Ben Jonson Spills The Beans!

3 views
Skip to first unread message

gangleri

unread,
Aug 13, 2005, 7:59:51 PM8/13/05
to
Prologue

"I am sort of haunted by the conviction that the divine William was the
biggest and most successful fraud ever practiced on a patient world."
(Henry James)

"Still Shakespeare's closest friends in the King's men invited Jonson
to contribute the principal eulogy to the First Folio, and he responded
with one of the most admired commendatory poems in the language." (S.
Schoenbaum)

"There is NOTHING on record to suggest that 'Shakespeare's closest
friends' did any such thing." (Gangleri)

****

But, as one of Francis Bacon's closest associates, Ben Jonson did his
part to ensure that the fraud would be exposed - at Play's End.

****

Extract from a working note.

Ben Jonson's poem appears on a page, opposite to which there is
printed what purports to be a 'Picture' of Archetypal Stratfordian
MAN-Beast of Seventh Day. 'This figure' -

MAN-Beast of Seventh Day (7)

- and the Cipher Value (129301) of the first eight lines of Ben
Jonson's poem

This Figure, that thou here seest put,
It was for gentle Shakespeare cut;
Wherein the Graver had a strife
with Nature, to out-doo the life:
O, could he but have drawne his wit
As well in brasse, as he hath hit
His face; the Print would then surpasse
All that was ever writ in brasse.

- as in 7 + 129301 = 129308, mirror the Cipher Value (129308) of the
text which, 'writ in brasse', symbolizes Alpha of Archetypal
Stratfordian's "Houre Vpon The Stage":

STAY PASSENGER WHY GOEST THOU BY SO FAST
READ IF THOU CANST WHOM ENVIOUS DEATH HATH PLAST
WITH IN THIS MONUMENT SHAKSPEARE: WITH WHOME
QUICK NATURE DIDE WHOSE NAME DOTH DECK YS TOMBE
FAR MORE THEN COST: SIEH ALL YT HE HATH WRITT
LEAVES LIVING ART BUT PAGE TO SERVE HIS WITT

****

The Saga-Shakespeare Cipher Key and Calculator are posted on the
Internet at http://www.light-of-truth.com/gunnartomasson/ciphers.htm

gangleri

unread,
Aug 13, 2005, 8:04:26 PM8/13/05
to
P.S. Yes, I know - Schoenbaum was talking about the other BJ poem.

bobgr...@nut-n-but.net

unread,
Aug 14, 2005, 8:31:42 AM8/14/05
to

gangleri wrote:
> Prologue
>
> "I am sort of haunted by the conviction that the divine William was the
> biggest and most successful fraud ever practiced on a patient world."
> (Henry James)
>
> "Still Shakespeare's closest friends in the King's men invited Jonson
> to contribute the principal eulogy to the First Folio, and he responded
> with one of the most admired commendatory poems in the language." (S.
> Schoenbaum)
>
> "There is NOTHING on record to suggest that 'Shakespeare's closest
> friends' did any such thing." (Gangleri)
>

Of course, there is, moron: Shakespeare's closest friends, Heminges and
Condell, EDITED the First Folio and thus were almost surely responsible
for deciding who would do the main commedatory poem.

Sorry, moron, but psychotic interpretations of the numerological values
of various texts are not evidence.

--Bob G.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 14, 2005, 9:54:34 AM8/14/05
to
Bob.

Good to have you back with your insightful comennts!

But let me take issue with you on the following:

Shakespeare's closest friends, Heminges and Condell, EDITED the First
Folio and thus were almost surely responsible for deciding who would do
the main commedatory poem.

First. To the best of my knowledge, the MSS of the First Folio are
missing - how, then, do you *know* that Heminges and Condell EDITED the
First Folio?

Second. The Cipher Values of the Strafordian's 'baptismal' and
'burial' entries in the purported COPY of Holy Trinity Church records
and those of his six *known* strongly suggest that the Stratfordian was
a figment of somebody's powerful imagination.

Third. Never heard of Cipher in connection with the Shakespeare Opus?
Then check out the dedication which Ben Jonson wrote for his First
Folio published in 1616 - the year the plug was pulled on the imaginary
Stratfordian.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 14, 2005, 9:56:47 AM8/14/05
to
For:

Then check out the dedication which Ben Jonson wrote for his First
Folio published in 1616 - the year the plug was pulled on the imaginary
Stratfordian.

Read:

Then check out the dedication which Ben Jonson wrote for his Epigrammes
in his First Folio published in 1616 - the year the plug was pulled on
the imaginary Stratfordian.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 14, 2005, 10:22:21 AM8/14/05
to
For:

"his six *known*..."

Read:

"his six *known* signatures..."

gangleri

unread,
Aug 14, 2005, 12:04:48 PM8/14/05
to
P.S. re. the following:

Sorry, moron, but psychotic interpretations of the numerological values
of various texts are not evidence.

Comment:

Bob, there exists NO one-to-one relationship between "language" and
"meaning", as indicated inter alia by recent exchanges on this forum on
the meaning of "facetious" as in "facetious grace".

More generally, the "meaning" of words such as "William Shakespeare",
"Heminge", and "Condell" in the First Folio is NECESSARILY contextual -
IF we are dealing with straight-faced use of "language", then minimal
literacy is required to figure out their "meaning".

Stratfordian Orthodoxy is rooted in unquestioning FAITH that the
Shakespeare Author(s) were closet Stratfordians with respect to their
use of "language".

Might THAT explain the cautionary words addressed to "The great Variety
of Readers" by Heminge and Condell in the second of their First Folio
dedications?

"From the most able, to him that can but spell: There you are number'd
[...] it is not our province, who onely gather his works, and give
them you, to praise him It is yours that reade him. And there we
hope, to your divers capacities, you will finde enough, both to draw,
and hold you: for his wit can no more lie hid, then it could be lost.
Reade him, therefore; and againe, and againe: And if then you doe not
like him, surely you are in some manifest danger, not to understand
him. And so we leave you to other of his Friends, whom if you need,
can bee your guides: if you neede them not, you can leade yourselves,
and others. And such Readers we wish him."

It doesn't strike me as facetious to suggest that the juxtaposition of
"spell" and "number" at the outset may serve to signal that cipher
"language" is built into the Shakespeare Opus - something which "the
most able" (Jonson, Milton, Pope, and Garrick, to name a few) seem to
have understood all along.

If such be the "Friends" referred to by Heminge and Condell, might
their words not be construed as evidence that orthodox Stratfordians
find themselves faced with "manifest danger, not to understand [William
Shakespeare]"?

