Someone with an interest in arcana and a good internet connection appears to note individual words in some of the historical works I've posted, and then proceeds to dump virtually random excepts in the comments of a single post at Historic Christianity. No rhyme or reason, no attempt at framing a context. Now that it will be over, there will have been about 150 such comments. No formatting or any attempt at such, very many multiple empty lines between items. Chaotic. Anonymous.
Below, the few comments I actually posted, with my own attempts at civility. The // represents multiple empty lines. I offer it for what it's worth.
============
As keen as I remain regarding internet socializing as something best avoided (multiple occasions of having had computers compromised, and other annoyances etc.) the misalignment of the pictured cruciform zodiac bothered me to distraction. Pardon the intervention.
At July 8, 2015, Anonymous Anonymous said...
[I've deleted the rest, very similar to what follows.]
not relative to the post but rather than scatter notes everywhere
BABYLON
לבב (lebab) and לב (leb), both meaning heart, come from.
@ abarim-publications.com/Dictionary/l/l-b-b.html
IDOLS
Most significantly, however, maskit is used to refer to looking at "the chamber of images" in one's mind.
(HEART / LE BAB) the mashith is the death of the self through the perversions of the maskit/imagination
The seven headed beast of the Apocalypse represents the perversion of the reflected Seven Spirits of G_d (represented by the 7 branched menorah of the Temple @ godasagardener.com/2011/02/01/almond-tree-in-the-tabernacle: The Spirit of G_d [godliness/piety], Wisdom, etc., Isaiah ) by the imagination, that turn against the sinner at the approach of death
At July 08, 2015, Anonymous Anonymous said...
the following may not transpose to this format
A/S beyond, beyond
____________________ ____________________
K 1 beyond and manifest ____________________ ____________________ // C2 [Z/H] // ____________________ ____________________
^ ^ ^ ____________________ ____________________ // H // ____________________ ____________________
T5 (5) etc… ____________________ ____________________ v I I ____________________ ____________________ C(9)6 > (7)C6 ____________________ ____________________ I I ____________________ ____________________ N(2)8 > (4)N8 ____________________ ____________________ I I ^ ____________________ ____________________ C2 [Z/H] B3 [D/P] MIM4 [D/P] B3 C2 [Z/H] ____________________ ____________________ I I ____________________ ____________________ G(6)7 >D04 (8)G7 ____________________ ____________________ I I ____________________ ____________________ H(3)9 > (1)H9 ____________________ ____________________ I I v ____________________ ____________________ Y5;10 ____________________ ____________________ // H ____________________ ____________________ v v v ____________________ ____________________ // C2 [Z/H] /// upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Blason_ville_fr_Toulouse_(Haute-Garonne).svg // Not gibberish - if it correctly transposed // from Ain Soph to the Kingdom (as evidenced in men of goodwill on Earth)… // The enneag. placement was there for a Sufi discussion and I chose to leave it as is // The circles of creation // Kether, Binah etc. containing the lightning strike // In the Greek sense (Plotinus the best reference) // the greater spheres reflect the qualities of Zeus/Hera Demeter/Poseidon Hera/Hades / they can be thought of as our sense perceptions - which time Cronos consumes // Apollyon and Artemis part of the principalities and powers (slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.) eclipse and sun… and so on //
At July 09, 2015, Blogger Jack H said...
I find your several comments to be indecipherable. We can get very much into our own particular studies, and fail to take the extra steps to avoid over-specifics and jargon. Communication must start with an attempt to be accessible. Thank you for your interest, though, and feel free...
At July 16, 2015, Anonymous Anonymous said...
A question: // What do you mean by implying that this Tersin / Toisson fellow was Arthur (or Uther?) // His blazon was three lambs … how does this relate to the Pendragon? // www.theoi.com/Ther/DrakonKholkikos.html // … // Gettius Ursulus de Chapteuil // de Fay de Chapteuil
At July 17, 2015, Blogger Jack H said...
Now, Anonymous, you've left nearly 50 comments on this particular post, which seem in no way to be correlated to anything here. There appears to be much of interest in what you're leaving, and very much that is incomprehensible in its present form and lack of identifiable antecedent. Take the above comment/question for example. Nowhere in HEAVENS do I mention Tersin or Pendragon. Are your comments simply random? If they're meant to footnote some specific datum I've noted, I need a context for it to make sense. I've written millions of words, and do not remember every detail.
At July 21, 2015, Anonymous Anonymous said...
We can get very much into our own particular studies, and fail to take the extra steps to avoid over-specifics and jargon. Communication must start with an attempt to be accessible. // ~ // tumblr.com/search/william%20of%20gellone
[This is the picture that shows up from that address.]
At July 21, 2015, Anonymous Anonymous said...
