism these days, especially in the Moveon.org-like
circles that you appear to inhabit.
gangleri
Are you an antisemite, too? That disease seems often to go hand in hand
with anti-Catholicism these days, especially in the Moveon.org-like
circles that you appear to inhabit.
Comment:
Always the gentleman.
Here is the ESSENCE of the Augustan-Saga-Shakespeare world-view as
reported in my lead-message on this thread:
The Shakespeare Authors - principally Edward Oxenford, Francis Bacon,
and Ben Jonson - viewed themselves as "translators of the bible" in
that their works served as 'hidden poetry' on Old and New Testament
themes which recognized no essential difference between Judaism and
Christianity.
lar...@yahoo.com
much more than science. But if you doubt even religious ideas, then
shouldn't you have doubt about gemetria itself? How can you say that
the numbers never lie? Isn't
it possible that they might?
Also, you rely so much on the ideas of ancient sages.
If you're not even sure of the reality of Shakespeare, how do you know
that someone such as Pythagoras existed or said what people said he
said?
C.
gangleri
Well, I'd assumed that you were Jewish, and that you supported religion
much more than science. But if you doubt even religious ideas, then
shouldn't you have doubt about gemetria itself?
Comment:
I am not Jewish.
As for "religious ideas", I have long construed Paul's First Epistle to
the Corinthians (13:8-13) as conveying the message that accustomed
ideas in that respect are not immutable:
Charity never faileth; but whether there be prophecies, they shall
fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be
knowledge, it shall vanish away.
For now we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part
shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I thought as a child: but when
I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face; now I
know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of
these is charity.
***
The Augustan-Saga-Shakespeare tradition is a religious one in the sense
of Spinoza and Einstein and, since the 1st century B.C., its vision of
Mankind's future has been the one outlined by Virgil in a poem which
medieval Christian scholars viewed as having prophesied the Coming of
Christ - in translation, Virgil's vision reads as follows:
Now the last age by Cumae's Sibyl sung has come and gone, and the
majestic roll of circling centuries begins anew: justice returns,
returns old Saturn's reign, with a new breed of men sent down from
heaven. Only do thou, at the boy's birth in whom the iron shall
cease, the golden race arise, befriend him, chaste Lucina; 'tis thine
own Apollo reigns. And in thy consulate, this glorious age, O Pollio,
shall begin, and the months enter on their mighty march. Under thy
guidance, whatso tracks remain of our old wickedness, once done away,
shall free the earth from never-ceasing fear. He shall receive the
life of gods, and see heroes with gods commingling, and himself be seen
of them, and with his father's worth reign o'er a world of peace.
This Pauline vision of Mankind's future - "preposterous
pseudo-religion" to Mr. Tom Veal - is one that I share.
Bianca Steele
> Common as quantity, not as quality. Words are plastic in combination,
as is
> music. They become evocative rather than definitive, this is a
semiotic
> truth, since a word [a sign] cannot wholly represent the [missing]
thing for
> which it is a label or signpost. To forget this is to confuse the map
with
> the territory.
Which would be bad.
>
> Extreme cases of this confusion is encountered when people actually
deny
> that there is a territory, and art is for art's sake..
I don't think anybody really does that, unless they don't know anything
about literature. The slogan "art for art's sake" doesn't deny there
is a "territory," a real world existing outside the artwork.
>
> John Fowles said that only in a profoundly machine-like and
materialistic
> age could words be seen as definitive or exact or be valued for their
> concreteness. Their value for him was the opposite. He did not choose
to
> confound the signpost with the thing indicated, and deliberately
maintained
> an inexact distance to his subjects, so that "the reader's experience
could
> close the gap, by imagination".
Fowles was an author, so we can assume he knew what should be done and
did it.
>
> I pass on the following which is addressed elsewhere.
I don't think so, but it doesn't really matter.
----
Bianca Steele
gangleri
until just now.
Re. Alchemy.
This is a field with which I am not familiar, but many years ago my
father-in-law gave me a book for Christmas which addresses the subject
matter as follows:
The Secret Doctrine
Man had sought to penetrate the mystery of the invisible worlds and to
dispel the darkness surrounding future things, and now a third mystery
no less provocative was presented to his curiosity - the riddle of
nature remained unread; matter kept the secret of its forms, varieties,
and transformations.
Certainly philosophers like Aristotle or Theophrastus had not omitted
to discourse on "natural things," but only by way of describing the
external accidents of matter which every one of us can see. There was
one doctrine, alchemy, which claimed to penetrate the mystery of life
and of the formation of inanimate substances.
To many people who have not studied it alchemy is no more than an
accumulation of musings and incoherent digressions resulting from man's
vain endeavour to make artificial gold, to which he was impelled either
by sordid cupidity or the arrogant folly of wishing to equal the
Creator. Those, however, who study the alchemy which lies outside
these baser preoccupations will not be slow in discovering that it has
an attraction the appeal of which cannot be described. In the shadowy
edifice of the medieval sciences this science beams like those giant
rose-windows - still, silent, remote from the vulgarities of life -
which bathe the transepts of slumbering cathedrals in ineffable light.
One of the first precise notions gleaned from reading authors who have
treated of alchemy is that this science is based on a secret reserved
for only a few privileged adepts possessing the intellectual and moral
qualities requisite for obtaining it. Difficult and narrow is the way,
and many are those who stray in treading it into wrong paths, where
they are to find only deceit, error, and falsehood, which will beguile
them into expanding vast sums in sheer waste. This truth has been
remarkably expounded by Heinrich Khunrath in one of the plates of his
'Amphitheatrum æternæ sapientiæ' The plate represents the Alchemic
Citadel which symbolizes the science of Hermes. This citadel is
surrounded by a large circle divided into twenty-one compartments, each
with an entrance. Twenty of these have no exit, and are barred by the
enormous wall which parts them from the citadel. They signify the
twenty roads in which seekers after the alchemic doctrine can go
astray. Inscriptions indicate the false activities which these roads
represent; there is the attempt to transmute silver into gold, or, even
worse, to transmute ordinary mercury, and so on. And since these
twenty compartments communicate with one another the amateur philospher
may wander a long time before recognizing his foolishness. The
twenty-first way, that which opens in the front of the figure, is the
true path. But scarcely has the adept entered it than he collides with
a warden who bars him from the sill of a light drawbridge spanning the
broad moat filled with water which isolates the citadel. Many
conditions are required of him - knowledge of the material of the Great
Work, the name by which the result of the great alchemic operation of
transmutation into gold was designated, as well as of its preparation;
then faith, silence, and lastly good works.
For all alchemists taught what few people suspect - that one cannot
succeed in attaining the secret of gold unless one has an upright and
honest soul. Alchemy is not a purely physical science; personal
qualities are rigorously exacted by it. In his 'Cinq Livres' Nicolas
Valois an alchemist of the fifteenth century, says expressly: "The
good God granted me this divine secret through my prayers and the good
intentions I had of using it well; the science is lost if purity of
heart is lost." That is why, in the engraving under discussion, we see
some future adepts who have not been able to cross the drawbridge, but
have managed to climb on to the top of the wall surrounding the moat,
whence they look into the alchemic citadel whose secrets they know
well, though they are incapable of reaching it.
To conclude, a happy initiate has succeeded in passing through the gate
of the citadel, which is surmounted by the hieroglyph of philosphic
mercury. Two prudent counsels have greeted him: "Pray theosophically
and work physico-chemically." Then he traverses the seven angles of
the citadel, answering to the seven transmutative operations -
dissolution, purification, introduction into the sealed vessel or fiery
furnace, which is represented here by the words 'Azoth pondus',
solution by putrefaction, multiplication, fermentation, and projection.
Finally the adept reaches his desired goal - the famous Philospher's
Stone, which is guarded by an enormous dragon who yields it only to
those who have accomplished the requisite operations.
My readers are already familiar with the names of various operations of
the Great Work, and will henceforth be able to form a conclusion of the
highest importance - namely, that from the fifteenth century onward
alchemic science, or that manifestation of it which adepts claim as the
true science, is presented as a complete doctrine, unalterable, never
clearly expounded, but defined under a symbolism the forms of which
were to remain invariable down to our own day; a mysterious doctrine
which could not progress, since it had reached its point of perfection
in one stride, and could not undergo a modification for which there was
no necessity. Adepts who have comprehended the science are in
agreement on this doctrine, and, deaf to the recriminations of modern
chemistry - which they very well understand - repeat the same
traditional expressions, veiled in the same traditional allegories. It
is by virtue of this unchanging agreement that we find Cyliani and
Cambriel, for instance, two alchemists who operated about 1830,
speaking exactly the same metaphorical language as Nicolas Flamel or
Basel Valentin, who lived in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries
respectively.
Alongside these we have the scrambling throng of the uninitiate, who
have utterly failed to penetrate the secret of the true doctrine and
continue working on anomalous materials which will never bring them to
the desired result. These are the false alchemists, who are called
Puffers. (Emile Grillot de Givry, Illustrated Anthology of Sorcery,
Magic And Alchemy, Mallard Press, New York, 1991, pp. 347-350)
gangleri
"a complete doctrine, unalterable, never clearly expounded, but defined
under a symbolism the forms of which were to remain invariable down to
our own day; a mysterious doctrine which could not progress, since it
had reached its point of perfection in one stride, and could not
undergo a modification for which there was no necessity"
Comment:
As in the INVARIANT core imagery of Augustan-Saga-Shakespeare Myth, the
elements of which translate into Cipher Values through the application
of the INVARIANT Cipher Key which Snorri Sturluson placed on record in
enciphered form in the first half of the 13th century in Iceland.
Such invariance is of the essence in order that 'hidden poetry' by
means of Number Symbolism in 13th century Iceland and Shakespeare's
England may be deciphered by students thereof Anno 2005.
Bianca Steele
how to write and to structure a book (of whatever sort) containing
knowledge fit to be read only by experts. The mythology surrounding
alchemy is probably something every educated person ought to be
intimate with. It's surely appropriate for history and philosophy of
science to incorporate the presuppositions of those old texts as
eternally valid insights which our present-day scientists and science
journalists ought to use. And readers of Shakespeare would probably do
well to be led through an experience basically identical to the one
gone through by the potential alchemical adept.
And if not, I'm sure there's a good reason for it that we don't know.
Interesting text, anyway.
----
Bianca Steele
bernt_b...@hotmail.com
in an Internet posting - was a man of deep insight and few words among
which the following bear directly on the subject matter:
"Mathematics is a Language."
A "language" whose "words" we use to describe the intrinsic structure
of the universe.
Gematria, however, seems to be an attempt to describe the structure of
the universe in the english language and other natural languages, and
not in the "language" of mathematics.
BLB
bernt_b...@hotmail.com
furthermore choose use not just any number, but a number with a
"significance to a frame of reference", a "sacred number".
It would still be practically impossible for him check every word or
combination of words against the sacred number in any text of any
length. Therefore he could never know for sure that the text didn't
contain unintended instances of the sacred number - even in his own
cipher. The number of ciphers by which one could derive the sacred
number would be infinite. His only way out of this is to in some way
mark the appropriate words, or attach a list of them. If he marks them
or attaches a list of them, it is clearly not the sacred number that
makes up his message - it is the marks or the lists.