That they might do well to let "the most able" - literate "readers" -
"bee their guides"?

Or might it be the other way around?

That Heminge and Condell were concerned that future readers might be
psychotic to the point of flipping Stratfordian Orthoxody the bird?

Tom Veal

unread,
Aug 14, 2005, 4:34:14 PM8/14/05
to
Arguing with the Great Gangleri is like trying to win a game of
Calvinball against its inventor. The rules are nothing but flexible.

In this instance, he calculates the "cipher values" of two texts. Not
surprisingly, they aren't the same, so he finds something to make up
the difference between 129,301 and 129,308. Seven could, if it suited
his preconceived conclusion, be the seven days of creation, in which
case we would see that Jonson's poem (129,301) plus a marvelous creator
(7) equaled the man commemorated by the Stratford monument (129,308).
Since that isn't the desired result, we are instead told that seven
represents "MAN-BEAST of Seventh Day".

Why, you ask, should "MAN-BEAST" be linked to the Seventh Day, on which
God rested? And why is the Stratford Man proven to be a fraud by this
mystical arithmetic? Well may you ask, but the Icelandic Mage will
never proffer a comprehensible answer.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 14, 2005, 7:23:06 PM8/14/05
to
Tom.

Check out the Pythagorean/Kabbalistic view on God's doings during the
Seventh Day,

It's not what they taught you in Sunday School.

Tom Veal

unread,
Aug 14, 2005, 7:57:27 PM8/14/05
to
Ah, Pythagoras, the well known Biblical exegete!

And why should "7" allude to the "MAN-BEAST of Seventh Day" rather than
the seven days of Creation or the Seven Liberal Arts or the Seven Sages
of ancient Greece or the Seven Wonders of the World or the seven stars
of Ursa Major or [continue list ad near-infinitum]?

gangleri

unread,
Aug 14, 2005, 8:22:55 PM8/14/05
to
I put up a special refresher course for you on Pythagorean and Jewish
Heresy - believe it or not, God did not spill all his beans to the
Church of Rome.

Or what did they teach you in Sunday School on the following:

",,,we now 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 understood 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."

Then comes this here thing - I don't know that I should post it on this
forum - but, well, it can't hurt:

"And now abideth faith, hope, CHARITY, these three; but the greatest of
these is charity."

gangleri

unread,
Aug 14, 2005, 8:36:13 PM8/14/05
to
Re. the Jewish Heresy part.

Trust I didn't ruflle any anti-semitic feathers.

P.S. Good that 'em Pythagoreans are fair game for bigots.

Tom Veal

unread,
Aug 14, 2005, 10:05:11 PM8/14/05
to
It is, I concede, uncharitable of me to pummel a poor madman, but I
doubt that you regard yourself as such, so at least I am not giving
offense.

Your "refresher course" ("God on the Seventh Day - What They Didn't
Teach In Sunday School") is incoherent even by your standards. Let's
try to take matters one step at a time. To begin, what is your evidence
that Pythagoras ever uttered any interpretation of any passage in the
Hebrew Bible?

Second, what is your evidence that Ben Jonson gave any credence to the
Kabbalah?

Third, to repeat a previous unanswered query, why must "7" denote
"MAN-BEAST of Seventh Day" rather than any of the other possible
associations called forth by the number seven?

gangleri

unread,
Aug 14, 2005, 10:26:36 PM8/14/05
to
Tom.

So you are clueless about the Pythagorean aspects of Jewish Heresy.

Ditto with respect to the Pythagorean aspects of the New Testament.

Neither point rings a bell for you?

It shows.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 14, 2005, 10:29:28 PM8/14/05
to
Re. the following:

It is, I concede, uncharitable of me to pummel a poor madman,...

Comment:

Did your mother teach you no manners?

Tom Veal

unread,
Aug 14, 2005, 10:55:51 PM8/14/05
to
Oh, I'm quite aware that crackpots of all kinds have claimed to derive
their ideas from Pythagoras. I asked you for evidence that Pythagoras
actually held those ideas.

As for "the Pythagorean aspects of the New Testament", yes, I am
"clueless" about them. I am not alone. If you would like to amuse us
with your babblings on the subject, feel free.

But first why not answer the questions that I posed?

gangleri

unread,
Aug 15, 2005, 9:33:21 AM8/15/05
to
Tom.

This being a Shakespeare forum, why don't you go first and provide me
with evidence that the Stratfordian of record - the fellow whose
'baptism' and 'burial' entries are found in a purported copy of
never-seen original records of Holy Trinity Church - was actually of
flesh and blood as distinct from a figment of some jester's
imagination.

P.S. Did you know that Pythagoras, 5255, has something in common with
Virgin Soul alias Mary, 1861? A spark of divinity which, when come to
term, is known as Jesus, 3394 as in 1861 + 3394 = 5255?

And, since you are evidently familiar with the (non-existent) writings
of Pythagoras, can you clarify whether the concept of Virgin Birth is
"Pythagorean" short-hand for Monad's manifestation at the level of
Virgin Soul?

If you don't recall what Pythagoras did (not) write on the subject
matter, then perhaps you can clarify for us the meaning of Mary's words
in Luke 1:46 -

My soul doth magnify the Lord?

gangleri

unread,
Aug 15, 2005, 9:41:40 AM8/15/05
to
Tom.

So you are "quite aware that crackpots of all kinds have claimed to


derive their ideas from Pythagoras".

Do you view The Holy Father as a "crackpot" for preaching as gospel
truth the pre-historic - become "Pythagorean" - concept of Spirit's
Virgin Birth at the level of Creation in Time and Space?

Tom Veal

unread,
Aug 15, 2005, 11:20:39 AM8/15/05
to
If William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was "a figment of some
jester's imagination", the jester went to a great deal of trouble to
insert mentions of him into contemporary legal, tax and theatrical
records. Even the barmiest anti-Stratfordian (leaving you aside)
believes that the Stratford fellow is referred to in such documents as
the 1598 inventory of grain stocks in Stratford, his deposition in the
Mountjoy action, the College of Heralds archives concerning the grant
of a coat-of-arms to him and his father, the purchase agreement for the
Blackfriars Gatehouse, the Stratford town council's actions in the
enclosure controversy, etc. All can be conveniently found in Sam
Schoenbaum's "Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life".