William has arrived at Aigniennes. He entered the gate disturbed and lost in thought, often calling on the name of the true Father of Jesus. The porter was in a panic: “God, Father in heaven above,” he said, “what demon did this man come from? I’ve never seen a man of such stature, so ill-fashioned, so big, and so stoutly-built. Look at those shoulders, those arms and that body! I believe he's come from the depths of hell or from master Beelzebub. I wish he was in the depths of Montagu! - he would never come in here again. Holy Mary, where was such a man born?” // A few remained among the vaults, saying to each other, “We are lost! Antichrist has come among us! We will be destroyed by him.” // When the count saw this happen, and that all the monks fled at the sight of him, “God in Heaven!” said William, “What the devil have these monks seen? In my opinion they have gone out of their senses. May they all be hanged!” And then he realised what he had said, and went on: “God, what have I said? I am deceived! God, I have sinned, I want to be a monk, but my brothers have sent me out of my senses.” ... // Count William began to get angry: “God, Father who will judge the world,” he said, “I thought that I would put myself right with you and acquit myself of my mortal sins, but these people are giving me a lot of trouble. // They don’t want to approach me. But, by St Peter, it won’t do them any good! I will be a monk, no matter who gets upset about it; and I will serve and exalt the holy monks...” Then the lord began to weep. “God, Father,” he said, “have pity on me!” // cont.at Cardiff University; School of History, Archaeology and Religion // How William became a monk. cf.ac.uk/hisar/people/hn/MilitaryOrders/MILORDOCS2.htm /
At July 21, 2015, Blogger Jack H said...
Dear Anonymous -- The above is in no way an improvement in your communication attempts. I apprehend your allegorical intent, but gnomic utterances and tertiary allusions hardly represent a striving toward accessibility. I don't publish the very much vast majority of your comments because I do not think they represent at actual attempt at responsive communication. You have intimated that some of your previous internet correspondences were problematic. I'm a disinterested observer, and I assure you that to some large degree the responsibility will be your own. I've used the words 'unintelligible' and 'incomprehensible' regarding your comments. You seem to know they arrive in a garbled form -- why send them then? Take the trouble to format them, or deliberately be an imposition upon your correspondent. You must surely know this. If you are not capable of change, no worries. Be at peace.
[The following quotes from one of my 'Psychology of Jesus'
posts. By "provenance" is meant "context".]
provenance. // . // "Got it? It’s Jesus who went to a distant land to be made king. See? " // I 'see' … something entirely different. Had I presented a personal opinion, well, what is that? Whether or not one is articulate was never the point. An opinion is only worth as much as the facts it is based on… should someone agree with conceptions couched in the language of scintillating intellect, it is little more than flattery if the giver has failed to examine the facts. // In which case common courtesy requires material evidence be generously provided, so rather than occupy myself casting about for opinions to ballast a floundering theory I have done as much // in return my vision has been beset with images of foodstuffs of dubious providence and caloric content and enough vehicular pastiches to garnish a junkyard // (the occasional mountain range an excepted and welcome relief ) /
At July 31, 2015, Blogger Jack H said...
The above seems to be an attempt at disrespect. Comments here are a privilege not a right. These posts are honest with some humor. The appropriate response is appreciation, or silence.
=============
And there was some response, which I lost while moving it here. I regret that, because the use of the word "onerous" was unique -- my work is somehow "onerous" ... what is meant isn't clear -- he's used a big-sounding word with some sort of negative association and he thinks that's a riposte. His word usage is so stilted that I wondered if English was his native language; now I think he's just trying to sound smart. (Son, drop the thesaurus and read good writers -- the Penguin translation of Montaigne would be a fine start.) The lost last comment was a promise to be silent, henceforth, with some further attempt at being insulting, in parentheses.
Well. My correspondent is either a quite socially backward young male, or a mentally ill adult male. Because of the use of words bigger than he actually knows, like 'providence', I'm going with young. I hope so, anyway, because social skills can be learned.
Dear Anonymous: Yes, it's best that you don't leave any more comments. I scan them for relevance, coherence, and honest intention, but you've seen what I think about the matter. No insult meant, and I want to be gentle, but your communication skills are truly horrid. Less cut and paste, more framing. Because right now you give a sort of Ted Kaczynski impression -- whirling around in your own isolated imagination, an imbalanced flywheel tearing itself apart.
Maybe I'm wrong, but please feel no need to correct me.
If you have a copy of that last comment, though, I'd like to add it here ... it was precious.
Again, I'm not trying to be unkind. The truth just feels that way. Again, not unkind.
Best,
J
3 comments:
Ah, an update. Submitted, again, not here, where it belongs, but some other entirely inappropriate place, the following, surprisingly lucid comment:
At July 31, 2015, Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sun Poisoning
So far today, every time I've caught a glimpse of myself in a reflective surface, I gotten a powerful erection. What is it with me, always talking about my erections? I'm so sick. But I just can't get over my beauty. It's intimidating. Such a small thang makes such a big difference. Spent some time in the sunlight yesterday, and I'm golden again
+
Sep 30, 2007 - I almost got an erection! A couple of Laotian dreamboats were doing a sizzling lambada that just made me moist! And a Nubian stallion showed .