As long as the writer uses arbitrary numbers to make his gematric
connections, it is possible for him to claim that the numbers only
apply to his own text or texts. If he uses a "sacred number" though,
the sacredness of that number must be established independently of his
text - but then it must be sacred and significant for all words and
combinations of words in all texts, in all languages. His only way out
of this is to mark, list or in some way make a set of rules that
defines the texts in which the presence of the sacred number is
significant - "shopping lists doesn't count", for instance. If he
lists, marks or makes up rules to define the appropriate texts, it's
the lists, marks or rules that makes his message - not the sacred
number.
BLB
gangleri
Heisenberg in his book entitled 'Physics and Beyond - Encounters and
Conversations', Harper Torchbooks, 1972, pp. 63-64 - Einstein made a
succinct statement on the relationship between "theory" and
"observation" in physics as follows:
"...on principle, it is quite wrong to try founding a theory on
observable magnitudes alone. In reality the very opposite happens. It
is the theory which decides what we can observe."
In the case of Gematria, the INVARIANT core imagery of ancient creation
myth is "the "theory which decides what we can observe."
A case in point.
Ben Jonson's lines -
I, therefore, will begin. Soule of the Age! = 16324
The applause! delight! the wonder of our Stage! = 20370
My Shakespeare, rise! = 8288 = 44982
- convey mush to Stratfordians, but a precise and graphic meaning to
anyone familiar with the "theory" of Augustan-Saga-Shakespeare Myth, as
in the Cipher Sum 2801 + 360 + 2414 + 6783 - 4951 + 37575 = 44982.
In that "theory", Ben Jonson, become "I" of En Sof's manifestation in
his Psyche through the Ten Sefiroth of Kabbalah, "begins" a "mystical
journey" - as per "Nay, answer me; STAND, and unfold yourself" in line
2 of Hamlet.
A Quest whose End is symbolized by 'dead' Ben Jonson buried STANDING
UPRIGHT in a 2x2 grave in Wesminster Abbey, for the "theory" tracks the
'unfolding' of Ben's Self in terms of Man's quest for Wholeness through
union of En Sof/God's Male and Female attributes at Quest's End.
The above Cipher Sum is arithmetic short-hand for the "theory" of the
Quest specified in terms of Penis, 2801, 'setting forth' on Devils'
Circle, 360, en route to "a consummation Devoutly to be wish'd" alias
sexual union with Vagina, 2414, on Mons Veneris, 6783, at Omega, at
which Shake-Speare (4951) 'dies' STANDING, - 4951.
A memorial inscription to Shake-Speare as 'Prince of the Apostles' was
carved into the facade of St. Peter's Basilica to mark its completion
in 1612 as follows:
IN HONOREM PRINCIPIS APOST PAVLVS V BVRGHESIVS = 23501
ROMANVS PONT. MAX. AN. MDCXII PONT. VII. = 14074 = 37575
(French translation: Paul V Borghèse, pape, a fait ceci en l'an 1612,
en l'honneur du prince des apôtres.)
In the "theory", Shake-Speare is Prince to the King alias the Prince's
"Ten-Speaking HEAD", as in 10 + 37565 = 37575, with the Shake-Speare OF
RECORD having been memorialized in Henry Peacham's 'Minerva Britanna' -
published in 1612 - through a motto and dedication of Emblem # 34 which
read as follows:
Ex malis moribus bonæ leges. = 11922
(From the death of evil, a legacy of good.)
To the most iudicious, and learned, = 15049
Sir FRANCIS BACON, Knight = 10594 = 37565
Apparently, the Vatican was party to the Shake-Speare "conspiracy".
Chess One
"gangleri" <gunnar....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1115070270....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> This Pauline vision of Mankind's future - "preposterous
> pseudo-religion" to Mr. Tom Veal - is one that I share.
ah... except that I would call this a Johannine vision, principiis obsta
phil
Chess One
To forget this is to confuse the map
> with
>> the territory.
>
> Which would be bad.
Eco wrote an essay "on the impossibility of a 1:1 map" :)
>> Extreme cases of this confusion is encountered when people actually
> deny
>> that there is a territory, and art is for art's sake..
>
> I don't think anybody really does that, unless they don't know anything
> about literature. The slogan "art for art's sake" doesn't deny there
> is a "territory," a real world existing outside the artwork.
i agree, excepting Bloomsbury et al - and some thousands of modern museums,
but this is an aside
that "the reader's experience
> could
>> close the gap, by imagination".
>
> Fowles was an author, so we can assume he knew what should be done and
> did it.
this was a comment about the difference between film and a novel - the
author's suggestion is presented as a /specific/ interpretation and set of
images, in contradistinction to those 'drawn' from the reader from their own
experience, and which does not let the audience engage their imagination,
and so 'close the gap', or circuit to fully connect except by the indirect
and proxy means of such an interpreter as a film director
Phil
> ----
> Bianca Steele
>
Chess One
> Yes, surely the ancients who wrote the classical texts on alchemy knew
> how to write and to structure a book (of whatever sort) containing
> knowledge fit to be read only by experts.
> The mythology surrounding
> alchemy
Mythology is a history of consciousness; perhaps 'urban myth' or 'received
presupposition' are better terms about attitudes for which one has adopted a
'belief' absent any study?
> is probably something every educated person ought to be
> intimate with.
Secret Doctrine - Blavatsky is a recontre of this and other hidden fields of
study, aat the beginning of the C20th
> It's surely appropriate for history and philosophy of
> science to incorporate the presuppositions of those old texts as
> eternally valid insights which our present-day scientists and science
> journalists ought to use.
And so it was until about the dawn of the industrial age, when a mechanised
worl-view succeeded in no longer universe-cities
> And readers of Shakespeare would probably do
> well to be led through an experience basically identical to the one
> gone through by the potential alchemical adept.
Shakespeare has not used or evoked the form of alchemy particularly, and
seems to have chosen to rewake a mythopoeic sense of our lives in his staged
enactments of ritual encounter as suitable to his presentation of what was
'secret' understanding to a new and public expression thereof
Phil
Chess One
<bernt_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115108062....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Gematria, however, seems to be an attempt to describe the structure of
> the universe in the english language and other natural languages, and
> not in the "language" of mathematics.
It is not "a language of mathematics". It is a mathematical expression - of
geometric relationships of part to whole - by values deliberately
attributed to letters, words and phrases.
In this sense Numbers are a Quality, not a quantity. As is the Quality of
One, being the first, or protean aspect, and thereby Two is not merely 2x1,
but a reflex and implicate phenomena encountered by any expression of One.
The very basis of even exoteric Christianity this Father (1) Mother (2) and
(3) Holy Ghost.
This is rendered in the esoteric tradition as Male/Will (1) Mother/Love (2)
and Active Intelligence (3)
This simple numerology would be known to any educated Elizabethan,
independent on any investment of belief in it.
Indeed, one might known the 'values' of the numbers 4 and 5 and 6 (devotion,
aspiration, discipleship) unto 7 (synthesis, ritual forms) and so on.
Phil Innes
> BLB
>
gangleri
John Fowles said that only in a profoundly machine-like and
materialistic age could words be seen as definitive or exact or be
valued for their concreteness. Their value for him was the opposite. He
did not choose to confound the signpost with the thing indicated, and
deliberately maintained an inexact distance to his subjects, so that
"the reader's experience could close the gap, by imagination".
Comment:
This mirrors Wittgenstein's comments to the effect that philosophy is a
"ladder" to be thrown away once one has climbed it to where it leads.
In the case of great art - the works of Shakespeare and the paintings
of Goya - those who are content to enjoy it as art-for-art's sake may
be missing the like point of it all.
Bianca Steele
> Bianca Steele wrote:
> > Yes, surely the ancients who wrote the classical texts on alchemy
knew
> > how to write and to structure a book (of whatever sort) containing
> > knowledge fit to be read only by experts.
> > The mythology surrounding
> > alchemy
>
> Mythology is a history of consciousness; perhaps 'urban myth' or
'received
> presupposition' are better terms about attitudes for which one has
adopted a
> 'belief' absent any study?
I think "mythology" is an appropriate term for a set of presuppositions
that exist primarily, though consistently, throughout a fairly unified
body of non-fictional literature over a reasonable length of time,
especially when those presuppositions concern such things as
allegorical representations of the seeker, of the world, etc.
>
> > is probably something every educated person ought to be
> > intimate with.
>
> Secret Doctrine - Blavatsky is a recontre of this and other hidden
fields of
> study, aat the beginning of the C20th
Making up new religions is, as you suggest, a recent development in the
popularization of these ideas. I don't know that alchemical books
weren't the "Popular Mechanics" of their day (not to mention the "Steal
This Book!", perhaps), and if we should be acquainted with other
aspects of the culture, we will be acquainted with alchemical ideas, or
at least the mythology conveyed along with them, as part of that.
>
> > It's surely appropriate for history and philosophy of
> > science to incorporate the presuppositions of those old texts as
> > eternally valid insights which our present-day scientists and
science
> > journalists ought to use.
>
> And so it was until about the dawn of the industrial age, when a
mechanised
> worl-view succeeded in no longer universe-cities
I don't know what you mean to refer to, regarding this succession; and
it is not the case that forms of literature or general thought changed
so much as you suggest, at the same time the new science came in (about
1800, you seem to be saying?).
>
> > And readers of Shakespeare would probably do
> > well to be led through an experience basically identical to the one
> > gone through by the potential alchemical adept.
>
> Shakespeare has not used or evoked the form of alchemy particularly,
and
> seems to have chosen to rewake a mythopoeic sense of our lives in his
staged
> enactments of ritual encounter as suitable to his presentation of
what was
> 'secret' understanding to a new and public expression thereof
A complete refusal to articulate a set of ideas, at the same time
insisting on the importance of those ideas, means that one expects
one's audience to figure things out for themselves. Or what would it
mean?
In any event, I don't see that there is anything "mythopoeic" or
"ritual" in Shakespeare's plays, and I remain uninstructed after you've
told me it's there.
----
Bianca Steele
bernt_b...@hotmail.com
"values deliberately
attributed to letters, words and phrases."
This means that it is the deliberate attribution - marks, lists, rules
- that makes it work.
BLB
Chess One
>> Mythology is a history of consciousness; perhaps 'urban myth' or
> 'received
>> presupposition' are better terms about attitudes for which one has
> adopted a
>> 'belief' absent any study?
>
> I think "mythology" is an appropriate term for a set of presuppositions
> that exist primarily, though consistently, throughout a fairly unified
> body of non-fictional literature over a reasonable length of time,
> especially when those presuppositions concern such things as
> allegorical representations of the seeker, of the world, etc.
I suppose that is the common usage, but it is used metaphorically in this
situation, or as a synonym, rather than any Greek or traditional Idea of
Mythos - they meant something else entirely than historiological use or
common place trope. What is represented in a Mythos is a drama which
exteriorizes an issue of consciousness, or awareness, or psychological
prospect.
The trouble with accepting the common trope as you have written it, is that
the original sense cannot then be identified by the same word, and the
original Idea is lost to 'modern' readers.
>> > is probably something every educated person ought to be
>> > intimate with.
>>
>> Secret Doctrine - Blavatsky is a recontre of this and other hidden
> fields of
>> study, aat the beginning of the C20th
>
> Making up new religions is, as you suggest, a recent development in the
> popularization of these ideas.
Blavatsky, in her own words, did not as much make up new religions, but
wrote on "The Exteriorisation of the Hierarchy."
-------
>> And so it was until about the dawn of the industrial age, when a
> mechanised
>> worl-view succeeded in no longer universe-cities
>
> I don't know what you mean to refer to, regarding this succession; and
> it is not the case that forms of literature or general thought changed
> so much as you suggest, at the same time the new science came in (about
> 1800, you seem to be saying?).