Regarding Pythagoras, *you* are the one who professes to know what he
believed. I've made no claims at all to such knowledge. I can, however,
confidently state that no Christian believes that "the concept of


Virgin Birth is 'Pythagorean' short-hand for Monad's manifestation at

the level of Virgin Soul". Indeed, no one *could* believe it, because
your statement is sheer nonsense. One might as well assert that slithy
toves are brillig.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 15, 2005, 2:23:18 PM8/15/05
to
Re. the following:

I can, however, confidently state that no Christian believes that "the
concept of Virgin Birth is 'Pythagorean' short-hand for Monad's
manifestation at the level of Virgin Soul". Indeed, no one *could*
believe it, because your statement is sheer nonsense.

Comment:

1. As distinct from The Holy Father's literal construction of the
Virgin Birth Myth?

2. A no-nonsense statement which you embrace as gospel truth?

3. Here are the concluding paragraphs of Einar Pálsson's book 'The
Sacred Triangle of Pagan Iceland', placing in broader context certain
key "Pythagorean" aspects of the world-view of Iceland's 9th century
settlers:

The legends of the Holy Grail are inseparable from the above web of
correspondences. Their basis is to be found in the legends of Osiris
and Isis. They are connected with the Pelopennese, with Hera and
Heracles, Neleus and Pelias and other mythological concepts bound up
with the creation of society in the Pelopennese peninsula.
Christianity was grafted on the ideas referred to above. It did not
change them, it invested them with Christian symbolism. The Grail
stood for the uterus of the Great Mother Goddess, Hera/Isis. It was a
measuring vessel connected with the numerical sequence
27-54-108-216-432-864-1728. It was the Horn of Plenty. [...]

As in other countries the Holy Grail legends of Iceland are connected
with the Second Coming of Christ in the year 1000. They are directly
based on triangle 3:4:5. They are of the same mold as the Heraean
Games at Olympia. The major preserve of the Holy Grail in Iceland is
the saga of burnt Niall.

If the ideology of Egyptian kingship of the first dynasty was inherited
by later peoples and other cultures, it explains why such seemingly
diverse cultural phenomena as Celtic kingship, Pelopennesian kingship,
Pythagorean mysteries, Roman and Greek law as well as the pagan
assembly at Þingvellir in Iceland and the kingship of Jesus Christ are
all found to be based on the same premises. The ideas involved are
older and probably inherent in the mental make-up of the Stone Age
people in Europe, but as now known and preserved these ideas were
inherited from Egypt. (pp. 168-160)

4. Einar was a devout Christian.

Tom Veal

unread,
Aug 15, 2005, 5:44:20 PM8/15/05
to
I suppose that trying to get answers to questions about your screeds is
a hopeless cause, but let me try again. Why do you interpret the number
"7" as "MAN-BEAST of Seventh Day" rather than, say, the Seven Days of
Creation, the Seven Wonders of the World, the Seven Ages of Man, the
Seventh Seal of the Book of Revelation, etc.?

gangleri

unread,
Aug 15, 2005, 6:27:30 PM8/15/05
to
Again, re. the following:

I can, however, confidently state that no Christian believes that "the
concept of Virgin Birth is 'Pythagorean' short-hand for Monad's
manifestation at the level of Virgin Soul". Indeed, no one *could*
believe it, because your statement is sheer nonsense.

Comment:

Here is how Karen Armstrong - possibly Tom's equal in her grasp of
religious imagery - summarizes the like "sheer nonsense" aspect of the
Jewish Kabbalah:

"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." ('A History of God,' Ballantine Books,
New York, 1993, p. 247)

gangleri

unread,
Aug 15, 2005, 6:35:25 PM8/15/05
to
Re. the following:

I suppose that trying to get answers to questions about your screeds is
a hopeless cause, but let me try again. Why do you interpret the number
"7" as "MAN-BEAST of Seventh Day" rather than, say, the Seven Days of
Creation, the Seven Wonders of the World, the Seven Ages of Man, the
Seventh Seal of the Book of Revelation, etc.?

Here is the source of Tom's puzzlement - the original post in this
thread:

Ben Jonson's poem appears on a page, opposite to which there is printed
what purports to be a 'Picture' of Archetypal Stratfordian MAN-Beast of
Seventh Day. 'This figure' -

MAN-Beast of Seventh Day (7)

- and the Cipher Value (129301) of the first eight lines of Ben
Jonson's poem

This Figure, that thou here seest put,
It was for gentle Shakespeare cut;
Wherein the Graver had a strife
with Nature, to out-doo the life:
O, could he but have drawne his wit
As well in brasse, as he hath hit
His face; the Print would then surpasse
All that was ever writ in brasse.

- as in 7 + 129301 = 129308, mirror the Cipher Value (129308) of the
text which, 'writ in brasse', symbolizes Alpha of Archetypal
Stratfordian's "Houre Vpon The Stage":

STAY PASSENGER WHY GOEST THOU BY SO FAST
READ IF THOU CANST WHOM ENVIOUS DEATH HATH PLAST
WITH IN THIS MONUMENT SHAKSPEARE: WITH WHOME
QUICK NATURE DIDE WHOSE NAME DOTH DECK YS TOMBE
FAR MORE THEN COST: SIEH ALL YT HE HATH WRITT
LEAVES LIVING ART BUT PAGE TO SERVE HIS WITT

Now the Answer to Tom's Question:

The opening line of Ben Jonson's poem -

This Figure, that thou here seest put,

- relates to the purported "picture" of the Stratfordian printed on the
opposite page.

Not the Seven Days of Creation

Not the Seven Wonders of the World

Not the Seven Ages of Man

Not the Seventh Seal of the Book of Revelation

gangleri

unread,
Aug 15, 2005, 8:01:45 PM8/15/05
to
Re. the following:

If William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was "a figment of some
jester's imagination", the jester went to a great deal of trouble to
insert mentions of him into contemporary legal, tax and theatrical
records. Even the barmiest anti-Stratfordian (leaving you aside)
believes that the Stratford fellow is referred to in such documents as
the 1598 inventory of grain stocks in Stratford, his deposition in the
Mountjoy action, the College of Heralds archives concerning the grant
of a coat-of-arms to him and his father, the purchase agreement for the
Blackfriars Gatehouse, the Stratford town council's actions in the
enclosure controversy, etc. All can be conveniently found in Sam
Schoenbaum's "Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life".

Comment.

1. ...the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:
for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because
they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor. 3:14)

2. Tom, you're a natural!

3. The jester's imagination, as reflected in the Cipher Sum 129308 + 1
+ 3394 - 604 + 677 + 164001 = 296777, is something which neither you
nor The Holy Father can ever comprehend while fiddling with things of
the Spirit by the lights of Natural Man.

***
The Cipher components are as follows:

129308 = Stay passenger etc.