-
In reply to your 'onerous' request
While perusing your various blogs I could not help but note the incongruity between the assorted subjects (the above excerpts for example) that run parallel with the matters of piety you explore, indeed, it was puzzling and rather off-putting to say the least.. as I noted earlier, before I had read any further, the particular placement of Judah / Leo at the groin (in your Mazzaroth dissertation) was a tad odd for reasons that I don't care to elaborate on repeatedly, though I imagine that may have been an illustration from one of the sources you used… anyhow
Onerous
involving heavy obligations.
To quote (from your previous post):
"Got it? It’s Jesus who went to a distant land to be made king. See? And he gives blessings not so they can be wasted, but used. And he is a hard man. He will never listen to excuses. And he wants his enemies killed, immediately, in front of him. Remember back when we were wondering if Jesus is nice? In no way."
I recall employing the word 'onerous' in reference to the above statement you made
which brought to mind the punishments of Sisyphus… endlessly toiling under his harsh god.
theoi.com/image/K14.8Haides.jpg
Perhaps I neglected to include context.
I have noted that the fact that you have a tendency to categorize eccentricities of expression as "mental illness" and are rather free in your condemnation of it… quoting here and there out of context to suit your inclination, seems to be more of a reflection of your own unhealthy preoccupations…
However as proprietor of the blog, you of course are entitled to express yourself as you wish
Provenance was a correction of the 'auto-corrected'
providence, and so on… (maybe the errors were more apparent to myself, but I doubt so)
Now, I truly hope that has answered your question as my determination to pursue silence was sincere.
(the larger spacing accommodates my failing vision, as I am nearly in my dotage despite your attempts to flatter me with accusations of hormonal youth)
Well thank you, Anonymous. That makes sense. It's like real communication, you know, with an attempt at being responsive and with a nod to context. I won't quibble about spacing, but I'd suggest that once you type out your ideas, you do an auto-replace to neaten up the page. As it is, it doesn't make a good impression. Suggestive of a disorderly mind, which, combined with your previous refusal to submits comments on the same post that elicits them ... well, it's disorderly.
Your position is weakened, sadly, in that I published some of your comments and you could see that they were gibberish, yet you continued the same practices. Not respectful of your reader.
I understand the problem of inappropriate auto-corrects. I considered that possibility, but it must be that you are not aware of how stiff and unnatural your prose is -- sorry, it's inapt and clangorous.
You make a fair point: there is an inconsistency of tone in my blog -- well, in Forgotten Prophets -- that can be confusing. I offer no apology, save as an apologia: the absurd, the farcical ... it pleases me to indulge. I require more of my readers than passive observation. For those who do not like the grotesque egoism and perversion I allude to, there is no need to read such posts. This particular blog has been a place for me to indulge outrage and to vent dismay, often as some character, as performance art.
We now live in a thoroughly degraded society. That I have mocked the monster that now consumes us isn't meant to bring disapprobation upon myself. Really, really, is it likely that the author of my serious efforts here is serious in some supposed obsession with erections? Does that seem likely? So what must have been my meaning? This is what I mean when I say, not passive.
Re mental illness, sorry, but communication as inartful as yours suggests, urges, a self-absorption that's just worrisome. Unresponsive, impervious to correction -- past a certain point the irresponsibility is reasonably seen as pathological.
I don't know that I have a tendency to attribute mental illness. In the millions of words I've produced here, it's bound to come up. My purview is broad. Yours is a specific case, justified by 150 comments that amount to non sequitur. Or perhaps you're simply so ideotropic that you expect folks to just know what you mean. That's not how it works, and at your age, nearing as you suggest senescence, you should know that. Hence, "son".
Your problem with my placing Judah at the "groin" of the Mazzaroth arises entirely from your own soul. I do not understand your point, that it is somehow odd, or what your meaning can be when you suggest you've already elaborated on it repeatedly. I'm not aware that a cross has a groin, if that's your reference. I expect you see some penile adumbration, but how you can derive that from the context is beyond me. As for how the overall arrangement came about, the body of that work, The Heavens Declare, chapter after chapter, is its justification. My methods have not remained secret.
I fail to see how my opinion on the parable is onerous. I understand how the word applies to Sisyphus.
...
...
Out of the blue your tone switched from, well, Aspergerian philologist to ad hominem hostility. Not appropriate. That it arose, perhaps, from your distaste at my satire suggests only that you didn't understand my satire. Given how heavy-handed it is, you are not justified in not seeing the intent -- only in questioning my judgement.
Your resolve to maintain silence is appropriate. You must put some fair effort into producing your comments, but they are not edifying, lacking as they do that thing upon which I insist, context. My gratuitous suggestion is that you write your own blog, if you don't already. One that has complete sentences, and paragraphs, and subject headings. You obviously have well-defined interests, and if you can organize your details into actual arguments that have sound logic, you may produce something worthwhile. What you've left with me has been almost entirely uninterpretable, except as a need for human contact.
Go in peace,
J
Post a Comment