Throuout the 1800s, with the introduction of radical new technologies which
had a huge effect on how people worked and lived. the social impact is well
witnessed by Hardy. In universities one would have studied Astrology as well
as Astronomy, and the former discipline was withdrawn over time.
>>
-------
>> Shakespeare has not used or evoked the form of alchemy particularly,
> and
>> seems to have chosen to rewake a mythopoeic sense of our lives in his
> staged
>> enactments of ritual encounter as suitable to his presentation of
> what was
>> 'secret' understanding to a new and public expression thereof
>
> A complete refusal to articulate a set of ideas, at the same time
> insisting on the importance of those ideas, means that one expects
> one's audience to figure things out for themselves. Or what would it
> mean?
>
> In any event, I don't see that there is anything "mythopoeic" or
> "ritual" in Shakespeare's plays, and I remain uninstructed after you've
> told me it's there.
Hughes wrote a very long book on Shakespeare and the Goddess, and
Elizabethan theatre drapped in new clothes of disguise for the myths of old.
Cordially, Phil Innes
> ----
> Bianca Steele
>
Terry Ross
If it "works" at all -- it would be difficult to say what would count as
"working," particularly in the absence of evidence that Shakespeare cared
anything at all about summing the numerical values of letters, let alone
that the values he would have chosen in the unlikely event that he HAD
dabbled in that sort of thing would have been the Gunnar-value sums
favored by our resident gematrian.
Using Gunnar's numerical values for the letters of the alphabet, the term
"ex-boyfriend" has a summed value of 5000. Is that significant?
The value of 5000 is shared by the term "club-fisted." Does the fact that
both terms have the same Gunnar-sum value mean that they are related (one
hopes that boyfriends who tend to beat up on their girlfriends are likely
to become EX-boyfriends).
The word "backwards" also has a Gunnar-value sum of 5000 -- are
club-fisted ex-boyfriends socially backwards? The word "donations" also
has a Gunnar-value sum of 5000. Do socially backwards club-fisted
ex-boyfriends try to make up for their ill behavior by making charitable
donations? The word "drawbacks" also has a Gunnar-value sum of 5000. I
suppose we can add that word to our story about the backwards club-fisted
ex-boyfriend, but at no point are we adding anything like a universal, or
even widely-shared meaning.
Here are 83 words that each have summed value of 5000 in Gunnar's system:
amaracuses, amorphus, anisodont, argentinian, arpeggiates, ascocarps,
backwards, braunites, brickmason, cankerberry, chronons, clubfisted,
cornmoth, cowardic, damasceners, deselecting, dimerisms, discerpible,
donations, drawbacks, dysmerism, elaborative, encephalins, enkephalins,
eupractic, Eurytion, exboyfriend, fewmets, fewness, fibrocyst, footiest,
ganderisms, giftedness, heartweed, horsepipe, hyperborean, hyperopes,
jointure, juiceless, lexiphanes, luteway, millimolar, modulates, mootings,
nessberry, nodations, nongentile, othematoma, paediatries, palmettes,
periques, phenotyped, phthisis, plenishing, prehunger, prestated,
pretasted, pucciniaceae, reequips, repiques, rippermen, shrillier,
skipkennel, sluicegate, smellsome, smooting, sondation, spatlesen,
spattered, strappable, Sundayism, templates, thuluth, thymelaeales, towzy,
Tubinares, unfriendly, unlassoed, untypical, urbanites, weathered,
Weisler, Ziwot.
What do these words have in common except that their Gunnar-value sums are
5000? Nothing, of course, except that they can also be found in online
wordlists, but as far as Gunnar's system is concerned, any one of these
words may be replaced by any of the other 82 in any text, because doing so
would preserve the Gunnar-value sums of that text.
The name "Shakespeare" has a Gunnar-value sum of 4951, but so does
"welsher." OK, we can write the beginnings of a story with those two
words, but "sunbather" also has a Gunnar-value sum, as does "departure."
Here are 104 words that have the same value of Gunnar-value sum of 4951:
apertured, balaenoptera, barenesses, Bassetts, beemasters, brawnier,
Bremerhaven, bromellite, Brosimum, captivated, coatimondi, cocklairds,
coenamour, concordably, condescended, corticate, coumarone, debatements,
delighters, departure, dieselises, discrepate, distiller, dizygotic,
enchainment, encumberer, entrancing, epigastral, euripus, famulative,
fistulas, fornenst, frecklings, glandaceous, Glassboro, glorioso,
Grangeville, haemoconias, halfnesses, highlights, homologate, homophony,
intermix, keratotic, latticino, linenumber, loanmonger, Loveville,
lymphogram, metaphyseal, metapleur, meteorise, noblehearted, nortelry,
Odontolcae, onychites, overdeeply, overthin, painkilling, pederastic,
pensionable, petrarchal, Petronian, phellogenic, platinised, predicates,
pressdom, pursive, purveys, pyralises, Quelpart, racemizing, rebellions,
redistill, ritornel, roberdsman, rosoglio, salicylidene, saltarelli,
Shakespeare, shamroot, singspiel, sottise, spiralise, stencilled,
stipendial, sunbather, swiper, taeniiform, tearthumb, thiazols, thymocyte,
unabatingly, underlielay, unfatigued, unimitably, unmoldered,
valerianella, vibrancies, volcanize, vrooming, welsher, wigglier, wipers.
What of Shakespeare's first name? It has a Gunnar-sum value of 4371, but
it has plenty of company. Here are 99 words with a Gunnar-sum value of
4371: accostable, accrewed, aforegoing, alkalinised, angiorrhea,
anthramin, assott, atchison, automate, bleacherite, boarspear, Chileanize,
chitosan, cinchonic, cytology, dawnlike, deanships, disallying, disgested,
Duculinae, Dumfries, emongest, encrinoid, equisided, erotemas, forejudged,
Freudism, frippery, gemstone, goneness, Greentree, gyroceran, haulaway,
horners, illumined, invoking, isocyanic, Jokjakarta, jouncing, kidults,
Kohistan, koksagyz, lumpens, lyricize, margullie, masorete, middorsal,
mouthable, nickelize, nonangelic, nonleaking, nonlinkage, Nuculidae,
nullus, olecranian, Oruntha, ouananiche, overpedal, oxazepam, paloverde,
papicolar, perigemmal, philopagan, plenums, plummet, rainbirds, reroofs,
reseason, roofers, saplings, scalepans, schlichs, Scopelidae, seasoner,
slimpsy, spurned, stoats, subclone, suckles, sunbaking, swedes, tachyons,
templum, toasts, tokopat, topcoat, toxics, trumped, tubmaking, undeclined,
unjoking, unoceanic, unyoking, Wallinga, wandlike, warps, wilding,
William, wraps.
As far as Gunnar's system is concerned, every instance of the name
"William Shakespeare" can be replaced by taking one word from the 4951
group and one from the 4371 group. I'm sure Revlon would like to hear
that "William Shakespeare" = "dawnlike highlights," while fans of
Oktoberfests and English literature will be pleased to learn that "William
Shakespeare" = "singspiel toasts." Here are a few more:
unjoking sunbather
overthin rainbirds
painkilling Freudism
pederastic stoats
unfatigued Swedes
Of course even spitting out every permutation of a 4371 word plus a 4951
word would greatly understate the number of "William Shakespeare"
equivalents, since there are many ways of getting the sum 9322 other than
adding a 4371 word to a 4951 word. Oddly enough, many of the phrases with
Gunnar-value sums of 9322 seem to comment on his entire project:
unesteemed gematrias = 5016 + 4306 = 9322
ridiculous flubber = 6303 + 3019 = 9322
imbecilic coprophilia = 3563 + 5759 = 9322
wrong-headed roaring = 5628 + 3694 = 9322
somnambulary drivel = 6170 + 3152 = 9322
moronic doctrines = 4126 + 5196 = 9322
idiotic nontruth = 3532 + 5790 = 9322
And so on -- the possibilities are endless.
In a genuine cipher, there is exactly one valid solution, and anybody
reasonably skilled in this sort of thing who was given the ciphertext and
the key would be able to get the plaintext solution. If we presented 100
reasonably competent people with a genuine cipher text and gave them the
unique key used for the cipher, we would expect that most if not all of
the 100 would succeed in deciphering the text.
While the first part of Gunnar's system could be used for a genuine cipher
-- replacing each letter with a numerical value or string of numerals that
is unique to that letter, the sums of those values will NOT be unique.
There are many combinations of letters that be used to get to a sum of
5000 or 9322, and there is no necessary relationship between any two
strings that share a Gunnar-value sum. Gunnar's process works in only one
direction: if 100 reasonably competent people were given Gunnar's table
of letter-values, and were then presented with a sum of (say) 67,568 and
then told to recreate from that sum the original text whose letter-values
were added together, we would expect to have many different texts (perhaps
even 100).
None of this is meant (or likely) to spoil Gunnar's fun in his counting;
there are few human actions that can be so purely meaningless as his
numerology, and purity of any kind may be worth cherishing in this world.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
gangleri
But, briefly re. the following;
In a genuine cipher, there is exactly one valid solution, and anybody
reasonably skilled in this sort of thing who was given the ciphertext
and the key would be able to get the plaintext solution. If we
presented 100 reasonably competent people with a genuine cipher text
and gave them the unique key used for the cipher, we would expect that
most if not all of the 100 would succeed in deciphering the text.
Comment:
In his book 'The Cosmic Code: Quantum Physics as the Language of
Nature', the late Heinz Pagels likened the universe to a riddle,
partial decoding of whose Coded Language gave birth to Quantum
Mechanics.
The creators of QM can be counted on the fingers of one hand, with each
one laying the foundation, as it were, for subsequent advances until QM
saw the light of day and became textbook material for physics students.
In private correspondence, Pagels emphasized that QM is what he termed
"rigorously axiomatic" - i.e., it is predicated on a set of ARBITRARY
assumptions INTUITED by the creators of Quantum Mechanics in order to
impart mathematical ORDER to the phenomena under study.
In due course, intellectual differences over the ultimate significance
of these arbitary assumptions caused Einstein to become estranged from
his QM peers, with the latter effectively insisting that the SOLE
measure by which QM should be judged was the CONSISTENCY of QM
experiments with respect to a given probabilistic range of outcomes.
The INVARIANT key themes of ancient creation myth comprise the
"rigorously axiomatic" aspects of Augustan-Saga-Shakespeare Myth and
literature on which the Cipher Key is brought to bear - so far, not
much different from the modus operandi of QM theorists.
If you search the Internet for "Hughes Goddess Shakespeare", as I did
just before opening and reading your message, you will see that this
aspect of the Shakespeare Opus, while OVERLOOKED by Stratfordians , is
NOT something which I invented. Nor is it something on which Strats
are qualified to pass judgement without STUDY.
In this respect, I would suggest that the thread on "Shake-Speare -
The Lord's Marveilous Worke and a Wonder" gives a good overview of the
CONSISTENCY of outcomes in Cipher Analysis based on "rigorously
axiomatic" premises with respect to both the PURPOSE and MODE OF
EXPRESSIOn of presumed 'hidden poetry' in the Shakespeare Opus viewed
as counterpart to the King James Bible (1611).
Bianca Steele
> I suppose that is the common usage, but it is used metaphorically in
this
> situation, or as a synonym, rather than any Greek or traditional Idea
of
> Mythos - they meant something else entirely than historiological use
or
> common place trope. What is represented in a Mythos is a drama which
> exteriorizes an issue of consciousness, or awareness, or
psychological
> prospect.