1 = Monad

3394 = Jesus [Spark of Divinity in Virgin Soul - "sheer nonsense" to
you and The Holy Father]

- 604 = He/Natural Man [passenger no more]

677 = Ek/Spiritual Man [One with the Father]

In Matt. 4:1-11, the 'temptation' of Jesus by The Devil is the New
Testament version of the 'strife' within the 'heart' of Jesus brought
on by Spirit's entrapment in a "mortal coil", whose resolution the
Kabbalah denotes by He being told his place in the Divine order of
things by Spirit, alias the mysterious EK of early Shakespeare Myth.

164001 is the Cipher Value of the complete text of Ben Jonson's First
Folio opening poem:

To the Reader.

This Figure, that thou here seest put,
It was for gentle Shakespeare cut;
Wherein the Graver had a strife
with Nature, to out-doo the life:
O, could he but have drawne his wit
As well in brasse, as he hath hit
His face; the Print would then surpasse
All that was ever writ in brasse.

But, since he cannot, Reader, looke
Not on his Picture, but his Booke.

B. I.

And the 296777 reference Cipher Value is that of the Dedication of 'The
Rape of Lucrece' - why "rape"?

You and The Holy Father go figure!

TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE, HENRY VVriothesley, Earle of Southhampton,
and Baron of Titchfield.

THE loue I dedicate to your Lordship is without end*: whereof this
Pamphlet without beginning is but a superfluous Moity. The warrant I
haue of your Honourable disposition, not the worth of my vntutord Lines
makes it assured of acceptance. VVhat I haue done is yours, what I
haue to doe is yours, being part in all I haue, deuoted yours. VVere
my worth greater, my duety would shew greater, meane time, as it is, it
is bound to your Lordship; To whom I wish long life still lengthned
with all happinesse.

Your Lordships in all duety.

William Shakespeare.

* En Sof of the Ten Sefiroth of Kabbalah (as in He and Ek) means
"Without end."

P.S. I regret the need to use blunt language - now, as then, Jonathan
Swift identified the reason why such language is needed in the final
paragraph of 'Gulliver's Travel's:

...when I behold a lump of deformity and diseases, both in body and
mind, smitten with pride, it immediately breaks all the measures of my
patience; neither shall I be ever able to comprehend how such an
animal, and such a vice, could tally together.

Tom Veal

unread,
Aug 15, 2005, 10:15:11 PM8/15/05
to
None of what you quote has anything to do with the Christian concept of
the Virgin Birth. Jews, whether Kabbalists or not, do *not* believe
that God either can or did become incarnate.

Tom Veal

unread,
Aug 15, 2005, 10:24:08 PM8/15/05
to
When you asked for "evidence that the Stratfordian of record . . . was
actually of flesh and blood as distinct from a figment of some jester's
imagination", I didn't really expect that you would consider that
evidence. It's pleasant to have my expectations confirmed.

BTW, what has Benedict XVI ever written about Shakespeare that his name
should be dragged into this discussion? But I suppose that he's another
of your King Charles' Heads.

>From your last couple of paragraphs, I gather that you were trying to
insult me. Can you repeat the insult less obscurely? I missed it
completely, unless you think that being associated with the Pope is
heavy obloquy.

lariadc

unread,
Aug 15, 2005, 11:28:46 PM8/15/05
to
>Re. the following:

>If William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was "a figment of some
>jester's imagination", the jester went to a great deal of trouble to
>insert mentions of him into contemporary legal, tax and theatrical
>records.

gangleri,

I recall the discussion when it was mentioned that a law was passed
requiring certain records to be copied into a parchment
book. You seemed suspicious because the baptismal records were
not original, but if everyone copied them because of a law, why
should you be surprised? What other alternative would there be
other than to have a copy? It would be strange only if the
records had not been copied.

I'm mentioning this because you said that your gemetria is used
merely as a check, but what need is there for a check in this
case?

C.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 16, 2005, 10:33:46 AM8/16/05
to
Re. the *copy* of Holy Trinity Church records.

The Shakespeare Opus is a Kabbalistic Third Testament in the form of
'hidden poetry' on the Redeeming Mission of transmundane Jesus Christ,
7284, as Light , 1000 as in 7284 + 1000 = 8284, of the World, where
*World* denotes Microcosmic MAN-Beast as Creation in Time and Space.

In Stratfordian Myth, transmundane Jesus *enters* the World at
MAN-Beast's *baptism* on April 26, 1564, and *exits* at the *burial* of
the World/MAN-Beast's remnains on April 25, 1616 as in 2602 + 1564 +
2502 + 1616 = 8284.

The Cipher Symmetry between Jesus Christ as transmundane Light of the
World on a Mission of *finite* duration at the level of Creation in
Time and Space came to light many years ago when it first occurred to
me that such *finite* duration MUST accord with the *entry* and *exit*
of the object of Christ's Mission - the Stratfordian.

In the context of Saga-Shakespeare Myth, there are both Cosmic
(Stratfordian) and Individual aspects to the Redeemer's Mission, as
signaled inter alia by Prospero's remark, "'Tis new to thee," when
Miranda expresses wonder on beholding the Brave New World which
replaces Old Stratfordian World.

The Jesus of Saga-Shakespeare Myth is NOT the Jesus of orthodox
religion, but the Jesus of Gnostic *heresy* alias Jesus Patibilis ('The
Passible Jesus'), whose attributes were summarized by a scholar named
Hans Jonas as follows:

"....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." (The Gnostic Religion - The Message of the
Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity, Second Edition, revised,
Beacon Press, Boston, 1963, pp. 228-229)

In the case of Microcosmic/Stratfordian MAN-Beast, the process of Jesus
Patibilis "collect[ing] himself out of the physical dispersal" begins
with MAN-Beast's *baptism* and ends with the *burial* of MAN-Beast's
remains.

In Act I, Sc. v of Hamlet, Jesus Patibilis appears as the SPIRIT of
Hamlet's Father, "Doom'd for a certain term [as in April 26, 1564 -
April 25, 1616] to walk the night, And for the day confin'd to fast in
fires, Till the foul crimes done in my days of NATURE Are burnt and
purg'd away."

In Pythagorean imagery, Jesus Patibilis, 7864, is ONE with the
Father/God/Monad, 1, as Light of the World, 1000, who *enters* the
World/assumes the 'disguise' of MAN-Beast, 666, on April 26, 1564, on a
Mission to 'slay' the Beast and leave behind Right Measure of Man, 432,
on His *exit* on April 25, 1616.

