Illuminati symbolism and numerology, like in the olympics

I think you might be confusing interest with belief; there's quite a lot of that misconception round here - I thought you were above that, but maybe it's infectious? 'Belief' doesn't come into it - not as far as I'm concerned. It's just an example, specially tailored for someone with a history interest. Why don't you check the historical accuracy in the source? I think you'll find it's in order. What can you say about it? It's a lot of coincidence? or LoL?

Also, G, you've mentioned some things on different threads here, some of them about your belief in people you've known claiming to have healing or diagnostic powers, intuition....the 'supernatural', the power of consciousness etc. I think those subjects are fascinating - and not really to be laughed at.

Look who thanks you though. Maybe there's a sign in there.
Lee, I apologize for my poor attempt at humor . . . what I was trying to communicate was not that N was not possible and that it can be demonstrated in selected cases of famous people but if it is demonstrable there should it not also be evident in our own lives . . . if not . . . why not?
 
Alright then. You better stand by what you said just there and back up all that research you say you've done. I reckon, if you can make comments like: Lee kept on referring to the amounts of triangles and called it 'proof'
then you can show me where I claimed the 'proof' you're talkng about, yes? And what it was 'proof' of, while you're at it. Please quote the relevant text. That should be easy - I imagine it was part of your extensive research - and it's all right here, to hand, so you can quickly point out what you're referring to. Or can you?


So, in giving no answer, the answer is given. In the absence of attempting a rational rebuttal, Clock just made it up. Why would anyone do that?
 
So, in giving no answer, the answer is given. In the absence of attempting a rational rebuttal, Clock just made it up. Why would anyone do that?

I did not make it make it up. Don't you remember page 2 on this thread? Let me give you a memory check:

Presumably the lights on the London Olympic stadium coincidentally symbolize the capped pyramid prevalent on the Great Seal of the USA?





Quite a few other symbols here too...did you watch the closing ceremony? Did you see the bit were they built a pyramid in the middle of the field and then had the performers prostrate themselves before it? Did you see the giant Phoenix hoisted about the stadium?

What can it mean? Coincidence?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Somewhat unrelated, but the other day I was watching the tube and happened to catch a bit of the Presidential Inaugural shindig going on. There was Alicia Keys, up at a piano, belting it out in a less than impressive performance, but we can forgive her that because it was cold as hell. Now I'm pretty sure the song she was doing originally goes 'This girl is on fire', or something similar, but she'd modified the words for the event, and as such found herself frequently repeating "Obama's on fire...! The World is on Fire....!" I had a good long chuckle at the irony, but its stuck with me to a small degree ever since. What in the hell was she thinking, I wonder?
Making no claims about it, just found it odd and ever-so-mildly creepy, beyond being worth a good lol.
 
Also Lee I love how you set clear boundaries on people's beliefs on this website, comments like

I think you might be confusing interest with belief; there's quite a lot of that misconception round here - I thought you were above that, but maybe it's infectious?

really shows that you have no respect for the people who disagree with you, even though they say it straight up why they do. If you hate me forever because I made fun of your favorite hobby, numerology, like it's child's play, then I can say I'm sorry and move on, however implicating that people are idiots because they don't believe in what you believe in and picking sides like it's a wrestling program, then, I don't know what to tell you.

And please don't say that I disrespected you, because it is actually the contrary. Even though I disagree in what you think or in your world view, you actually well spoken, and the fact that you write big, long posts about what someone else said clearly shows that you actually give a damn, and I have respect in that.

But please, don't imply that we are fools for not sharing your world view.
 
Lee, I apologize for my poor attempt at humor . . . what I was trying to communicate was not that N was not possible and that it can be demonstrated in selected cases of famous people but if it is demonstrable there should it not also be evident in our own lives . . . if not . . . why not?

It's ok - no offence was taken, not at all - it just seemed a bit out of character. Maybe we've been here too long!