>
> The trouble with accepting the common trope as you have written it,
is that
> the original sense cannot then be identified by the same word, and
the
> original Idea is lost to 'modern' readers.
Yes. Something is lost when we choose one thing over another.
Incorrect usage permits a distinction from correct usage, for example,
and thus may double the number of things that can be "said." You seem
attached to the idea that whatever you feel like saying is "the old
way" and therefore represents "the true original meaning," whereas
anything I might say (even, it seems, when I agree with you) is
"common" or vulgar and necessarily misses the "true" meaning. Does it
then follow that your way of speaking conveys the correct meaning
without any loss?
> Blavatsky, in her own words, did not as much make up new religions,
but
> wrote on "The Exteriorisation of the Hierarchy."
I had thought Madame Blavatsky was a kind of "New Age" figure who
attempted to found a religion from scratch. (Am I confusing her with
the similar California figures of the the 1930s or so?) I meant to
distinguish that kind of thing from a serious attempt to restate an
eternal religious system (which would not be new, in any real sense),
or from an attempt to state a particular, existing religion in new
terms for a new situation (which I don't think is actually in question,
by anyone here), or from a claim that some, apparently arbitrary
statement is a true statement of that existing religion (as if we
assumed without investigation that a Shakespearean soliloquy, for
example, is an accurate statement of the Protestant worldview, or of
the Catholic, or of any other). We are discussing a continuity from
Shakespeare's time to our own, a continuity presumably graspable by
anyone, from that time to now, who makes a serious study of the primary
literature.
>
> -------
>
> Throuout the 1800s, with the introduction of radical new technologies
which
> had a huge effect on how people worked and lived. the social impact
is well
> witnessed by Hardy. In universities one would have studied Astrology
as well
> as Astronomy, and the former discipline was withdrawn over time.
The point I'm trying to make is that I don't agree that we can
reasonably say, when we're talking about historical scholarship, that
"things were that way, until 1800, when a process of change got
underway, and by 1900 they would have been transformed to some other
way of life," or anything along these kinds of lines. In fields beyond
the blatantly Newtonian ones like celestial mechanics, the same books
and techniques were surely kept in use -- some, probably, were
deemphasized, but there was not an out-and-out, entirely thorough
purge, that I've ever read. How could such a purge have been carried
out, in any truly effective manner? I don't mean in science itself,
but in the ways non-scientists thought about science, and in the ways
even scientists thought about extra-scientific topics.
In any event, as recently as the 1950s, serious historians and
philosophers of science were taking esotericism seriously, and as
recently as the 1980s (at least) serious general historians considered
those 1950s' writings to be authoritative. You will see Frances Yates
cited on equal footing with Carl Hempel.
>
> -------
>
> Hughes wrote a very long book on Shakespeare and the Goddess, and
> Elizabethan theatre drapped in new clothes of disguise for the myths
of old.
I don't know Hughes on Shakespeare and assumed you were talking about
Greenblatt, where he quotes someone to the effect that Shakespeare
takes over the accoutrements of the Catholic Mass for secular,
theatrical purposes. I remain uninstructed after having read
Greenblatt, much the same as after reading your apparently similar
assertions; it seems difficult to imagine that his source for this
point would be any more enlightening.
----
Bianca Steele
Fryzer
> "Fryzer" <fry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4274b...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
>>Chess One wrote:
>
>
>>>An analysis of 'objective scientific' thought reveals nothing else than
>>>another /belief/ system.
>>
>>Says the man typing away on a *computer*...
>
>
> A tool! I don't know if you are serious about exploring the subject, but...
>
>
>>>I'll illustrate it anon.
>
>
> ... a scientific narrative is a cultural construction and the whole thing is
> built out of metaphors and mythopoeic ideas. Sometimes the metaphors are
> incredibly mixed together and piled onto one another. For example, [to
> follow W.I. Thompson], consider this one from Leakey and Lewin, and let us
> number a word every time a new metaphor is introduced:-
>
> One of the crucial [1] refinements [2] in brain circuitry [3] was the
> evolution [4] of the ability to speak a complex language... The explosion
> [5] of new cultural patterns [6] and the acceleration [7] of material [8]
> advance [9] during the past fifty thousand years, which are sometimes cited
> [10] as evidence [11] of a very recent invention [12] of language, are much
> more likely to stem [13] from a more effective expoitation [14] of what was
> already wired [15] into the brain from an improvement of the wiring itself.
> The biological machinery [16] for the advance [17] was well established
> fifty thousand years ago, and its speed [18] was fired [19] by the steady
> accumulation [20] of knowledge which finally hit [21] a critical mass. [22]
>
> Brain surgery, wiring, hitting, explosions, speed, critical mass... This
> narrative is not simply metaphoric, it is a tossed salad of mixed metaphors.
> The author adds a remark that Leakey and Lewin's book is basically a work of
> fiction.
I agree that some of the things saud in the above paragraph cannot be
tested and as such may be considered unscientific.
Howewver the use of metaphors doesn;t make the work unsicentific.
Metaphors are jsut ways of describing how the world works ie a form of
conceptual theorising.
See for instance: http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/brown/toc.html
> It is of course based on an external reality of artifacts, but,
> then, so is Homer's Illiad or Tolstoy's War and Peace.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
Chess One
<bernt_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115208636.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Yes.
It is unlike other forms of expression, as say, someone who encounters /la
duende/ and is moved to write a patterned message which works at several
levels of evocation, including mythic ones.
This second form would seem to be a natural form of a poet-writer, whether
Shakespeare or Lorca.
Cordially, Phil Innes
> BLB
>
Chess One
> Chess One wrote:
>> The trouble with accepting the common trope as you have written it,
> is that
>> the original sense cannot then be identified by the same word, and
> the
>> original Idea is lost to 'modern' readers.
>
> Yes. Something is lost when we choose one thing over another.
> Incorrect usage permits a distinction from correct usage, for example,
> and thus may double the number of things that can be "said." You seem
> attached to the idea that whatever you feel like saying is "the old
> way" and therefore represents "the true original meaning," whereas
> anything I might say (even, it seems, when I agree with you) is
> "common" or vulgar and necessarily misses the "true" meaning.
That isn't my point at all. If you had written 'changed the original idea of
the word to another idea', we could agree that the original now goes
unrepresented [as a point of logic, do you agree?]. The reference to
'common' was to its popularity, I thought I wrote that previously? No insult
was intended. I do contend that if you use a word without knowing its
meaning in the time that it was written you would make a false conclusion of
the writer's intent. [this is also a logical point, agree?]
This is important is some areas of study, especially historical material,
where if we substitute our modern sense of a word, or associations of the
word for the original then we can fail to understand the significance at the
time.
It was interesting recently to read the Bosky, busky, BOSC, Bosch [Dutch],
and then bulky! Where readers suggested bulky might have been intended and
not a typo of l-for-s. But did bulky mean for the Elizabethans what it does
for us? Certainly not.
> Does it
> then follow that your way of speaking conveys the correct meaning
> without any loss?
No. Because you have proceeded on a supposition which I did not intend.
>> Blavatsky, in her own words, did not as much make up new religions,
> but
>> wrote on "The Exteriorisation of the Hierarchy."
>
> I had thought Madame Blavatsky was a kind of "New Age" figure who
> attempted to found a religion from scratch. (Am I confusing her with
> the similar California figures of the the 1930s or so?)
Yes. She was born in that interesting year,1875, somewhat before the Esalin
Institute soaked its first client.
> I meant to
> distinguish that kind of thing from a serious attempt to restate an
> eternal religious system (which would not be new, in any real sense),
Understand, I believe the term is 'perennial wisdom.' If you can find any
Blavatsky I think you will not confuse her with new age happy talk - it is
rather serious reading.
> or from an attempt to state a particular, existing religion in new
> terms for a new situation (which I don't think is actually in question,
> by anyone here), or from a claim that some, apparently arbitrary
> statement is a true statement of that existing religion (as if we
> assumed without investigation that a Shakespearean soliloquy, for
> example, is an accurate statement of the Protestant worldview, or of
> the Catholic, or of any other). We are discussing a continuity from
> Shakespeare's time to our own, a continuity presumably graspable by
> anyone, from that time to now, who makes a serious study of the primary
> literature.
Yes. I would agree, but extend the premise, so that it is not only
literature that is studied, and not primarily literature. The metaphor of
Alchemy provides an idea of this if we put aside all the weird chemistry,
candles and retorts, and instead consider it to be a parable of the Heart.
In this sense, access to this perennial wisdom is from the inside. I was
reminded earlier today of the phrase "not casting perils before swine" and
what it meant. If we only consider ourselves, [and not swinish others! <g>]
what can it mean?
Is the inner connection of understanding the pearl? And the outer
expressions of it, the swine?
The phrase might indicate rationalising outer "swine" is no means to
investigate what are the pearls of an implicate intelligence.
>> Throuout the 1800s, with the introduction of radical new technologies
> which
>> had a huge effect on how people worked and lived. the social impact
> is well
>> witnessed by Hardy. In universities one would have studied Astrology
> as well
>> as Astronomy, and the former discipline was withdrawn over time.
>
> The point I'm trying to make is that I don't agree that we can
> reasonably say, when we're talking about historical scholarship, that
> "things were that way, until 1800, when a process of change got
> underway, and by 1900 they would have been transformed to some other
> way of life," or anything along these kinds of lines. In fields beyond
> the blatantly Newtonian ones like celestial mechanics, the same books
> and techniques were surely kept in use -- some, probably, were
> deemphasized, but there was not an out-and-out, entirely thorough
> purge, that I've ever read. How could such a purge have been carried
> out, in any truly effective manner?
Didn't the industrial revolution, newtonian physics, and commerce became the
new paradigm, supplanting the old? And studies of these subjects followed
on?
> I don't mean in science itself,
> but in the ways non-scientists thought about science, and in the ways
> even scientists thought about extra-scientific topics.
Yes. And everyone was interested in technology.
> In any event, as recently as the 1950s, serious historians and
> philosophers of science were taking esotericism seriously, and as
> recently as the 1980s (at least) serious general historians considered
> those 1950s' writings to be authoritative. You will see Frances Yates
> cited on equal footing with Carl Hempel.
Sure. She was unusual in being an historian of the absrtuse, rather than an
advocate or critic.
>> -------
>>
>> Hughes wrote a very long book on Shakespeare and the Goddess, and
>> Elizabethan theatre drapped in new clothes of disguise for the myths
> of old.
>
> I don't know Hughes on Shakespeare and assumed you were talking about
> Greenblatt, where he quotes someone to the effect that Shakespeare
> takes over the accoutrements of the Catholic Mass for secular,
> theatrical purposes.
I mustn't say anything too tart about Dr. Greenblatt, since he is my
neighbour. He lectures very well, with verve and insight, mostly on textual
understanding.
What Hughes did is something quite different, and is perhaps only possible
by a formidable poet - he understood some patterning in the writing and
combined it with good Cambridge scholarship to pursue it as a magnum opus.
Hughes for many people has strange beliefs, far too far into left field. But
academics are timid souls and the value of their commentary needs weighing
compared with someone who might be said to be in the flow of 'the living
word', and if I were to imagine the Author of the Work, I cannot think of
anyone closer to that writer than Hughes.
This is even a superficial gloss on a powerful idea, indeed: which Hughes
formulates as 'the tragic equation'.
> I remain uninstructed after having read
> Greenblatt, much the same as after reading your apparently similar
> assertions; it seems difficult to imagine that his source for this
> point would be any more enlightening.