The Cipher Value of the Redeemer's Mission is 7864 + 1 + 1000 + 666 +
2602 + 1564 + 432 + 2502 + 1616 = 18247.

The Shakespeare Author(s) left THIS very Cipher Value on the record in
PLAIN SIGHT for their *initiated* fellows (including Milton, Pope, and
Garrick) in the form of a tale that translates into the Cipher Sum 7482
+ 6642 + 2511 + 1612 = 18247.

For several years now, Stratfordian scholars have had a lively, and
inconclusive, debate on what lessons to draw from the *murder* of
William Peeter, 7482, by Edward Drew, 6642, on January 25 (2511), 1612.

Lessons which *initiated* students have been able to draw since the
first appearance of W.S.'s *Funerall Elegie* almost immediately upon
William Peeter's sudden sad demise - lessons which are mirrored in the
Cipher Sum 10 + 1000 + 129308 + 18247 - 5979 = 142586, where

10 = Father/Two Fives as ONE Flesh

1000 = Light of the World

129308 = Stay passenger etc.

18247 = Mission Accomplished

and minus 5979 signaling The End of MAN-Beast as Light of the World's
Sepulchre.

How so?

In The Shakespeare Third Testament, Girth House, 5979 - a circular
stone church in the Orkney Islands modeled on the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre in Jerusalem - served as symbol of MAN-Beast's *sepulchral*
aspects with respect to Jesus Patibilis.

As for the Cipher Value 142586, it sums up the moral of the story as
told in the opening lines of *Funerall Elegie*:

Since Time, and his predestinated end,
Abridg'd the circuit of his hope-full dayes;
Whiles both his Youth and Vertue did intend,
The good indeuor's, of deseruing praise:
What memorable monument can last,
Whereon to build his neuer blemisht name?
But his owne worth, wherein his life was grac't?
Sith as it euer hee maintain'd the same. = 142586

gangleri

unread,
Aug 16, 2005, 11:20:14 AM8/16/05
to
Re. the following:

Jews, whether Kabbalists or not, do *not* believe that God either can
or did become incarnate.

Comment:

According to Karen Armstrong -

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.

- Jewish Kabbalists believe that at some point "the mystic .... becomes


aware of the Presence of God within him"

In Shakespeare Myth, it's at this point that Miranda exclaims:

O, wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in 't!

And, as indicated by Prospero's "what-else-is-new" remark -

'Tis new to thee.

- an individual's discovery of God's Presence within him/herself is a
threshold in human evolution akin to that alluded to by Paul in 1. Cor.
13:11-12.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I
thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish

things. For now we see through glass, darkly; but then face to face:


now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Here is the Old Testament account (Gen. 32:24-32) of Jacob's passing
the threshold:

And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the
breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against
him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's
thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me
go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except
thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said,
Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but
Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast
prevailed. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy
name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name?
And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place
Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Natural man's struggle with Spirit/God With Us (Matt. 1:23) is as old
as mankind itself - the Jacobean Dark Night of Man's Soul is "a certain
term" during which the Spirit of Hamlet's Father engages the Prince in
"a kind of fighting" in his "heart". (Act V, Sc. ii)

Tom Veal

unread,
Aug 16, 2005, 11:46:50 AM8/16/05
to
It's pretty obvious that you read without comprehension. Nothing that
you quote deals with the Virgin Birth or the Incarnation, which are
what we were discussing.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 16, 2005, 12:07:09 PM8/16/05
to
Re. the following:

It's pretty obvious that you read without comprehension. Nothing that
you quote deals with the Virgin Birth or the Incarnation, which are
what we were discussing.

Comment:

You made a sweeping statement -

Jews, whether Kabbalists or not, do *not* believe that God either can
or did become incarnate.

- which does not accord with

1. Karen Armstrong's reading of the record.

2. The biblical account of Jacob struggling with *somebody*, realizing
at struggle's end that he has "seen God face to face".

With respect to the latter, there are two possibilities:

(i) Jacob struggled with God in a disembodied state; or

(ii) Jacob struggled with God in his own "heart".

The first option may - and apparently does - make sense to you and, by
your reckoning, to ALL "Jews, whether Kabbalists or not."

The second option is predicated on God's Presence within Jacob's
"heart".

That is, God's INCARNATION at the level of Man - a concept which made
sense to the likes of Giordano Bruno and the Shakespeare Author(s).

P.S. You asked why I brought up The Holy Father with respect to the
points at issue.

The second option implies volumes about the intellectual and spiritual
integrity of the Church of Rome.

Tom Veal

unread,
Aug 16, 2005, 12:50:36 PM8/16/05
to
A Shakespeare discussion group isn't the ideal place for instruction in
elementary theology. Nonetheless, I'll give it a try. The Christian
doctrine, summarized as succinctly as I can manage, is that, through
the Virgin Birth, God (specifically, the Second Person of the Trinity,
God's eternal Logos) became incarnate in Jesus, Who possessed both a
fully human and a fully divine nature, united in a single person.
Whatever you think of that view, it is not remotely like either Karen
Armstrong's account of the Kabbalistic theory concerning the emergence
of God's self-awareness or like Jacob's wrestling with God. In neither
of those cases did God take on human nature. The former tries to
describe an aspect of His divine nature; the latter recounts a
manifestation of the divine presence, parallel to God's "walking with"
Enoch or the Burning Bush.

And I still wonder at your penchant for anti-Roman Catholic slurs. I'm
not a Roman Catholic. The Roman Church promulgates no doctrines about
Shakespeare. Nothing said or done by Benedict XVI or any of his
predecessors has the slightest bearing on the subject of this news
group. Why do you persist in dragging in such irrelevancies? Do you get
some kind of enjoyment out of it, like a small boy scribbling on walls?
Or is your bigotry so intense that you can't keep it out of whatever
you write?

gangleri

unread,
Aug 16, 2005, 1:15:02 PM8/16/05
to
Re. the following:

A Shakespeare discussion group isn't the ideal place for instruction in
elementary theology. Nonetheless, I'll give it a try. The Christian
doctrine, summarized as succinctly as I can manage, is that, through
the Virgin Birth, God (specifically, the Second Person of the Trinity,
God's eternal Logos) became incarnate in Jesus, Who possessed both a
fully human and a fully divine nature, united in a single person.
Whatever you think of that view, it is not remotely like either Karen
Armstrong's account of the Kabbalistic theory concerning the emergence
of God's self-awareness or like Jacob's wrestling with God. In neither
of those cases did God take on human nature. The former tries to
describe an aspect of His divine nature; the latter recounts a
manifestation of the divine presence, parallel to God's "walking with"
Enoch or the Burning Bush.

