Reverse speech, bible codes, I have versus I am: subconscious reflection of truth, philosophical position or linguistic development (Watts, 54)
Humans speak to communicate information to one another. Using specific wording to get across a point. Talking in a specific manner for the other to understand. Yet it is the way we speak that is the most intriguing. Why do we say something the way we say something? On the one hand this may be an aspect of linguistics but it also may be subconscious reflection.
There is a difference between saying “I have two apples” and “I am hungry”. To have or to be is the duality of human experience. Does one have an object or is being something. Have is pretty self explanatory and being refers to anything that the individual is doing. “I am” is specific to the speaker while “I have” has to do with speaker’s possessions (heftza-gavra—on the object or the man). Fromm differentiated between having and being arguing that man has become so materialistic only wishing to have. Industrialisation has foiled man’s way of being and preoccupied the mind with having. One perfect example is the absolution of a diamond ring. A woman must have a diamond ring to establish the marriage and demonstrate it. Having material is the basis for recognising status or understanding. Personal interest became more what can I get out of this. Fromm’s point is merely the distinctive perception. To desire something instead of being someone. The buddhist model of relinquishing desire is to have nothing and be someone. To be it is to meditate and reflect not to quest and purchase.
Sometimes the duality is anachronistic. Being rich is to have a lot of money. To be at times means to have. To be human means to have the ability to do things animals cannot. Fromm turns “have” in the materialist corner. Having is about external objects but the same bodes well to the biological foundations. The external object is still necessary. One needs to eat to survive. Having food is a necessary marker of perpetuity. Having the tools for survival. Objects are critical but there is a threshold. Preoccupation with material needs shifts away from the core of being. The ascetic monk still needs to nourish and bathe. Having the homeostatic requirements is the optimal and limited resources needed. It is the excess that Fromm is worried. Yet even more so is the abandonment of being present. Of really being anything. There is a rise of identification. People saying “I am black, gay, non-binary”. Whatever they see themselves. This is due reflection. In the midst of a materialistic overhaul, being is requestioned.
The terminological sequences make sense. The divergency between “I have” and “I am” designate a specific phenomenon. Yet when people say “I have a body” are they integrating their philosophical worldview? If I have a body I must then be a soul. Some people do say I am soul though this is more amongst mystics who believe this. Mystical lecturers have corrected students who say that they have a soul with that they are a soul. If this is the case than most people believe that they have or do not have one. The masses then are thus not body, brain or soul. So what are people? How do people see themselves? It may be a random mutation in language. Yet this mutation has consequences. People assign having with separation. I am independent of my soul. The philosophical conundrum may not be a representation of a person’s belief but rather what is subconsciously true. Saying I am a soul is off putting because it doesn’t seem genuine. Having bones or brain objectifies them. Yet I am a human is the holistic enterprise. The soul being a fragment of that totality thus endures separation. People don’t believe in the soul so it is easier to say I don’t have one than I am not one.
Consciousness is the projection of the simulation that man is detached from his brain. Modern neurology though limits free will still demonstrates a duality. The use of the brain and the mind as two distinct layers conveys an autonomous agent running the simulation. The brain isn’t directing man but is assisting him. Though the mind of the empirical separation may be a construction of the brain it subconsciously feels unique. The mind is energy in the brain which facilitates brain activity. The energy works on its own. Lighting up the darkness of the body. The body including the brain is matter but the energy sifting through electrifies the system. Turning the robot into a creative artisan. The generic soul is a small white orb but it may be the energy of the self. Whether that is spiritually unique is a different matter. The simulated construction of the brain may actually be the bedrock energy that produces our bodily function. It is weird to say that humans are energy. That my consciousness is merely a figment of power accelerating quite quickly through the mechanical structure.
Subconscious realisations may have their truth in speech as well. Oates found that reversed speech can detect truths about people would rather omit. While trying to keep these undetectable they blatantly say them. The most famous is Neil Armstrong saying “one small step for man” reversed is “man will spacewalk” indicating that this will happen but has not happened. There are other interview examples with Armstrong and Buzz where their statements reversed say. “Remember the lie”, “my fraud”, and “I share the lie”. This may confirm some moon landing conspirators that they were mere actors deceiving the public. Alternatively, even those who accept the truth believe that this may refer to something NASA is covering up. Other examples include Johnson’s reversed speech of “I shield the path of great sin” “this is a good con” and “we knocked him off”. Oswald was coined as saying “all three men are walking”, “I’ll reveal the killer” and “hear them". "They wish to kill president”. Conspirators point to these to suggest that the JFK assassination was an inside job and Johnson and Hoover played a major role. Oswald was killed because he was going to testify.
Sometimes they are coded like in Bush Sr.’s speech about “Simone". "Simone in the sands” in 1990 referring to operation desert storm the following year. In this case it is written metaphorically. Reversed speech does not always directly say what it means to say. Following Jung, symbolism is powerful and it is innate part of the unconscious. It may be that the secret nature of this made it metaphorical. Somehow Bush was able to articulate in such a manner because in the previous examples it is quite clear what they mean. Fauci says “we must now be lying” and it came that he was though he denies it. This may shine light on Armstrong and Oswald. Johnson did have a hand in the assassination. Whether it was done exactly as conspirators think does not take away from the possibility it was an inside job. Yet there are still some problems. The Paul is dead theory has been parcel of Beatle’s fans for centuries. Arguing that Lennon intentionally made references to which he fervently denied. If this is true then the fake Paul did a damn good job writing maybe I’m amazed, forming the wings and clashing with Yoko. Is there truth? Seemingly but it can be exaggerated.