We have not quite achieved a fit of understanding between us. Newsgroups are
interesting phenomena and perhaps I use them differently than others? I am
interested to usually compare experience with others who have studied a
subject, or had experiences similar to the topic - and I am otherwise
non-plussed with demands to prove things, since I have no particular
interest in changing other's opinion or proselytising.
Chess One
>> ... a scientific narrative is a cultural construction and the whole thing
>> is built out of metaphors and mythopoeic ideas. Sometimes the metaphors
>> are incredibly mixed together and piled onto one another. For example,
>> [to follow W.I. Thompson], consider this one from Leakey and Lewin, and
>> let us number a word every time a new metaphor is introduced:-
>>
>> One of the crucial [1] refinements [2] in brain circuitry [3] was the
>> evolution [4] of the ability to speak a complex language... The explosion
>> [5] of new cultural patterns [6] and the acceleration [7] of material [8]
>> advance [9] during the past fifty thousand years, which are sometimes
>> cited [10] as evidence [11] of a very recent invention [12] of language,
>> are much more likely to stem [13] from a more effective expoitation [14]
>> of what was already wired [15] into the brain from an improvement of the
>> wiring itself. The biological machinery [16] for the advance [17] was
>> well established fifty thousand years ago, and its speed [18] was fired
>> [19] by the steady accumulation [20] of knowledge which finally hit [21]
>> a critical mass. [22]
>>
>> Brain surgery, wiring, hitting, explosions, speed, critical mass...
>> This narrative is not simply metaphoric, it is a tossed salad of mixed
>> metaphors.
>
>> The author adds a remark that Leakey and Lewin's book is basically a work
>> of fiction.
>
> I agree that some of the things saud in the above paragraph cannot be
> tested and as such may be considered unscientific.
I don't think that is the point that the author, a cultural anthropologist,
intends to convey. He is asking the reader to observe the 'tossed salad' of
metaphors, which, if we encountered them all in one paragraph of a novel, we
would think the poor novelist was fatally confused in his idea, no?
Thomposn is saying that this is a narrative, much as a work of fiction is a
narrative. If it were fiction we would think it very bad writing, and as a
linear text, an inconsistent, broken series.
> Howewver the use of metaphors doesn;t make the work unsicentific.
> Metaphors are jsut ways of describing how the world works ie a form of
> conceptual theorising.
Yes quite. But it means that scientific narratives are quite equivalent to
Tolstoy's effort, as noted below.
Cordially, Phil Innes
Bianca Steele
It's not clear to me you had a point, as the words you chose to express
it in appear to have been arbitrary, if not totally random. I
attempted to read your sentence as if it were English, in spite of
copious hints to the contrary, and if you intended to be writing in
some other, private language, I do concede that I failed to grasp your
meaning.
>If you had written 'changed the original idea of
> the word to another idea', we could agree
*If* I had written that, we could agree, perhaps; that is not what I
wrote.
>that the original now goes
> unrepresented [as a point of logic, do you agree?].
Yes, I do agree that the original is now unrepresented.
>The reference to
> 'common' was to its popularity, I thought I wrote that previously? No
insult
> was intended.
Of course not. I never presume any insult to have been intended; it
invariably was not. In this case, especially, I was simply pointing
out the obvious meaning of your words, as you seem to be oblivious to
certain aspects of idiomatic English conversational prose.
>I do contend that if you use a word without knowing its
> meaning in the time that it was written you would make a false
conclusion of
> the writer's intent. [this is also a logical point, agree?]
I'm afraid I cannot agree, as this is yet another sentence that shows
symptoms of failing to be English, and you have only recently objected
to my attempting on my own to construe such sentences from you.
>
> This is important is some areas of study, especially historical
material,
> where if we substitute our modern sense of a word, or associations of
the
> word for the original then we can fail to understand the significance
at the
> time.
Just so.
>> Does it
>> then follow that your way of speaking conveys the correct meaning
>> without any loss?
>
> No. Because you have proceeded on a supposition which I did not
intend.
I find it astonishing that you could contend your way of speaking could
*ever* convey any definite meaning whatever, much less that you could
claim the responsibility for the resulting failure to communicate was
the reader's.
I imagine that I amuse you as little as you amuse me, so
[snip]
----
Bianca Steele
lar...@yahoo.com
Age to Sagas to Shakespeare so broadly. I won't worry right now about
what the Sibyl of Cumae has to do with Shakespeare, so don't tell me.
Sibyl of Cumae links:
<http://www.masterliness.com/a/Cumaean.Sibyl.htm>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumaean_Sibyl>
General sibyl information and picture:
<http://www.hranajanto.com/goddessgallery/sibyl.html>
C.
Spam Scone
Bianca, you've been on HLAS for several months. Are you just learning
now that Philth Keith Innes communicates in some language other than
English?
> I imagine that I amuse you as little as you amuse me, so
> [snip]
But Bianca, his posts are endlessly amusing! Where else can we find
such nonsense as:
-'Old English was spoken in the shires as late as the 1800s'
-'the books of the Bible were selected by the King James translators'
and my favorite
- Passing off a weak paraphrase of a statement by George Orwell and
claiming it was a well-known "quotation".
Chess One
>> That isn't my point at all.
>
> It's not clear to me you had a point, as the words you chose to express
> it in appear to have been arbitrary, if not totally random. I
> attempted to read your sentence as if it were English, in spite of
> copious hints to the contrary, and if you intended to be writing in
> some other, private language, I do concede that I failed to grasp your
> meaning.
I was not "intending to be writing" anything but a distinction. If I failed
to establish it, then you are correct, but if I did, then could it possibly
be something about your comprehension?
>>If you had written 'changed the original idea of
>> the word to another idea', we could agree
>
> *If* I had written that, we could agree, perhaps; that is not what I
> wrote.
>>that the original now goes
>> unrepresented [as a point of logic, do you agree?].
>
> Yes, I do agree that the original is now unrepresented.
>
>>The reference to
>> 'common' was to its popularity, I thought I wrote that previously? No
> insult
>> was intended.
>
> Of course not. I never presume any insult to have been intended; it
> invariably was not. In this case, especially, I was simply pointing
> out the obvious meaning of your words, as you seem to be oblivious to
> certain aspects of idiomatic English conversational prose.
You didn't like the word 'common', is that it? As if I should only use it in
one of its senses and ignore the others? You then resented an implication? I
don't understand your objection.
>>I do contend that if you use a word without knowing its
>> meaning in the time that it was written you would make a false
> conclusion of
>> the writer's intent. [this is also a logical point, agree?]
>
> I'm afraid I cannot agree, as this is yet another sentence that shows
> symptoms of failing to be English, and you have only recently objected
> to my attempting on my own to construe such sentences from you.
Your own writing is flowery and abstract - if you don't understand what I am
writing or are better able to interrogate it, how can you even disagree with
it?
Are you actually able to say what you disagree with?
Its a straightforward set of propositions:-
(a) if you don't know what a word meant in another time, how can you
understand the sentence? and
(b) inserting a current meaning will corrupt the original sense.
> I find it astonishing that you could contend your way of speaking could
> *ever* convey any definite meaning whatever, much less that you could
> claim the responsibility for the resulting failure to communicate was
> the reader's.
See above. Perhaps I should only write to you in formal logical
propositions? You do not seem to have even mentioned a topic in your own
writing! look at it! -- while providing a very abstract criticism.
> I imagine that I amuse you as little as you amuse me, so
> [snip]
Laugh. Phil Innes
> ----
> Bianca Steele
>
Bianca Steele
failed
> to establish it, then you are correct, but if I did, then could it
possibly
> be something about your comprehension?
Your post was contradictory (as is this one), and I cannot find any way
to reliably determine which part contains the primary meaning. If
there were some subject under discussion, I could possibly find some
point to continuing anyway. On the other hand, if you're only going to
show that you disagree with my main point, while repeatedly failing to
understand what I'm trying to say, I don't really feel like saying the
same thing over and over again. If you had been attempting to both
humor and insult me at the same time, thinking I might not notice, I
think your post would have looked exactly as it does.
----
Bianca Steele
gangleri
Gematria.
It applies to ALL "language" viewed as vehicle for THOUGHT conditioned
by a set of RULES and/or CONVENTIONS - what permits us to distinguish,
say, DOG from GOD.
Here is Einstein's take on the like issue in the field of theoretical
physics:
"The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal
elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure
deduction. There is NO LOGICAL PATH to these laws; only INTUITION,
resting on sympathetic understanding of EXPERIENCE, can reach them.
[Here comes your point:] In this methodological uncertainty, one might
suppose that there were any number of possible systems of theoretical
physics ALL EQUALLY WELL JUSTIFIED; and this opinion is no doubt
correct, theoretically. But the development of physics has shown that
at any given moment, out of all conceivable constructions, A SINGLE ONE
has always proved itself decidedly superior to all the rest. Nobody
who has really gone deeply into the matter will deny that IN PRACTICE
the world of PHENOMENA UNIQUELY DETERMINES THE THEORETICAL SYSTEM, in
spite of the fact that there is no logical bridge between phenomena and
their theoretical principles; this is what Leibniz described so happily
as a "pre-established harmony."
In one of his poems, John Milton spoke of "the hidden soul of harmony"
in a passage which dealt with Ben Jonson, the stage, and Shakespeare -
"harmony" which did not escape Ted Hughes' poetic eye.
My working hypothesis is
(a) that there is "pre-established harmony" in the Shakespeare Opus
and related texts;
(b) that such "harmony" is expressed in the invariant imagery of
ancient creation myth;
(c) that Gematria is the means whereby the "harmony" can be brought to
light for all and sundry, Poets and Poet-Apes alike.
This hypothesis' validity cannot be determined on a priori grounds.
Chess One
>> I was not "intending to be writing" anything but a distinction. If I
> failed
>> to establish it, then you are correct, but if I did, then could it
> possibly
>> be something about your comprehension?
>
> Your post was contradictory (as is this one), and I cannot find any way
> to reliably determine which part contains the primary meaning. If
> there were some subject under discussion, I could possibly find some
> point to continuing anyway.
For heaven's sake! You indicated you wished me to expand on a range of
subjects to which you now complain that you do not understand, without
actually mentioning any content in two consecutive posts.
How is your objection addressable?
My task is neverthless presumably to allow you to understand quite complex
issues.
And you are someone whose base understanding can gloss Madame Blavatsky as a
California styled New Age inventor of a new religion.
ROFL!
> On the other hand, if you're only going to
> show that you disagree with my main point, while repeatedly failing to
> understand what I'm trying to say, I don't really feel like saying the
> same thing over and over again. If you had been attempting to both
> humor and insult me at the same time, thinking I might not notice, I
> think your post would have looked exactly as it does.
Another abstract complaint??
Some of these threads are truly trivial. Others require study and some
seriousness in order to engage them. You make some sort of abstract demand
on me while cutting my response - see, you cut this...
"We have not quite achieved a fit of understanding between us.
Newsgroups are
interesting phenomena and perhaps I use them differently than others? I am
interested to usually compare experience with others who have studied a
subject, or had experiences similar to the topic - and I am otherwise
non-plussed with demands to prove things, since I have no particular
interest in changing other's opinion or proselytising."
If you want to talk about your own interests please go ahead - if you wish
to pursue others about their interests and perspectives, as you have done
with me, then you cannot complain that you are being lectured or browbeaten,
or that your correspondnet is addressing an issue with language that you
can't understand.
What can you understand? You make a hilarious guess at Blavatsky, and
continue to guess and gloss in the same vein at what other's must mean
without establishing your own serious interest in the subject. Do you even
know the basic vocabulary of the subject? Who knows?