Interesting question, but fairly easy to answer, I think, G - looking at say the example given above - which is quite remarkable, don't you think? - then that spans over 500 years - and the facts are recorded as history, so there's a clue there. Without all those 'facts' how could you make that connection? And what would you be making that connection to? - St Louis certainly had no chance of making those connections, he came first - King Louis would have a chance due to historical knowledge. In short, to apply similar to you or I would require knowledge of things and events and people we have no access to - as well as a good solid grounding in the technique of Numerology, which in most cases is a lot more complex than that shown in relation to the Louis parallels.

I think it's the fact that it's knowable, checkable history in this case that makes the case - trying to apply that to just anyone would be infinitely more difficult.
 
I did not make it make it up. Don't you remember page 2 on this thread? Let me give you a memory check:

You are being foolish. Why don't you just stop digging?

Lee kept on referring to the amounts of triangles and called it 'proof'

That's what you said. Me asking a question about the possible symbolic nature of the lights at the Olympic stadium doesn't fit the bill. Look again at what you said. ^^^^^^^^^^ and then show me up by finding these repeated referrals to triangles and proof. Stop making things up.
 
It's ok - no offence was taken, not at all - it just seemed a bit out of character. Maybe we've been here too long!

Interesting question, but fairly easy to answer, I think, G - looking at say the example given above - which is quite remarkable, don't you think? - then that spans over 500 years - and the facts are recorded as history, so there's a clue there. Without all those 'facts' how could you make that connection? And what would you be making that connection to? - St Louis certainly had no chance of making those connections, he came first - King Louis would have a chance due to historical knowledge. In short, to apply similar to you or I would require knowledge of things and events and people we have no access to - as well as a good solid grounding in the technique of Numerology, which in most cases is a lot more complex than that shown in relation to the Louis parallels.

I think it's the fact that it's knowable, checkable history in this case that makes the case - trying to apply that to just anyone would be infinitely more difficult.
Reasonable explanation . . . so smaller episodes of time are not responsive to analysis by N?? For example days, weeks, months, etc.?
 
ok, you're right. "Proof" is not the right word to use, in which I thought you were saying that it proves the existence of the illuminati. The title of the thread makes it misleading.


Me asking a question about the possible symbolic nature of the lights at the Olympic stadium doesn't fit the bill

Well, that's what I was referring to.
You never explained what do you think is the nature of the lights. No one has ever asked you that.

Why don't you just stop digging?

Speaking of digging, why did it take you so long for you to respond to that comment I made a month ago?

Instead, you came in and talked about Masonic presidents.
 
Reasonable explanation . . . so smaller episodes of time are not responsive to analysis by N?? For example days, weeks, months, etc.?

That's a tricky one - but in short, yes, N can be applied to many areas - the Louis examples are really to show parallelism and that within that example it also obeys some of the rules of N. N is often used as a predictive tool - for example if one has a sequence of numbers, one can predict the next set via the rules of N - which are not the same rules as mathematics and it's quite complicated, but I'll dig you out an example of that if you're interested. N is also used as a method for character judging; projecting future actions - so divination, broadly speaking.

It's worth a look at the Pythagoreans on this - now that is really fascinating. Old P himself was credited with the preservation of an ancient table of numbers and their meanings....and when one considers P's contribution to all of us in the realm of maths, it gets even more interesting. Consider the only language we know that describes the universe - numbers
 
That's a tricky one - but in short, yes, N can be applied to many areas - the Louis examples are really to show parallelism and that within that example it also obeys some of the rules of N. N is often used as a predictive tool - for example if one has a sequence of numbers, one can predict the next set via the rules of N - which are not the same rules as mathematics and it's quite complicated, but I'll dig you out an example of that if you're interested. N is also used as a method for character judging; projecting future actions - so divination, broadly speaking.

It's worth a look at the Pythagoreans on this - now that is really fascinating. Old P himself was credited with the preservation of an ancient table of numbers and their meanings....and when one considers P's contribution to a, of us in the realm of maths, it gets even more interesting. Consider the only language we know that describes the universe - numbers
I would like to know more about P and his connection to N . . . seems P along with Isaac Newton with his fascination with a Bible Code could be candidates for the lunatic fringe on the Forum here . . . guess we are in better company than we thought Lee!!!!
 