And specifically:

In neither of those cases did GOD take on HUMAN NATURE.

Comment:

Of course not!

Jacob's struggle is that of Human Nature vs. Father's Spirit.

A struggle which began with Adam and continues to this day in the
'heart' of every child born into the world.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 16, 2005, 1:17:52 PM8/16/05
to
Re. the following:

The Roman Church promulgates no doctrines about Shakespeare.

Comment:

Of course it does!

Church doctrine concerns NOTHING but aspects of the relationship
between God and Man - alias Archetypal Stratfordian MAN-Beast.

John W. Kennedy

unread,
Aug 16, 2005, 6:08:43 PM8/16/05
to
Tom Veal wrote:
> A Shakespeare discussion group isn't the ideal place for instruction in
> elementary theology. Nonetheless, I'll give it a try. The Christian
> doctrine, summarized as succinctly as I can manage, is that, through
> the Virgin Birth, God (specifically, the Second Person of the Trinity,
> God's eternal Logos) became incarnate in Jesus, Who possessed both a
> fully human and a fully divine nature, united in a single person.
> Whatever you think of that view, it is not remotely like either Karen
> Armstrong's account of the Kabbalistic theory concerning the emergence
> of God's self-awareness or like Jacob's wrestling with God. In neither
> of those cases did God take on human nature. The former tries to
> describe an aspect of His divine nature; the latter recounts a
> manifestation of the divine presence, parallel to God's "walking with"
> Enoch or the Burning Bush.

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men
to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once
complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man,
consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance
(homoousios) with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same
time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all
respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father
before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and
for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer (Theotokos); one
and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two
natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without
separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the
union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and
coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or
separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten
God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest
times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the
creed of the Fathers has handed down to us.
-- Council of Chalcedon, 451

For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;

God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and
Man of the substance of his Mother, born in the world;

Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh
subsisting.

Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the
Father, as touching his manhood;

Who, although he be God and Man, yet he is not two, but one Christ;

One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh but by taking of the
Manhood into God;

One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person.

For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one
Christ;
-- Quicunque vult


--
John W. Kennedy
"...if you had to fall in love with someone who was evil, I can see why
it was her."
-- "Alias"

gangleri

unread,
Aug 16, 2005, 8:01:01 PM8/16/05
to
At first glance, the Council of Chalcedon's declaration accords with
the Saga-Shakespeare view of the relationship between God and Man.

Jesus Christ as "at once, complete in Godhead and complete in manhood"
is right in line with the Saga-Shakespeare view if "complete" is
understood to represent the END product of a spatio-temporal process.

A spatio-temporal process which Ghost of Hamlet's Father (as in "I am
thy Father's Spirit") refers to as "a certain term" that Spirit must
"walk the night" etc. (Act I, Sc. v)

For Spirit thrust into its spatio-temporal "mortal coil" CANNOT
possibly be immediately "complete in Godhead and complete in manhood",
where "complete in manhood" is construed to represent what in
Saga-Shakespeare Myth is known as Right Measure of Man as symbolized in
Pythagorean numerology by 432.

In Shakespeare's play, THAT is the state to which Brutus attains by
"overcoming himself" (Act V, Sc. v)

As in "[Brutus is] Free from the bondage you are in, Messala; The
conquerors can but make a fire of him [shades of Giordano Bruno?]; For
Brutus only overcame himself, And no man else hath honour by his
death."

In the Shakespeare Opus, the theme of Spirit enclosed in its corrupting
"mortal frame" is centered on Archetypal Stratfordian's "houre vpon the
stage" - yes, the reference here is to Macbeth alias 'Tygers hart wrapt
in a players hyde'.

The fusion aspect of Spirit and Matter which is reflected in the view
of Jesus Christ as "at once, complete in Godhead and complete in
manhood" was underscored by Alexander Pope's statement in his 'Essay on
Criticism' and related to an Augustan predecessor of the
Saga-Shakespeare authors as follows:

When first young Maro in his boundless Mind
A Work t'outlast Immortal Rome design'd,
Perhaps he seem'd above the Critick's Law,
And but from Nature's Fountains scorn'd to draw:
But when t'examine ev'ry Part he came,
Nature and Homer were, he found, the same.
Convinc'd, amaz'd, he checks the bold Design,
And Rules as strict his labour'd Work confine,
As if the Stagyrite o'er looked each Line.
Learn hence for Ancient Rules a just Esteem;
To copy Nature is to copy Them.

It's all in a (Seventh) day's work for Mother Nature.

Tom Veal

unread,
Aug 16, 2005, 8:55:43 PM8/16/05
to
Why, yes, if "w-h-i-t-e" is understood to represent "black", the Acts
of the Council of Chalcedon can be understood as according with your
gnostic-Teilhardist stew.

I used to be told that literacy was a prerequisite for admission to
Harvard University. Evidently I was misinformed.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 16, 2005, 9:43:21 PM8/16/05
to
Well, the Harvard Law School Admission Office is known to shade the
truth to soften the blow of non-admission to worthy applicants like
yourself.

Tom Reedy

unread,
Aug 16, 2005, 9:50:42 PM8/16/05
to
"Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1124240143.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Why, yes, if "w-h-i-t-e" is understood to represent "black", the Acts
> of the Council of Chalcedon can be understood as according with your
> gnostic-Teilhardist stew.
>
> I used to be told that literacy was a prerequisite for admission to
> Harvard University. Evidently I was misinformed.

I pegged him right the first time.

TR

gangleri

unread,
Aug 16, 2005, 10:05:09 PM8/16/05
to
Tom.

Tell me who your friends are, and I'll tell you who you are.

David L. Webb

unread,
Aug 17, 2005, 2:37:03 PM8/17/05
to
In article <1124142259.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> I suppose that trying to get answers to questions about your screeds is
> a hopeless cause, but let me try again. Why do you interpret the number
> "7" as "MAN-BEAST of Seventh Day" rather than, say, the Seven Days of
> Creation, the Seven Wonders of the World, the Seven Ages of Man, the
> Seventh Seal of the Book of Revelation, etc.?

Or the seven days of the week? After all, most of those are even
named after deities formerly venerated in Iceland. One wonders also
about gangleri's version of the significance of the number three. The
Holy Trinity? Or the Three Stooges, perhaps? In fact, wasn't one of
the latter named something like gangLarry?

[...]

gangleri

unread,
Aug 17, 2005, 8:35:12 PM8/17/05
to
David.

Tom Veal couldn't figure out why THIS FIGURE signaled the
Stratfordian's likeness on the opposite page to Ben Jonson's
introductory poem in the First Folio.