Yet you find the process incomprehensible, and can't think that it could be
something about your own approach to discussing it entirely free of content!
I find your miscomprehension entirely understandable.
Bianca Steele
> For heaven's sake! You indicated you wished me to expand on a range
of
> subjects
I did? In what language do you have to read my posts in order to make
that determination?
>to which you now complain that you do not understand,
Do you understand the difference between failing to understand
ungrammatical prose and failing to understand issues? You confuse so
many things that I really do not want to bother.
>without
> actually mentioning any content in two consecutive posts.
Huh? If my post was so "abstract" and "content-free," how in the world
do you come up with so much text in response? How is it that every
reply you make to me says the same thing: "you are an idiot, and you
are making demands on me without attending to your own
responsibilities"?
>
> How is your objection addressable?
>
> My task is neverthless presumably to allow you to understand quite
complex
> issues.
How in the world do you make that determination?
You are evidently in your own private world, where you can make up your
own vocabulary and grammar, make up your own version of social
interaction, make up the people you're talking to, and then assert that
your version of all that is universally valid *and* should be adopted
by others.
I truly do not know whether this is fair, or whether you are some poor
guy who simply doesn't write or read English very fluently. Or, as I
said, whether you are writing randomly because it amuses you to see me
attempt to make some sense of it. I cannot draw any other conclusion,
given your determination to precede your every reply to me with a
bizarre ad hominem attack; if you have a reason for it (other than
sincere belief that I deserve it), it is plainly a "reason" that no
reasonable person would come up with, because I feel confident nobody
reading your posts can figure it out.
----
Bianca Steele
Chess One
> Chess One wrote:
>> For heaven's sake! You indicated you wished me to expand on a range
> of
>> subjects
>
> I did? In what language do you have to read my posts in order to make
> that determination?
>
>>to which you now complain that you do not understand,
>
> Do you understand the difference between failing to understand
> ungrammatical prose and failing to understand issues? You confuse so
> many things that I really do not want to bother.
You could try not posting responses which still do not clarify what you
don't understand, but carry on contentless to gasp at what others write.
>>without
>> actually mentioning any content in two consecutive posts.
>
> Huh? If my post was so "abstract" and "content-free," how in the world
> do you come up with so much text in response? How is it that every
> reply you make to me says the same thing: "you are an idiot, and you
> are making demands on me without attending to your own
> responsibilities"?
I believe you have just invented another attitude for me while putting it in
quotation marks - simultaneously "coming up with" my responses which have
"so much text".
>>
>> How is your objection addressable?
>>
>> My task is neverthless presumably to allow you to understand quite
> complex
>> issues.
>
> How in the world do you make that determination?
>
> You are evidently in your own private world, where you can make up your
> own vocabulary and grammar, make up your own version of social
> interaction, make up the people you're talking to, and then assert that
> your version of all that is universally valid *and* should be adopted
> by others.
Can I? You seem content to write my attitudes for me, absent of any content
engagement!
> I truly do not know whether this is fair, or whether you are some poor
> guy who simply doesn't write or read English very fluently.
> Or, as I
> said, whether you are writing randomly because it amuses you to see me
> attempt to make some sense of it.
Bianca Steele thinks Blavatsky is a California styled new age inventor of
religions. Has she mentioned any other opinions which have any content in
them, or supposed she could from this startling attempt at content -
criticise those who write on subjects to which she has even less evdient
grasp?
> I cannot draw any other conclusion,
> given your determination to precede your every reply to me with a
> bizarre ad hominem attack; if you have a reason for it (other than
> sincere belief that I deserve it), it is plainly a "reason" that no
> reasonable person would come up with, because I feel confident nobody
> reading your posts can figure it out.
Perhaps because this is something to do with you :))
Tell me, what is it specifically that you don't understand but want to? What
information or attitude are you looking to make clear? In very simple terms,
can you understand these sentences?
Liam Too
>
> Bianca Steele thinks Blavatsky is a California styled new age
inventor of
> religions. Has she mentioned any other opinions which have any
content in
> them, or supposed she could from this startling attempt at content -
> criticise those who write on subjects to which she has even less
evdient
> grasp?
So that you may see who you're talking with, here's one pretty picture
of Bianca Steele:
http://www.tstravel.com.au/Meet%20the%20Team%20-%20Bianca.htm
Bianca Steele
> So that you may see who you're talking with, here's one pretty
picture
> of Bianca Steele:
>
> http://www.tstravel.com.au/Meet%20the%20Team%20-%20Bianca.htm
Not me -- I've never been to Australia, and I prefer my Caesar salad
with anchovies. I think I've said before that "Bianca Steele" is a
pseudonym. I would have assumed there was at least one person in the
world who really had that name, but I didn't know.
----
Bianca Steele
Spam Scone
Bianca Steele wrote:
>
> I truly do not know whether this is fair, or whether you are some
poor
> guy who simply doesn't write or read English very fluently. Or, as I
> said, whether you are writing randomly because it amuses you to see
me
> attempt to make some sense of it.
It's been pretty well established that Philth Innes is nothing but a
troll. For proof, visit
and watch him try to destroy an entire newsgroup with nonsense.
Bianca Steele
> It's been pretty well established that Philth Innes is nothing but a
> troll. For proof, visit
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4f7xp
>
> and watch him try to destroy an entire newsgroup with nonsense.
Too late ... I don't care anymore. Thanks for all your help, though.
What would we do if nobody was willing to post periodic reminders of
how some regular participant or other was nothing but a troll?
----
Bianca Steele
Chess One
Both content to quibble everything they don't understand, and, as for
content or even a passing knowledge of a subject...? Why should they bother?
We have one person here whose level of appreciation of what is written is to
be more than a little inventive on what other's have written - including
somehow coming to the understanding that Blavatsky was a California-style
new-age guru who invented a religion. ROFL!
I am not sure that caption quite groks the fullness of the Theosophical
Society.
The other noddy colludes with anyone with sufficient spite - just recently
he agreed with a poster in a chess group that my contributions there on
chess were evidently worthless - his collaborator had just written 75,000
words of anti zionist contributions in one month [!] and nothing else - to a
chess group!
Yet this hysterical dimwit can collude with that person and accuse me of
anti-semiticism.
This is surely a marriage made in East L.A.
Phil Innes
"Bianca Steele" <bianca...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115348588.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Spam Scone
Chess One wrote:
> TWO KNOW-NOTHINGS CELEBRATE EACH OTHER
>
> Both content to quibble everything they don't understand, and, as for
> content or even a passing knowledge of a subject...? Why should they
bother?
>
> We have one person here whose level of appreciation of what is
written is to
> be more than a little inventive on what other's have written -
including
> somehow coming to the understanding that Blavatsky was a
California-style
> new-age guru who invented a religion. ROFL!
>
> I am not sure that caption quite groks the fullness of the
Theosophical
> Society.
>
> The other noddy colludes with anyone with sufficient spite - just
recently
> he agreed with a poster in a chess group that my contributions there
on
> chess were evidently worthless - his collaborator had just written
75,000
> words of anti zionist contributions in one month [!] and nothing else
- to a
> chess group!
I have no collaborator, aside from Dr. Hilbert - we are working on a
sequel to his Whitaker biography. Surely you wouldn't libel one of the
world's leading chess historians, would you, Philth?
> Yet this hysterical dimwit can collude with that person and accuse me
of
> anti-semiticism.
Well Philth, your posting to a Holocaust-denial thread and your
repeated defenses of known anti-Semites were a big clue.
Chess One
you have also just wholesaled another LIE elsewhere - a disgustingly
misrepresented account of Russian chess players who wanted to donate all the
proceeds from a match to the 9/11 relief fund
you are a stranger from the truth, a pathetic projector of your own 'philth'
phil innes
"Spam Scone" <Spam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115378984.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Liam Too
> Not me -- I've never been to Australia, and I prefer my Caesar salad
> with anchovies. I think I've said before that "Bianca Steele" is a
> pseudonym. I would have assumed there was at least one person in the
> world who really had that name, but I didn't know.
>
> ----
> Bianca Steele
If not Bianca, then perhaps Margaret, the author?
I like anchovies but not with salad.
Bianca Steele
> TWO KNOW-NOTHINGS CELEBRATE EACH OTHER
>
> Both content to quibble everything they don't understand, and, as for
> content or even a passing knowledge of a subject...? Why should they
bother?
This post from you, Phil, regarding my very, very short reply to Neil,
shows that not only do you have difficulty writing in an understandable
way, you have even more difficulty reading what others write. If the
problem were only that you have trouble writing, a person who wanted to
understand you anyway, could try harder. If you are going to insist on
posting slurs against people, every time you misread what they say, the
only thing someone like me can do is avoid you.
You are lucky to have a fan base that will yip at your heels every time
you get into a scrape. What would you do without Neil? It's also
really very gratifying to have his consistent support, from where I
stand, every time it becomes clear that you're attacking me.
What you say has nothing whatever to do with what I said. And it's
pretty far out of bounds.
>
> We have one person here whose level of appreciation of what is
written is to
> be more than a little inventive on what other's have written -
including
> somehow coming to the understanding that Blavatsky was a
California-style
> new-age guru who invented a religion. ROFL!
I notice your grammar gets better with each attempt. :)
And not with help from me.
>
> I am not sure that caption quite groks the fullness of the
Theosophical
> Society.
Not from your point of view, obviously.
Why haven't you noticed, though, that I did not ever assert that
Blavatsky *ought* to be considered a "California-style" guru? What I
did was concede that I might have been wrong, because I might have been
unintentionally confusing her with someone else. You read this as a
positive statement of my belief that the word "California" does in fact
attach to "Blavatsky," and you have not corrected this misimpression on
your part. A pretty severe misimpression, though not as severe as the
one you've acquired this time.
----
Bianca Steele
Tom Veal
a religion" isn't an inapt description of Madame Blavatsky. At least,
others, such as the author of her entry in the Oxford DNB, think so. If
I may quote:
Blavatsky was richly imaginative and an omnivorous, highly suggestible
reader familiar with Asian theology, Masonic, Rosicrucian, and Templar
rituals, and the occult romances of Bulwer Lytton. These sources were
invaluable in 1875 when she founded, with the support of Olcott and
William Q. Judge, the Theosophical Society. This society aimed to form
a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity without distinction
of race, creed, sex, caste, or colour; to promote the study of
comparative religion, philosophy, and science; and to investigate the
mystic or occult powers latent in life and matter. Overall Blavatsky
was unsympathetic to Christianity, neglectful of Islam and Judaism, and
considered Hinduism and Buddhism as the conduits of religious
discovery. She promised her votaries that theosophy could cure human
anguish by enriching the spirit and rejecting sterile intellectualism,
secularism, and materialist philosophy and psychology. From early on it
was identified with the nascent movement for the cremation of corpses.
Having become high priestess of a new religious system (which, however,
she insisted was a science), Blavatsky next produced its bible, Isis
Unveiled (1877). This hectic survey of magic and mystery was supposedly
the result of astral dictation or other interventions by the mahatmas
(masters). Its extracts and paraphrases from ancient writings
challenged the mechanical and materialist spirit of the age, and
provided spiritual stimulation at a time when religious faith seemed to
be weakened. The book's first section belabours David Hume, Charles
Darwin, and Thomas Huxley for constricting scientific notions to
demonstrable laws governing the material universe. Blavatsky insisted
that other laws of nature, hitherto accessible only to occult wisdom,
were indispensable for full scientific understanding. . . . The second
part of Isis Unveiled contained Blavatsky's exposition of Buddhism and
thoughts on comparative religion. The book excited the hopes and
passions of credulous, earnest, and perhaps ill-educated readers who
were undeterred by its hodgepodge of ideas, quotations, and huge
spiritual projections.