I would like to know more about P and his connection to N . . . seems P along with Isaac Newton with his fascination with a Bible Code could be candidates for the lunatic fringe on the Forum here . . . guess we are in better company than we thought Lee!!!!

LOL!! Indeed we are!!
 
ok, you're right. "Proof" is not the right word to use, in which I thought you were saying that it proves the existence of the illuminati. The title of the thread makes it misleading.




Well, that's what I was referring to.
You never explained what do you think is the nature of the lights. No one has ever asked you that.



Speaking of digging, why did it take you so long for you to respond to that comment I made a month ago?

Instead, you came in and talked about Masonic presidents.

Sorry. What's the question? This one?

what do you think is the nature of the lights

Did you really ask that? I am sorry if you did - I missed it. It's very kind of you to ask - I'll have to answer it at length, so not right now as I'm doing about three things at once at the minute! But I'll come back for that later.

I thought you were saying that it proves the existence of the illuminati. The title of the thread makes it misleading.


Just to reiterate - Mick chose the title of this thread after it was forked off from another thread going ot. So not my choice of word or words, not my thread.
 
I would like to know more about P and his connection to N . . . seems P along with Isaac Newton with his fascination with a Bible Code could be candidates for the lunatic fringe on the Forum here . . . guess we are in better company than we thought Lee!!!!

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoras/

Hey, G - though the word Stanford sticks in my throat - here's a good place to get a potted start - loads of equivocation and uncertainty - gets the juices going....
 

Attachments

  • b226329878.jpg
    b226329878.jpg
    82.7 KB · Views: 548
Last edited by a moderator:

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

THE EVOLUTION OF
THE Mitre Hat
of Fish Worship

As Christendom adopted this Mitre Hat for her priests,
the "Fishy" aspect of this pagan worship was toned down
so as not to offend the newly converted Christians who
were tricked into many pagan ceremonies and holidays
of the pagan Romans.


http://babylon-the-great.xanga.com/768738441/item/
Content from External Source
 
Buddy, move on. You're doing this whole crusade thing based on symbols, for Pete's sake. And again, Masons and Illuminati are not related at all. That means that the pyramid with the eye that you hail so much is completely unrelated to to the crap you are spouting NWO. Speaking of it though, I have something that you might want to read. Of course, this person explains it much better then I could, so here goes:

http://thrivedebunked.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/global-domination-agenda-debunked/

Enjoy :)

Symbols are a way to “alter” your thinking without you even knowing it. That's why companies spend millions touting their logos... People become inured over time, especially when these symbols are everywhere they look and placed by 'authority'.

Obviously works because so many people just say 'Oh that doesn't mean anything'. ROFL, if it doesn't mean anything why spend millions to do it?
 

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

THE EVOLUTION OF
THE Mitre Hat
of Fish Worship

As Christendom adopted this Mitre Hat for her priests,
the "Fishy" aspect of this pagan worship was toned down
so as not to offend the newly converted Christians who
were tricked into many pagan ceremonies and holidays
of the pagan Romans.


http://babylon-the-great.xanga.com/768738441/item/
Content from External Source

Nice. Looking at it - I never knew that bit of hat fact - it was likely based on the Sea Bass, loup de mer - big wide mouth, big pink tongue, knowing, brilliant eyes, no teeth, swallows prey whole, whole crab is their favourite - perfect analog for catholicism really, apart from the crab, maybe

In summer, I go around the rocks of far off places, moving all the time, seeking out the signs off the bass in 6 ins of water right at your feet - then chuck out a lure, retrieve.......and Bang! There she is....running now with your reel set low.....big mouth....big mitre mouth....I reckon it's a bass...
 
Hm.
... I thought the definition of N was the branch of knowledge dealing with the occult meaning of numbers.