Not Seven this or Seven that - but MAN-Beast of Seventh Day.

Tom is concerned about literacy standards at Harvard - what's the
situation in that respect among faculty at Dartmouth?

Tom Veal

unread,
Aug 17, 2005, 11:26:20 PM8/17/05
to
And I still don't see why you regard the connection as so compelling.
The figure is a man, it's true, but he is also, according to Jonson, a
creator (suggesting the Seven Days of Creation), a genius (suggesting
the Seven Sages of Ancient Greece), the author of works of exceptional
quality (suggesting the Seven Wonders of the World), a poet (poetic
musicality suggesting the seven notes of the scale) and withal a man
(who passes through Seven Ages). Your "method" is on a par with
cloud-gazing, as I'm sure every reader but you recognizes by now
(though I do encourage any lurking gangleristas to speak up).

gangleri

unread,
Aug 18, 2005, 1:29:09 PM8/18/05
to
Tom.

Two questions.

1. What do you make of Peter Farey's "method", which indicates that
"envious death" had in fact "plast" one Christofer Marley, 8477, "with
in this monument Shakspeare"?

2. Why do you think Her Majesty's Privy Council went to bat for him
against "those ignorant in the affairs he went about"?

And one clue.

In the vocabulary of myth, Light of the World, 1000, has a 'Shadow'
Brother - as in Jesus and The Devil in Matt. 4:1-11.

Clue?

Yes - for such as know what they are talking about with respect to the
Shakespeare transformation of New Testament imagery.

How so?

Go to http://www.light-of-truth.com/ gunnartomasson/ciphers.htm and
calculate the cipher values of TWO introductory poems for the works of
Shakespeare - the one in the First Folio -

To the Reader.

This Figure, that thou here seest put,
It was for gentle Shakespeare cut;
Wherein the Graver had a strife
with Nature, to out-doo the life:
O, could he but have drawne his wit
As well in brasse, as he hath hit
His face; the Print would then surpasse
All that was ever writ in brasse.
But, since he cannot, Reader, looke
Not on his Picture, but his Booke.
B. I.

- and the second one which appeared under a picture/figure of the
Stratfordian in 'Shakespeare's Poems' (1640).

This Shadowe is renowned Shakespear's? Soule of th'age
The applause? delight? the wonder of the Stage.
Nature her selfe, was proud of his designes
And joy'd to wear the dressing of his lines.
The learned will Confess, his works are such,
As neither man, nor Muse, can prayse to much.
For ever live thy fame, the world to tell,
Thy like, no age, shall ever paralell.

Done?

Good!

Now take out your pocket calculator and add 1000, 8477, and 154524.

Makes 164001, right?

Does that suggest anything to you insofar as the correct construction
of the Seven in the First Folio poem is concerned?

No?

Well, here is a helpful clue - the Cipher Value of the initial letters
of the eight lines of the Shadowe poem, TTNATAFT, 4692, mirrors that of
- gulp - Ben Jonson, 4692!

That's Ben Jonson as fabled 'rival' of William Shakespeare - as
"envious death" vs. Light of the World.

But, you may say, there's nothing on record to suggest that Ben Jonson
was play-cast as Archetypal alias Stratfordian MAN-Beast of Seventh Day
in some fantastic version of Kabbalistic Cipher Play which all of us
sage Stratfordians construe as reality.

That's your problem - but, to conclude, the Cipher Sum of "This Figure"
of the First Folio and "This Shadowe" of the 1640 poems is 5653 + 6976
= 12629.

As in 1 + 7 + 4692 + 3394 + 3858 + 677 = 12629.

That's Cipher Language, whose translation reads as follows:

A. The subject matter of Shakespeare Myth is Monad, 1, become
MAN-Beast of Seventh Day, 7, alias Ben Jonson, 4692.

B. Alias Light/Jesus, 3394, and Shadowe/The Devil, 3858, whose "kind
of fighting" (Hamlet in Act V, Sc. ii) in Ben Jonson's "heart" was
memorialized through his own fables and that of others attesting to
bitter 'rivalry' between Ben and Gentle Will.

C. But all is well that ends well. In Matt. 4:10, Jesus bids The
Devil be gone - Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came
and ministered unto him.

D. At that, Ben Jonson is become EK, 677, of Kabbalah - that
manifestation of God at the level of Man, which you in all modesty hold
to be for the birds.

Tom Veal

unread,
Aug 18, 2005, 2:07:08 PM8/18/05
to
I'm sure that you devoted a fair deal of time and effort to composing
your message, but it is simply gibberish.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 18, 2005, 9:41:21 PM8/18/05
to
Took me five minutes.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 18, 2005, 10:49:48 PM8/18/05
to
This one took me half an hour just now.

Here is John Milton's Dedication and Poem in the 1640 edition of
Shakespeare's Poems:

An Epitaph on the admirable Dramaticke
Poet, William Sheakespeare.

What neede my Shakespeare for his honoured bones,
The labour of an age, in piled stones,
Or that his hallow'd Relikes should be hid,
Vnder a starre-ypointing Pyramid?
Deare Sonne of Memory, great heire of Fame,
What needs thou such weake witnesse of thy name.
Thou in our wonder and astoneshment,
Hast built thy selfe a live-long Monument:
For whilst to th'shame of slow endevouring Art,
Thy easie numbers flow, and that each heart,
Hath from the leaves of thy unvalu'd Booke,
Those Delphicke lines with deepe Impression tooke.
Then thou our fancy of our selfe bereaving,
Dost make us marble with too much conceiving,
And so Sepulcher'd in such pompe doth lie,
That Kings for such a Tombe would wish to die.

I.M.

The Cipher Value is 334078.

Now, on the working assumption that Cipher Play on This Figure, 164001,
and This Shadowe, 154524, was the "theme" of memorial poems on the
Stratfordian alias Ben Jonson in the 1640 edition of Shakespeare's
Poems (edited, as it happens, by a John Benson), how might Milton's
poem fit into the picture?

Considering the mythical "tombe" of "Kings" (alias Shake-Speare's
"head") is a Virgin's Well on Mons Veneris, 6783, it is readily
established that the Cipher Value of Milton's poem is mirrored in the
Cipher Sum 1 + 666 + 432 + 6783 + 7671 + 164001 + 154524 = 334078.

This is Cipher Language for Monad, 1, assuming the 'disguise' of
MAN-Beast, 666, at Alpha become Right Measure of Man, 432, at Omega on
Ben Jonson's Shake-Speare 'rising', 'shaking', and 'dying' in a
Virgin's Well.