---End Quote---
Sounds pretty "California-style" and "new age" to me. Mr. Innes no
doubt agrees with the creator's view that it is all "science".
Bianca Steele wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
> > TWO KNOW-NOTHINGS CELEBRATE EACH OTHER
Chess One
> Chess One wrote:
>> TWO KNOW-NOTHINGS CELEBRATE EACH OTHER
>>
>> Both content to quibble everything they don't understand, and, as for
>
>> content or even a passing knowledge of a subject...? Why should they
> bother?
>
> This post from you, Phil, regarding my very, very short reply to Neil,
> shows that not only do you have difficulty writing in an understandable
> way,
What would you like to express of your own understanding of any specific
subject Bianca, that you ould like to address to me? I admit I grow weary,
indeed become lost, in metaphysical criticism.
> you have even more difficulty reading what others write. If the
> problem were only that you have trouble writing, a person who wanted to
> understand you anyway, could try harder. If you are going to insist on
> posting slurs against people, every time you misread what they say, the
> only thing someone like me can do is avoid you.
?
> You are lucky to have a fan base that will yip at your heels every time
> you get into a scrape. What would you do without Neil? It's also
> really very gratifying to have his consistent support, from where I
> stand, every time it becomes clear that you're attacking me.
I suppose I am 'attacking' your ignorance and abstracted method. Is it 4 or
5 posts now without actually grappling with any aspect of content?
> What you say has nothing whatever to do with what I said. And it's
> pretty far out of bounds.
What you said has nothing at all to do with any subject matter for 4 or 5
posts. Can the bounds be the ostensible content of the thread? Otherwise,
what bounds are you thinking about?
>> We have one person here whose level of appreciation of what is
> written is to
>> be more than a little inventive on what other's have written -
> including
>> somehow coming to the understanding that Blavatsky was a
> California-style
>> new-age guru who invented a religion. ROFL!
>
> I notice your grammar gets better with each attempt. :)
My thanky.
> And not with help from me.
Are you considering these as some sort of off-hand finger notes on a topic?
or did you think this newsgroup a more serious affair? Certainly people take
themselves very seriously here! <g> but it would be disputatious to mention
why or what might constitute real attention.
It seems to me that you are interested in process, and attempt a meta-view
of things. Is that true? After all, we keep writing to each other, and their
must be something... :)
I suffer from being unusual in not wishing to convert anyone to my point of
view, but to compare my point of view. I do not apologise for it, and only
apologise as such if I never made it clear.
>>
>> I am not sure that caption quite groks the fullness of the
> Theosophical
>> Society.
>
> Not from your point of view, obviously.
How can I have anyone else's point of view?
> Why haven't you noticed, though, that I did not ever assert that
> Blavatsky *ought* to be considered a "California-style" guru?
Ought?
> What I
> did was concede that I might have been wrong, because I might have been
> unintentionally confusing her with someone else.
Hopefully not Annie Besant or Krishnamurti.
> You read this as a
> positive statement of my belief that the word "California" does in fact
> attach to "Blavatsky," and you have not corrected this misimpression on
> your part. A pretty severe misimpression, though not as severe as the
> one you've acquired this time.
I am sorry if you had wondered what a 'positive statement' is from me. I
really have no interest whatever in converting anyone to any personally held
view of things. I have also little interest in what people 'believe'. I
prefer a simpler way of corresponding; on mutual interests or experiences.
So often people write without mentioning either.
Please excuse my efforts if they have not conformed to some normative form
of writing.
Cordially, Phil Innes
> ----
> Bianca Steele
>
Chess One
'believe' in Blavatsky, in order to report on her, and not to digress into
if she seemed more like a classical European Rosicrucian of the Palatinate,
or a hot-tub body-worker. Mr. Veal has obtained his opinion formt he
internet, presumably because he previously knew nothing of the subject.
This, apparently, is the working of his mind.
Phil Innes
"Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1115398062.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Tom Veal
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which does happen to be
available on the Internet (for a substantial subscription fee), so that
others could judge for themselves whether she fit the mold of a
"California-style new age guru who invented a religion". I suppose
that, in some people's eyes, publication in electronic form
automatically detracts from a reference work's value. That would not be
the strangest opinion that I have ever seen on HLAS.
Spam Scone
Ouch! Well, since you brought it up, there are several purposes served:
- it reminds the forgetful of just what they are replying to;
- it alerts new people to the true nature of the troll;
- in the case of an idiotic troll like Philth, Crowley, or the Weirbot,
the recap can serve as a retelling of jokes that never age.
I hope this has been of help, Bianca.
Spam Scone
Bianca Steele wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
> > TWO KNOW-NOTHINGS CELEBRATE EACH OTHER
> >
> > Both content to quibble everything they don't understand, and, as
for
>
> > content or even a passing knowledge of a subject...? Why should
they
> bother?
>
> This post from you, Phil, regarding my very, very short reply to
Neil,
> shows that not only do you have difficulty writing in an
understandable
> way, you have even more difficulty reading what others write.
Like most cranks, Philth has no sense of humor. Your sarcastic response
to me went right over his head.
If the
> problem were only that you have trouble writing, a person who wanted
to
> understand you anyway, could try harder. If you are going to insist
on
> posting slurs against people, every time you misread what they say,
the
> only thing someone like me can do is avoid you.
>
> You are lucky to have a fan base that will yip at your heels every
time
> you get into a scrape. What would you do without Neil?
Libel someone else. James Eade, Robert Hyatt, David Webb, Taylor
Kingston, Tom Veal ... take your pick of past targets.
It's also
> really very gratifying to have his consistent support, from where I
> stand, every time it becomes clear that you're attacking me.
"Well, ma'am, I don't think much of the British soldier who wouldn't
ill-convenience himself to save a female in distress."
-W. S. Gilbert, Iolanthe
Chess One
> Actually, I already knew a bit about Mme. Blavatsky. I quoted the
> Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which does happen to be
> available on the Internet (for a substantial subscription fee), so that
> others could judge for themselves whether she fit the mold of a
> "California-style new age guru who invented a religion".
From your 'bit' of knowledge Tom, you thought fit to contradict me because
after reading a literary blog she profiles for you as a hot-tubber?
The original context written here of Blavatsky's work had nothing to do with
'newness' since she explicitly made the thesis of her work the
exteriorisation of the past and perrenial knowledge.
There lies the significance of what has been understood by some through the
ages, and which now is emerging to a greater public.
Phil Innes
Spam Scone
Chess One wrote:
> "Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:1115416374.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Actually, I already knew a bit about Mme. Blavatsky. I quoted the
> > Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which does happen to be
> > available on the Internet (for a substantial subscription fee), so
that
> > others could judge for themselves whether she fit the mold of a
> > "California-style new age guru who invented a religion".
>
> From your 'bit' of knowledge Tom, you thought fit to contradict me
because
> after reading a literary blog she profiles for you as a hot-tubber?
This grandiose brush-off of the Oxford DNB as a "literary blog" is
breathtakingly Crowleyan. Once again Philth proves that at his best he
is unmatched for lunacy.
Bianca Steele
> Like most cranks, Philth has no sense of humor. Your sarcastic
response
> to me went right over his head.
It's a good thing I have a pretty effective sarcasm detector.
> Libel someone else.
I'd rather not. :-)
>James Eade, Robert Hyatt, David Webb, Taylor
> Kingston, Tom Veal ... take your pick of past targets.
>
> It's also
>> really very gratifying to have his consistent support, from where I
>> stand, every time it becomes clear that you're attacking me.
>
> "Well, ma'am, I don't think much of the British soldier who wouldn't
> ill-convenience himself to save a female in distress."
> -W. S. Gilbert, Iolanthe
I belong to a generation that doesn't tend to see women as almost
always in danger, and in need of continual protection or accompaniment
by one man or another.
It's a little disconcerting when people who ignore me entirely the rest
of the time pop up to reassure me (sometimes even delurking to do this,
and relurking immediately afterward) when I've come close to losing my
temper with a (nevertheless, even if inexplicably) popular "troll."
Obviously, I don't have any way of knowing just what prompts it.
----
Bianca Steele
Spam Scone
Bianca Steele wrote:
> Spam Scone wrote:
> > Like most cranks, Philth has no sense of humor. Your sarcastic
> response
> > to me went right over his head.
>
> It's a good thing I have a pretty effective sarcasm detector.
>
> > Libel someone else.
>
> I'd rather not. :-)
Good for you.... and them.
> >James Eade, Robert Hyatt, David Webb, Taylor
> > Kingston, Tom Veal ... take your pick of past targets.
> >
> > It's also
> >> really very gratifying to have his consistent support, from where
I
> >> stand, every time it becomes clear that you're attacking me.
> >
> > "Well, ma'am, I don't think much of the British soldier who
wouldn't
> > ill-convenience himself to save a female in distress."
> > -W. S. Gilbert, Iolanthe
>
> I belong to a generation that doesn't tend to see women as almost
> always in danger, and in need of continual protection or
accompaniment
> by one man or another.
I see you can dish the sarcasm, but not take it.
> It's a little disconcerting when people who ignore me entirely the
rest
> of the time pop up to reassure me (sometimes even delurking to do
this,
> and relurking immediately afterward) when I've come close to losing
my
> temper with a (nevertheless, even if inexplicably) popular "troll."
> Obviously, I don't have any way of knowing just what prompts it.
How can I have "delurked" when I just recently started a thread on
"sugared" poetry? I try to avoid constantly posting.
And I don't see how you can claim I've ignored you on the newsgroup -
didn't we discuss the sonnets at one time? On the other hand, if you
are concerned I am stalking you on HLAS, rest easy on that score -
Philth hasn't accused me of it, so I must not be engaging in it. :-)
Chess One
> Spam Scone wrote:
>> Like most cranks, Philth has no sense of humor. Your sarcastic
> response
>> to me went right over his head.
>
> It's a good thing I have a pretty effective sarcasm detector.
I was simply not interested in sarcasm as a means to determine anything of
worth to me, Bianca. I wanted to know if there was any light you yourself
could throw onto the subject matter, rather than what you couldn't
understand from another's perspective.
No doubt, clearer responses are always possible to other people, but some
clues are necessary to what would make them clearer, and I was puzzled on
how to do so, absent of actually addressing the topic.
------
I think we started with an agreement, that the word 'myth' is now used
differently than it was, and the old or original sense no longer much
honoured. The new sense, as well as departing from something which could be
as clearly defined, is also a generalism. Here are a few apparent synonyms:
Legend: we use its inversion: "urban-legend" to indicate that the received
subject matter is perhaps not too reliably reported and may even be fanciful
or completely false, ie, the crocodiles in the NY City sewer system.
Fable: by which we mean, indifferently, a story which may or may not be
true. The adverb fabulously is also indifferent to sense, it can be 'great'
as in 'Fab!', or it can indicate a consciously presented falsehood.
Now we use 'myth' in general speech to denote a negative-attribute of a
story, ie, that it is an invented history.
But what is 'mythic' still contains a resonance in general understanding,
such as people who have seen the LotR movies, and would understand this
sense of mythic, even if they were not readers at all, or knew nothing of
the word's origin.