Numbers represent groups of objects. This many of that.
So this level of interpretation is no longer dealing with a definition of numbers as simple representations of amounts of stuff, but the internal logic of an invented system of symbols.
It's a kind of 'hacking' of the original technology, an alternative use for it.
But there's no outside touchstone in reality on which is based anymore, it's all self-referential.
A system of logic can be consistent with itself and the rules of the game, but have absolutely no relationship to reality.
This is what I think most people see here.

It's no fantasy - it exists.

What exists? The tradition, which of course exists, or a practical usable correspondence to reality?
Because the latter seems highly a matter of subjective interpretation. No one doubts the tradition of numerology exists.

It's very interesting how the naysayers and denialists ramp it up when it comes to things like this. If it's so ridiculous then just ignore it. But they can't. Not satisfied with not being interested and/or not having the first clue about it, the need is felt to make fun of a subject they simply can't fathom.

Are you implying that there are unconsciously overwhelmed by the evidence that it is actually true and so have to cognitively dismiss it by mocking?
Or do you just mean it's not for them so they should leave it alone?

For a short cut, I recommend a nice hot mug of ayahuasca, to begin with.

:p
Try the racetams.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootropic#Racetams
 
Symbols are a way to “alter” your thinking without you even knowing it. That's why companies spend millions touting their logos... People become inured over time, especially when these symbols are everywhere they look and placed by 'authority'.

Obviously works because so many people just say 'Oh that doesn't mean anything'. ROFL, if it doesn't mean anything why spend millions to do it?

I don't believe they alter our thinking in the way you seem to mean (implant concepts in us that we wouldn't normally accept.)
They simply are designed for their recognition factor, the short-cut that the brain takes when flashed with a familiar shape. Then the associations which can only come from experience with what that symbol has meant to the person- eg tasty food, satisfactory transaction, quality goods, first car/loss of virginity/independence - will be activated, according to the advertisers/branders plan. The deeper past meanings that may have been associated with certain shapes or symbols by others will not automatically 'osmose' themselves into the unknowing individuals brain.
 
Reality?

You got the wrong Terry - it's Terence McKenna you want.

The McKenna who invented the 2012 singularity myth?

No way. It's Pratchett all the way for me...

==Quotes mentioning Narrativium from Science of Discworld (I, II and III)==

Our minds make stories, and stories make our minds. Each culture's Make-a-Human kit is built from stories, and maintained by stories. A story can be a rule for living according to one's culture, a useful survival trick, a clue to the grandeur of the universe, or a mental hypothesis about what might happen if we pursue a particular course. Stories map out the phase space of existence (II: 327).

The characteristic feature of narrativium is that it makes stories hang together. The human mind loves a good dose of narrativium. (I:64)

A little narrativium goes a long way: the simpler the story, the better you understand it. Storytelling is the opposite of reductionism: 26 letters and some rules of grammar are no story at all. (I: 93)

Narrativium is powerful stuff. We have always had a drive to paint stories on to the Universe. When humans first looked at the stars, which are great flaming suns an unimaginable distance away, they saw in amongst them giant bulls, dragons, and local heroes. This human trait doesn't affect what the rules say -- not much, anyway -- but it does determine which rules we are willing to contemplate in the first place. Moreover, the rules of the universe have to be able to produce everything that we humans observe, which introduce a kind of narrative imperative into science, too. Humans think in stories.... (I: 11)

Humans add narrativium to their world. They insist on interpreting the universe as if it's telling a story. This leads them to focus on facts that fit the story, while ignoring those that don't. (I:233)

...humans seem to need to project a kind of interior decoration on to the universe, so that they spend much of the time in a world of their own making. We seem --at least at the moment-- to need these things. Concepts like gods, truth and the soul appear to exist only in so far as humans consider them to do so... But they work some magic for us. They add narrativium to our culture. They bring pain, hope despair, and comfort. They wind up our elastic. Good or bad, they've made us into people. (I: 166)



(edit)
I do respect Terrance McKenna as a philosopher, and he has some great things to say on 'reality' and Humanity.


and I do suffer from the belief that reality is 'knowable', ie, zen kensho, buddhist enlightenment.
 
The McKenna who invented the 2012 singularity myth?