A point underscored by Ben Jonson's burial in Westminster Abbey
STANDING UPRIGHT in a 2x2 grave marked by the epitaph O RARE BEN
JOHNSON, 7671.

Mark Cipra

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 6:38:04 PM8/19/05
to
"Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1124335580.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> And I still don't see why you regard the connection as so compelling.
> The figure is a man, it's true, but he is also, according to Jonson, a
> creator (suggesting the Seven Days of Creation), a genius (suggesting
> the Seven Sages of Ancient Greece), the author of works of exceptional
> quality (suggesting the Seven Wonders of the World), a poet (poetic
> musicality suggesting the seven notes of the scale) and withal a man
> (who passes through Seven Ages). Your "method" is on a par with
> cloud-gazing, as I'm sure every reader but you recognizes by now
> (though I do encourage any lurking gangleristas to speak up).

Well, I've struggled valiantly to avoid posting in these threads, not always
successfully, but this sounds like a cry for moral support. Yes, of course,
they're unintelligible nonsense.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 7:13:52 PM8/19/05
to
Re. the following:

Well, I've struggled valiantly to avoid posting in these threads, not
always successfully, but this sounds like a cry for moral support.
Yes, of course, they're unintelligible nonsense.

Comment:

Bless your heart for heeding poor Tom's cry for moral support!

But, brave soul that you are, might there be more things in heaven and
earth than are dreamt of in your and Tom's philosophy?

A case in point.

What's your take on Stephen Hawking's contention that Einstein was up
the creek when it came to interpreting the place of Quantum Mechanics
in our view of cosmic structure?

[...Einstein refused to believe in the reality of quantum mechanics,
despite the important role he had played in its development. Yet it
seems that the uncertainty principle is a fundamental feature of the
universe we live in. A successful unified theory must therefore
necessarily incorporate this principle. - A Brief History of Time, pp.
155-156]

Unintelligible - to you?

Therefore nonsense?

Tom Veal

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 7:27:35 PM8/19/05
to
No, Professor Hawking's statement is not at all unintelligible. What
leads you to think that it might be?

gangleri

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 7:34:47 PM8/19/05
to
No?

So how did Hawkings go from "it SEEMS that" such and such to "A
successful unified theory MUST therefore" comprise such and such?

gangleri

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 7:38:40 PM8/19/05
to
P.S. Of course, the WHOLE Stratfordian Orthodoxy is predicated on
things that SEEM to be, therefore MUST be.

gangleri

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 7:43:08 PM8/19/05
to
But, of course, blabbermouths are not limited to theoretical "physics"
and Stratfordian orthodoxy.

Here is Prince Hamlet's take on things that SEEM and things that ARE in
Act I, Sc. ii

The Queen had asked the Prince,

"If it be, Why seems it so particular with thee?"

To which Prince Hamlet replied:

"SEEMS, madam! Nay, it IS; I know NOT SEEMS."

David L. Webb

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 7:20:01 PM8/19/05
to
In article <gbtNe.3588$Z%6.3...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
"Mark Cipra" <cipr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> "Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:1124335580.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > And I still don't see why you regard the connection as so compelling.
> > The figure is a man, it's true, but he is also, according to Jonson, a
> > creator (suggesting the Seven Days of Creation), a genius (suggesting
> > the Seven Sages of Ancient Greece), the author of works of exceptional
> > quality (suggesting the Seven Wonders of the World), a poet (poetic
> > musicality suggesting the seven notes of the scale) and withal a man
> > (who passes through Seven Ages). Your "method" is on a par with
> > cloud-gazing, as I'm sure every reader but you recognizes by now
> > (though I do encourage any lurking gangleristas to speak up).

> Well, I've struggled valiantly to avoid posting in these threads, not always
> successfully, but this sounds like a cry for moral support. Yes, of course,
> they're unintelligible nonsense.

I agree completely. Gangleri's "method" (to use the word loosely)
is ridiculously arbitrary and unsystematic.

[...]

Mark Cipra

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 8:00:53 PM8/19/05
to
"gangleri" <gunnar....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1124493232.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Um. Not unintelligible to me. Sorry. In fact, this is not very high-level
stuff - anyone with more than a passing interest in the subject would
understand it, I imagine. Hawking, of course, supports his arguments
logically and bases them on well-understood and widely-accepted scientific
principles. I was about to say "I'm not sure why you would think I might
find them unintelligible", but I think I answered my own question.


>
> Therefore nonsense?
>


gangleri

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 8:05:59 PM8/19/05
to
Re. the following:

Hawking, of course, supports his arguments logically and bases them on
well-understood and widely-accepted scientific principles.

Comment:

Are you serious?

What "logic" and "widely-accepted scientific principles" warrant his
"reasoning" along the lines I just summarized as follows:

gangleri

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 8:11:29 PM8/19/05
to
Et tu, Brute?

gangleri

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 8:15:05 PM8/19/05
to
P.S. David, what's your take on the following ELEMENTARY question:

Mark Cipra

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 8:17:24 PM8/19/05
to
"gangleri" <gunnar....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1124496359.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Sigh. This is why I've struggled to avoid becoming involved in this thread.

English is not, I think, your native language? I don't mean this in the
Dave-Webb usage - I'm serious. Forgive me if I presume.

If you have not seen this construction in hundreds or thousands of
argumentative texts, I would direct you to Darwin, Shaw, etc., etc. "So it
seems that ... We can therefore conclude ..."

"Seems", it seems, means more than "appears" - it also means "is evident".

>


gangleri

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 8:27:07 PM8/19/05
to
Again, are you serious?

If THAT's what Hawking meant, why did he preface the statement in
question by:

"Einstein refused to BELIEVE in the reality of quantum mechanics..."

Do you think Einstein was dim-witted enough to refuse to accept EVIDENT
stuff?

gangleri

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 8:51:12 PM8/19/05
to
Tom.

You've been missing in action for an hour and - almost - a half.

Something come up?

Or did it dawn on you that you're into stuff above your august head?

Mark Cipra

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 8:59:27 PM8/19/05
to
"gangleri" <gunnar....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1124497627.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

You know, I'd like to take back the remark about "native language". It was
inappropriate.

Oh, look! There's somebody I'd like you to meet. Paul, this is Gunnar.
Gunnar, Paul. Ask him about literacy in the English Renaissance ... (...
very knowledgeable) ...

Say, would you excuse me? There's someone over there I have to say "Hi" to.


Tom Veal

unread,
Aug 19, 2005, 9:42:39 PM8/19/05