-----
When we consider The Work, which also contains these resonances, and we
exclaim on its 'mythic' character, we do exactly the same, though not as a
negative attribute relating to the likelihood of what is portrayed being 'a
true history', but having another resonance for us entirely, which is not
dependent on historical veracity or recorded fact.
I don't offer these opinions as a challenge or refutation or any competitive
verbal adventure, but to clarify my sense of why I first wrote about the
subject.
Cordially, Phil Innes
Bianca Steele
> But what is 'mythic' still contains a resonance in general
understanding,
> such as people who have seen the LotR movies, and would understand
this
> sense of mythic, even if they were not readers at all, or knew
nothing of
> the word's origin.
You are very carefully not saying whether you believe that there is a
single set of truths that we describe as "mythic," or whether the
existence of the "mythic" can encompass the existence of a difference
between what is "mythic" in one culture and what is "mythic" in
another. Perhaps Blavatsky and Tolkien are helpful for people from our
culture, in discovering the "universal mythic"? Or in discovering a
"false mythic" that has been masquerading in place of the true one? In
undermining what you above identify as "urban legends," popularly
created because of misunderstanding and fear, replacing those with
something better?
My concern with your approach is that you allow us to guess at what you
oppose. You seem content to construct ad hoc strawmen. You seem to
have a personal reason to want to discuss your beliefs. Whether you
see this as proselytizing, or as some other activity, in consonance
with "Wisdom," seems to me not to matter much.
----
Bianca Steele
Chess One
> Chess One wrote:
>> But what is 'mythic' still contains a resonance in general
> understanding,
>> such as people who have seen the LotR movies, and would understand
> this
>> sense of mythic, even if they were not readers at all, or knew
> nothing of
>> the word's origin.
>
> You are very carefully not saying whether you believe that there is a
> single set of truths that we describe as "mythic,"
Yes Bianca. That's because I do not subscribe to beliefs - I have no use for
them. I would say the experience of people of what is mythic is universal.
In the West for the past 80 years or so we have used terms from psychology
[borrowing directly from the Greeks] of what is 'archetypal' for example.
> or whether the
> existence of the "mythic" can encompass the existence of a difference
> between what is "mythic" in one culture and what is "mythic" in
> another.
Comparative mythos is interesting! And usually the realm of cultural
anthropologists.
I am not sure how extensive an answer to make; poerhaps an anecdote would be
Kirosawa's treatment of King Lear. Lear lending itself to disparate cultures
both sides of the modern world, but also to the Britons of 2000 years ago
and the Celtic twilight from which it came. BTW, much of Tolkien is Celtic
myth too.
> Perhaps Blavatsky and Tolkien are helpful for people from our
> culture, in discovering the "universal mythic"? Or in discovering a
> "false mythic" that has been masquerading in place of the true one?
Yes - in either case the subject seems well received. People have an
appetite for it. I forgot who [Eco?] once deconstructed Lucas' Star Wars to
Greek Tragedy. O - late thought, it was Joseph Cambell, who [laugh] rather
made a living of such things.
> In
> undermining what you above identify as "urban legends," popularly
> created because of misunderstanding and fear, replacing those with
> something better?
Yes, I understand. Not the epiphenomenum of a faddish frisson [sorry, had to
write that] - not just a surface tension, but something more profound
beneath. The 'better' in your sentence being a connection with something
which is not cute, but compelling.
> My concern with your approach is that you allow us to guess at what you
> oppose. You seem content to construct ad hoc strawmen. You seem to
> have a personal reason to want to discuss your beliefs. Whether you
> see this as proselytizing, or as some other activity, in consonance
> with "Wisdom," seems to me not to matter much.
I accept your criticism which has some justice, without quite agreeing with
it. I didn't mean that by writing that I was attempting to not influence
anyone [which would be a nonsnese thing to say], but the influence is not
intended to change opinion and certainly not to cause anyone to 'believe' in
anything.
You are good to write back. I further apologise if I wrote that you seemed
not to have a genuine interest in the subject. I think that's all I care
about, and I certainly care much more for that than agreeing with anyone :)
Cordially, Phil Innes
> ----
> Bianca Steele
>
Bianca Steele
>> You are very carefully not saying whether you believe that there is
a
>> single set of truths that we describe as "mythic,"
>
> Yes Bianca. That's because I do not subscribe to beliefs - I have no
use for
> them. I would say the experience of people of what is mythic is
universal.
> In the West for the past 80 years or so we have used terms from
psychology
> [borrowing directly from the Greeks] of what is 'archetypal' for
example.
>
>> or whether the
>> existence of the "mythic" can encompass the existence of a
difference
>> between what is "mythic" in one culture and what is "mythic" in
>> another.
>
> Comparative mythos is interesting! And usually the realm of cultural
> anthropologists.
If you see things from such a high-level point-of-view that you haven't
a lot of use for substantive beliefs, and you see multiple systems of
the "mythic" as possibly existing but the proper subject matter of
particular experts only, I don't understand why you continue to push
Blavatsky and Hughes on readers of Shakespeare who have shown little or
no interest in the "mythic" elements of literature. Such readers, not
themselves being cultural anthropologists, can hardly have anything to
say on the subject, even after study, that could interest you. Why,
then, should they abandon what does already interest them? The only
reason you've given, previously, is that you do find the mythic angle
interesting, and that you think others might feel the same way as you.
Even if you might not intend to push only your own interests on others
here, some people do find an interest in group harmony, or in learning
from people who seem to know a lot, and might find a corresponding
interest in encouraging the apparently perplexed to take your advice,
or at least to be more open to new possibilities.
>
> I am not sure how extensive an answer to make; poerhaps an anecdote
would be
> Kirosawa's treatment of King Lear. Lear lending itself to disparate
cultures
> both sides of the modern world, but also to the Britons of 2000 years
ago
> and the Celtic twilight from which it came. BTW, much of Tolkien is
Celtic
> myth too.
I hope you don't think this is a substantive answer, that if I looked
up the terms you use in an encyclopedia or a library, I would learn
something determinate, something which you already know -- almost as if
you had managed actually to include those contents of the library in
the short space of this single paragraph. This would not be the
strangest idea *I've* ever seen on Usenet.
>
>> Perhaps Blavatsky and Tolkien are helpful for people from our
>> culture, in discovering the "universal mythic"? Or in discovering a
>> "false mythic" that has been masquerading in place of the true one?
>
> Yes - in either case the subject seems well received. People have an
> appetite for it. I forgot who [Eco?] once deconstructed Lucas' Star
Wars to
> Greek Tragedy. O - late thought, it was Joseph Cambell, who [laugh]
rather
> made a living of such things.
Hmm. I think Lucas read Campbell before writing the script, did
Campbell also write about Lucas? If you think so, you're probably
right. I think Ursula Le Guin pointed out the connection to
Riefenstahl. (It's implausible he didn't know this was who he was
quoting, I think.)
----
Bianca Steele
Chess One
>> Comparative mythos is interesting! And usually the realm of cultural
>> anthropologists.
>
> If you see things from such a high-level point-of-view that you haven't
> a lot of use for substantive beliefs,
O dear. Would I have ask what 'substantive beliefs' might be?
> and you see multiple systems of
> the "mythic" as possibly existing but the proper subject matter of
> particular experts only,
Comparative anthropology /is/ a field of study, also called concentration -
It is populated by experts and non-experts.. I do not understand 'multiple
systems of the "mythic" as possibly existing' as my own idea, or why you
need to paraphrase at all. You have also gratuitously inserted the word
'only'.
> I don't understand why you continue to push
> Blavatsky and Hughes on readers of Shakespeare who have shown little or
> no interest in the "mythic" elements of literature.
Is that a request? Typically in academic disciplines each department tries
to hog the topic, resisting any multiplicity of views. If people write
nonsense on language, anthropology or psychology, does this accord them any
basis of truth? Surely its their right to speak their views, but are they of
any worth?
> Such readers, not
> themselves being cultural anthropologists, can hardly have anything to
> say on the subject, even after study, that could interest you. Why,
> then, should they abandon what does already interest them?
As above - because of a factor that Blavatsky <grin> uses as a title; the
'world problem' of glamour. When something is presented larger than it's
worth then it intrudes onto what rightfully occupies that space. This
distorts what is observed and encroaches on another view of things. Its not
my opinion that other views need be silent, therefore.
> The only
> reason you've given, previously, is that you do find the mythic angle
> interesting, and that you think others might feel the same way as you.
Of the half dozen things you have attributed to me, I have not owned any of
them. Instead I said that I am interested in discussing the topic, and the
method of observation, with anyone else who has studied the subject or had
an experience if the subject. It does not have to be the same perspective
'the same way as me'. In fact, I would prefer otherwise.
> Even if you might not intend to push only your own interests on others
> here, some people do find an interest in group harmony, or in learning
> from people who seem to know a lot, and might find a corresponding
> interest in encouraging the apparently perplexed to take your advice,
> or at least to be more open to new possibilities.
I do not understand your last 30 words.
>> I am not sure how extensive an answer to make; poerhaps an anecdote
> would be
>> Kirosawa's treatment of King Lear. Lear lending itself to disparate
> cultures
>> both sides of the modern world, but also to the Britons of 2000 years
> ago
>> and the Celtic twilight from which it came. BTW, much of Tolkien is
> Celtic
>> myth too.
>
> I hope you don't think this is a substantive answer,
ROFL! Group harmony! I never said I would make 'a substantial answer', but
made a simple illustration - I even said that I don't know at what level to
engage the subject with you.
It is bigotry to tell others what to do while admonishing them not to do the
same!
> that if I looked
> up the terms you use in an encyclopedia or a library, I would learn
> something determinate, something which you already know -- almost as if
> you had managed actually to include those contents of the library in
> the short space of this single paragraph. This would not be the
> strangest idea *I've* ever seen on Usenet.
? please?
>>> Perhaps Blavatsky and Tolkien are helpful for people from our
>>> culture, in discovering the "universal mythic"? Or in discovering a
>>> "false mythic" that has been masquerading in place of the true one?
>>
>> Yes - in either case the subject seems well received. People have an
>> appetite for it. I forgot who [Eco?] once deconstructed Lucas' Star
> Wars to
>> Greek Tragedy. O - late thought, it was Joseph Cambell, who [laugh]
> rather
>> made a living of such things.
>
> Hmm. I think Lucas read Campbell before writing the script, did
> Campbell also write about Lucas? If you think so,
He spoke to me about Lucas - I'm sure he may have written about him too.
> you're probably
> right. I think Ursula Le Guin pointed out the connection to
> Riefenstahl. (It's implausible he didn't know this was who he was
> quoting, I think.)
Let me resist imposing my topical views on you any more - I am clearly doing
so, since I am the only person stating any.
Spam Scone
Chess One wrote:
> If people write
> nonsense on language, anthropology or psychology, does this accord
them any
> basis of truth? Surely its their right to speak their views, but are
they of
> any worth?
The irony of these words coming from Innes is almost beyond belief.
2005 has been something of a flat year for nonsense on HLAS, compared
to the rich harvest of 2004, but the past week we've had promising
developments. AntiStrats have claimed the Oxford DNB is a "literary
blog" and have praise non-existent 80-page essays. And now Innes
rewards us with this!
Tom Veal
*cannot* be called "a flat year for nonsense on HLAS"!
I do agree, however, that the DNB as a "literary blog" is a highlight.
gangleri
Your intellectual insecurity is showing.
Tom Veal
detractors fear brilliant new ideas.
I'll take my chances on whether Gunnar Tomasson is ranked by posterity
with Albert Einstein or Mme. Blavatsky.