No way. It's Pratchett all the way for me...

==Quotes mentioning Narrativium from Science of Discworld (I, II and III)==

Our minds make stories, and stories make our minds. Each culture's Make-a-Human kit is built from stories, and maintained by stories. A story can be a rule for living according to one's culture, a useful survival trick, a clue to the grandeur of the universe, or a mental hypothesis about what might happen if we pursue a particular course. Stories map out the phase space of existence (II: 327).

The characteristic feature of narrativium is that it makes stories hang together. The human mind loves a good dose of narrativium. (I:64)

A little narrativium goes a long way: the simpler the story, the better you understand it. Storytelling is the opposite of reductionism: 26 letters and some rules of grammar are no story at all. (I: 93)

Narrativium is powerful stuff. We have always had a drive to paint stories on to the Universe. When humans first looked at the stars, which are great flaming suns an unimaginable distance away, they saw in amongst them giant bulls, dragons, and local heroes. This human trait doesn't affect what the rules say -- not much, anyway -- but it does determine which rules we are willing to contemplate in the first place. Moreover, the rules of the universe have to be able to produce everything that we humans observe, which introduce a kind of narrative imperative into science, too. Humans think in stories.... (I: 11)

Humans add narrativium to their world. They insist on interpreting the universe as if it's telling a story. This leads them to focus on facts that fit the story, while ignoring those that don't. (I:233)

...humans seem to need to project a kind of interior decoration on to the universe, so that they spend much of the time in a world of their own making. We seem --at least at the moment-- to need these things. Concepts like gods, truth and the soul appear to exist only in so far as humans consider them to do so... But they work some magic for us. They add narrativium to our culture. They bring pain, hope despair, and comfort. They wind up our elastic. Good or bad, they've made us into people. (I: 166)



(edit)
I do respect Terrance McKenna as a philosopher, and he has some great things to say on 'reality' and Humanity.


and I do suffer from the belief that reality is 'knowable', ie, zen kensho, buddhist enlightenment.

The lies are out there - the truth is in your head.
 
I vaguely remember studying something that might be relevant to some of this - visual semiotics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_semiotics

"A sign can be a word, a sound, or a visual image. Saussure divides a sign into two components—the signifier (the sound, image, or word) and the signified, which is the concept the signifier represents, or the meaning. As Berger points out, the problem of meaning arises from the fact that the relation between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary and conventional. In other words, signs can mean anything we agree that they mean, and they can mean different things to different people. Nonverbal signs can produce many complex symbols and hold multiple meanings."
 
I vaguely remember studying something that might be relevant to some of this - visual semiotics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_semiotics

"A sign can be a word, a sound, or a visual image. Saussure divides a sign into two components—the signifier (the sound, image, or word) and the signified, which is the concept the signifier represents, or the meaning. As Berger points out, the problem of meaning arises from the fact that the relation between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary and conventional. In other words, signs can mean anything we agree that they mean, and they can mean different things to different people. Nonverbal signs can produce many complex symbols and hold multiple meanings."

Umberto Eco is a semiotician, and his novels like Foucault's Pendulum are heavy conspiracy theory stuff.
 
I vaguely remember studying something that might be relevant to some of this - visual semiotics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_semiotics

"A sign can be a word, a sound, or a visual image. Saussure divides a sign into two components—the signifier (the sound, image, or word) and the signified, which is the concept the signifier represents, or the meaning. As Berger points out, the problem of meaning arises from the fact that the relation between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary and conventional. In other words, signs can mean anything we agree that they mean, and they can mean different things to different people. Nonverbal signs can produce many complex symbols and hold multiple meanings."

Yes. Interesting, M. haven't looked at the link - bit of an aversion to wikipedia meself - but wasn't the idea of semiotics introduced by Roland Barthes? Fascinating stuff - am I wrong? Weaselly old memory may play tricks at times. And, M, speaking of Roland, right or wrong, read his book, A Lover's Discourse. I recommend it to anyone who's ever considered themself 'a lover'. Which is everyone.
 
Back
Top