The Genesis Seal

[Kingfisher2926]

But you admit it is "rough and ready". How do you know that it cannot yield similar results when subjected to the same scrutiny to which you have subjected your sample?

That's easy. The random matrix shows it is possible to see emergent content that an imaginative author could weave into a story line. What I say about the Genesis Seal is that people in the past have done exactly that using the text of Genesis 1:1-2. It is most obvious in certain biblical narratives that were added later. But it can also be recognised in other literature, and even in real historical events in which unseen, but long-suspected influences actually fit one or more descriptions of the Genesis Seal. I am presenting these bit by bit, like the one I have just added on the subject of Ancient Egyptian mythology.

 

[EvilQuest]

MRC Secret Seal = WIN

Genesis Seal = FAIL


Stop me if i'm being too technical.

 

[dafydd]

That's easy. The random matrix shows it is possible to see emergent content that an imaginative author could weave into a story line. What I say about the Genesis Seal is that people in the past have done exactly that using the text of Genesis 1:1-2. It is most obvious in certain biblical narratives that were added later. But it can also be recognised in other literature, and even in real historical events in which unseen, but long-suspected influences actually fit one or more descriptions of the Genesis Seal. I am presenting these bit by bit, like the one I have just added on the subject of Ancient Egyptian mythology.

Why are you steaming on regardless? You know that we all think that your Genesis Seal is pure babble from the sickbed. Why are you still here?

 

[tsig]

I have spent a few minutes looking over the corndogs fiasco. It has left me all but speechless, and quite hurt that some on this thread, seeing the Genesis Seal, don't seem able to tell the difference. I can't stop anyone making that comparison, but I can promise that I shall not rise to the rancid bait.
Yours, in deep shock
KF

The fainting couch is to your left right by the Egrets.

 

[dafydd]

I have spent a few minutes looking over the corndogs fiasco. It has left me all but speechless, and quite hurt that some on this thread, seeing the Genesis Seal, don't seem able to tell the difference. I can't stop anyone making that comparison, but I can promise that I shall not rise to the rancid bait.
Yours, in deep shock
KF

There is no difference but your deep rooted confirmation bias prevents you from realizing that. Trust us. Give it up and find a new hobby.

 

[Hokulele]

That's easy. The random matrix shows it is possible to see emergent content that an imaginative author could weave into a story line. ...

This does not answer my question at all. Here is your original claim.

.... I cannot say too often or too plainly that the Genesis Seal exhibits more that just an impressive amount of emergent content (which other offerings do too), but the persistence of form is the extra dimension that ought to tip the scales. I am not just offering quantity here, but huge amounts of high-grade quality that is not reflected in random data sets of similar size.

How can you possibly know whether or not there is the same amount of quantity and quality in other data sets without subjecting them to the same level of scrutiny?

 

[jond]

I do understand your desire to see rational proof for what you suppose must be a claim of supernatural interference in the world. First, I hope you can put the supernatural assumption aside. Also, sadly, I can't see myself putting the time and effort into working up the kind of proof you guys would find acceptable.

However, I hope we may move past that particular hurdle and address something just as important of which Hans has said: "This is the single one of your claims that might hold some merit." This is the possibility that others in the past could have arrived at the same conclusion as myself (albeit with the supernatural dimension taken as read), and adapted their own lifetime purpose to what they imagined to be its purpose.
I can't see why that is such an obstacle in light of the anecdote I described, concerning the mathematician: Stanislaw Ulam. He was doodling with a square spiral of Natural Numbers (much like the Genesis Seal) and discovered something interesting about prime numbers. Given the amount of interest in Hebrew texts in the Middle Ages, it would be strange indeed if someone hadn't seen what I call the Genesis Seal.
Incidentally, I am not suggesting here that the Genesis Seal will tell us anything about prime numbers. But I am suggesting it could tell us something interesting and useful about the way people have bahaved in the past, on the strength of its apparent existence.

Forget the supernatural, the first thing you need to bring to the table is evidence that any of these historical thinkers ever did anything close to what you're doing with this particular piece of fiction. Then there's the whole conspiracy aspect in covering it up. Look, the whole thing reeks of one person's obsessive search for meaning in a work of fiction, spending years and years on it, yielding results apparent to only one person. Did you read "Foucoult's Pendulum" by Eco? Try to step away from this thing for a while. Really.

