@MJF
Hello back,
I've read about half of your article on Francis Bacon, and it's very interesting. Thank you. I must confess that studying Bacon involves things that are very unusual for me, and I find it really difficult to grasp the concepts and even think about them. I see that you handle them with ease, and that this is your "field"! I feel truly useless and unsophisticated when I read your comments! I can juggle things like you do, in other fields—but not in this one! I encourage you to persevere and study all of this; I have a feeling it's something that greatly interests you. For me, it's other things, and I've learned to respect what others like. So, good luck, and I wish you much enjoyment in your studies.
I could offer you a few ideas—but I don't think it would be particularly helpful. It's because, as I said, you've delved deeply into this study, and you've gone far. You see what's important and what isn't. For me, that's impossible, and I would have to study all of that in depth to even be able to discern what's important from what isn't. But I can still share a few ideas that came to me while reading your article (I haven't finished it yet).
There's an image with two large pillars (a book cover). I thought to myself: perhaps that means there are two large comets, and "between them, there's just enough time to carry out the project".
There's mention of a grand universal project—etc., etc.—"the reform of the world" (nothing less!). That made me think of communism, and the original idea of "universal socialism," or something along those lines. There really was a project with that exact name – "World Communism for all & all nations."
Perhaps more related: there's this quote from the C's that says civilizations are being manipulated from a base in space. Once a civilization is mature, there's a takeover. Mind programming and technological overproduction are specifically mentioned before the takeover.
I could connect the project, between the two comets, to Francis Bacon and his "revolutionary ideas." He talks about "transcending people's minds." His words can be directly interpreted with STS mind programming, without changing a single comma.
Something about Bacon strikes me. We see someone developing "a theory of everything." That's a red flag for me. There's the insistence that "this theory of everything" is "the right one." It "is infallible" (etc.). There's perhaps an excessive emphasis at this level, which, to me, suggests a theory that lacks universality. If we take A. Lobaczewski, he doesn't waste time with anything like "my theory is infallible, I guarantee it." That whole aspect is absent, and instead of the things we see in F. Bacon, there are (therefore, in A. Lobaczewski) the principles, the theory, and so on, presented directly. For C's, it's much the same: all the cosmetism is gone—and they get straight to the point. C's don't say "I have a theory at all," etc. They explain it because it resonates (and it will resonate). Ultimately, what I see, and what makes the difference between incomplete theories and solid ones, is that there's no need to boast about their merits / potential for universality. When you read A. Lobaczewski, you feel you're in touch with objective truth, and reading his work is reassuring because the data seems very much in line with reality.
That's all I can say. I have a feeling it's best for me not to try to discuss these things with you too much, because I'm too ignorant and it would just be a waste of your time. So I'm sorry if I can't be of any help with your research; I wish I could. But at the same time, it's good that there are people who specialize in certain subjects, and that's what allows us to move forward. Sometimes we "want to know everything," but I've learned to respect and appreciate the unique efforts of unique individuals. They exist, and that's a good thing! Long live knowledge and its pursuit! So that's why I encourage you to continue in your field of study, much to our amazement!
I'm going to finish reading your article; it's very interesting.
I find the Rosicrucians to be quite Christian. I looked at the manifesto, and it mentions six principles. There's not much to criticize, and the Rosicrucians praise the merits of Christ. I find that rather good. And that's where the data from the C's come in and shows me that something is wrong. I suppose you've studied the matter.
In my opinion, it's either because it's a kind of wolf in sheep's clothing, or a teaching system that has degenerated. I say this because the basics are "interesting." I received enough warnings to keep my distance from the Kabbalists and the Rosicrucians.