Another similar mechanism is bible codes. Bible codes are letters pinched together by a skip code. Rabbenu Bachya was the first to do so through a forty letter sequence to find the lunar date (he obviously used forty two because that is the secret to the universe). Bachya found this out over half a millennium before NASA proved it. Unlike Gersonides astrological innovations, Bachya used a test instead of scientific deduction. Remak also used ELS in his magnum opus Pardes Remonim. Even Newton was looking for coded messages in the text. The skip sequence found Rabin’s assignation, the date and the assailant. Shakespeare, theatre plays and Macbeth. Computer programming helped find encoded language. The first line of Genesis of moon and stars crossed with “spaceship”, Apollo 11, and “January 20 1969.” The use of sequences to find truths about the world is imprinted in the text. Aish HaTorah, a Jewish outreach program, has lectured on this topic to legitimise the divinity of the Torah. If it can predict the past and the future it must be divine or alien tech.
Criticisms have floated. Namely the text the use of the biblical text is not the same across the board. The Masoretic text has some differences with the Dead Sea scrolls. While the differences may be minute, they are sufficient to invalidate the sequence. Even in rabbinic literature, texts are debated whether emendations that were made after Moses. Additionally, the biblical text was never intentioned as a codified membrane but instead of like its ancient counterparts as reflection of Israelite society. Orality was the top notch measure of societal interaction. The biggest problem may simply be its lack of uniqueness. That being that the same sequencing could be in other books. Rabin’s assassination is mentioned in the bible and Moby Dick. These findings can be found in War and Peace as well. Take an extended topical book and bound to find these possibilities. Drosnin’s sequel made predictions of Libya’s attack on Israel, Arafat’s assassination and an atomic holocaust. None of these occurred. While this can be chalked up to the Israeli government attempting to use the codes to their advantage. It is just as easy to look at past events and argue that boils and splinters fire from heaven and Hiroshima intersected must be the atomic bomb. That is retroactive and unduly easy if there are countless possibilities.
Each of these reflects an interpretative scheme. Did Bush Sr. really mean desert storm? Was Lennon lying? Many mainstream experts will call it pseudoscience but that can be challenged. Additionally, one experiment debunked his findings while others claimed that his support wasn’t testable. Then again, the biggest critique is if there is a projected attempt to insert those findings after the fact. Johnson said con and Aldrin said lie so there must be more behind it. They were just talking in code. The masters must be Nixon or a secret cabal. None of these examples is clear nor are they coherent. It is a biased interpretation by those desiring a specific outcome. With the bible code the sequences are all over the place. Communism is diagonal descent through the page, fall is horizontal Russia is vertically inverted and china is seven lines down. For the Rabin example. While Rabin and assassinate do intersect, Amir is far north of the text. Adding in the date is a totally new page with the place off to the left of the page diagonally, Rabin assassination inverted diagonally and the date horizontal. There is so much ambiguity given the way they are structured. It isn’t as if the letters line up but across a grid that fits the intended result. Interpretation is to fulfil the subconscious desire even if consciously claim in good faith.
Alternatively, it may act as a subconscious reflection of the truth. Just as the dreamworld is a measure of a metaphorical playing field. Signs and symbols may mean other things. So too with the subconscious realm. Speaking is itself a measure of communicating and concealment. Reversed speech and bible codes are indexes of quantum possibilities. The hidden is symbolised when seeking to veil its possibilities. Hiding the truth is difficult and reversed speech highlights those attempts. The subconscious truth telling may be a measure of guilt. The more guilty the more obvious. Yet the concealed are more symbolised. The statements are semiotic projections into their life. They are oral memories siphoned to ease the deception. In the same vein, the choice of terminology reflects a collectivist option on the matter. Whether educated in school or at home. It isn’t necessarily one’s own opinion that one has or is a soul. Yet active dialogue formulates methods of direction and connection. It is through a shared understanding that our communication builds. These sentences then are curled into our subconscious. The position is thus crafted into our psyche. Desert storm, Johnson’s con and Fauci’s lie are different layers of reversed speech. The action was communicated and then engraved in the psyche to be exposed in a cryptic manner.
Maybe it is true maybe it is not true but human projections are often cryptic and concealed in symbolic notation. Our terminology may hint to something true yet it may not be what he intend it to be. Jung argued that symbols are not uniform. One shouldn’t blatantly assign meaning from a predetermined deduction of the sign. Signs could suppose different meanings. The more cryptic the less knowledge of the possibility. Fauci’s lie refers to corona must likely but Bush Sr. is a stretch as is Aldrin and Armstrong. Was JFK’s assassination an inside job? Potentially but the terminological use is incoherent. Lennon even said that people were misinterpreting his words. He didn’t say “I buried Paul” but “cranberry sauce”. Paul’s shoeless picture in Abby Road wasn’t because he was dead but because his shoes were too tight. Is man subconsciously exposing the truth right under his nose. Maybe. It is certainly possible but the conclusions drawn especially on past events have much more spectator imagination than the event really did.
No comments:
Post a Comment