 

[Dinwar]

Given the amount of interest in Hebrew texts in the Middle Ages, it would be strange indeed if someone hadn't seen what I call the Genesis Seal.

This brand of "logic" doesn't fly in the Society for Creative Anachronisms (trust me on this one--I had a laural pound that into my head). To think that it should even be considered in a serious discussion, let alone taken as evidence by historians and archaeologists, is completely rediculous. The reason is that it ammounts to nothing more than an attempt to shift the burden of proof. By Kingfisher2926's logic it's not up to him to prove that he's right--we either have to provide absolute disproof of his ideas, or accept them.

It has left me all but speechless, and quite hurt that some on this thread, seeing the Genesis Seal, don't seem able to tell the difference.

Another typical theist tactic: feigned victimhood. Specifically, the studied inability to differentiate between attacks on one's ideas and ad homonyms. Arguing that the corn dog thing is an appropriate analogy to the Genesis Seal is an attack on the IDEA, which is perfectly acceptable and to be expected in any serious discussion.

I'm not saying this to attack Kingfisher2926--but rather to highlight, in case it's not obvious to someone, the deep flaws in his reasoning, and the similarities between his reasoning and the typical woo-ist reasoning. If he's making the same flaws, it's almost certain he's using the same process (different processes would yield different flaws, after all).

 

[Kingfisher2926]

Why are you steaming on regardless? You know that we all think that your Genesis Seal is pure babble from the sickbed. Why are you still here?

I presume you are just skipping over the posts I make with contributary material about the Genesis Seal. Which makes any conversation meaningless.
I am still here because I made a commitment when I opened this thread. And I'm steaming ahead for the very same reason, and because there may be some visitors who are interested.

 

[dafydd]

I presume you are just skipping over the posts I make with contributary material about the Genesis Seal. Which makes any conversation meaningless.
I am still here because I made a commitment when I opened this thread. And I'm steaming ahead for the very same reason, and because there may be some visitors who are interested.

I read all your posts. Nobody here is interested, apart from pointing out your mistakes.

 

[Kingfisher2926]

How can you possibly know whether or not there is the same amount of quantity and quality in other data sets without subjecting them to the same level of scrutiny?

I am seeing the numerous possibilities posted in this thread. How many do we need to see before concluding the Genesis Seal is in a league of its own?
They all show a certain amount of random order, as everyone agrees is to be expected. I'm just not seeing the same degree of order that the Genesis Seal exhibits.

I can only appeal to sheer extent of my descriptions of that order in my contributary posts. All you have to do is put the various illustrations side by side to see how the same concise parts of one view of the Seal repeatedly show the same sort of order in other views, employing entirely new emergent content.

 

[Kingfisher2926]

Forget the supernatural, the first thing you need to bring to the table is evidence that any of these historical thinkers ever did anything close to what you're doing with this particular piece of fiction. Then there's the whole conspiracy aspect in covering it up. Look, the whole thing reeks of one person's obsessive search for meaning in a work of fiction, spending years and years on it, yielding results apparent to only one person. Did you read "Foucoult's Pendulum" by Eco? Try to step away from this thing for a while. Really.

Matter of fact, I did read Foucoult's Pendulum. Not nearly as entertaining as The Name of the Rose.
I take it you haven't read my post about the role of the Genesis Seal in Ancient Egyptian mythology and art.

 

[Jon.]

I am seeing the numerous possibilities posted in this thread. How many do we need to see before concluding the Genesis Seal is in a league of its own?
They all show a certain amount of random order, as everyone agrees is to be expected. I'm just not seeing the same degree of order that the Genesis Seal exhibits.

But you haven't tested them in the same way, and you haven't attempted any definitions of significance. So the fact that you're "not seeing the same degree of order" is a result of the fact that you're not looking, not of the fact that it isn't there.

If you can't understand this point, then you will never understand why we are not accepting your assertions.

 

[RobDegraves]

I presume you are just skipping over the posts I make with contributary material about the Genesis Seal. Which makes any conversation meaningless.

Any conversation with you is meaningless anyway. You won't see where you are wrong because you are obsessed and delusional. I think it's fairly obvious to anyone but yourself at this point.

I take it you haven't read my post about the role of the Genesis Seal in Ancient Egyptian mythology and art.

Yep... same thing as you say with all your historical claims. No proof, not even any actual knowledge, just more fiddling around with your seal.

Bring proof... or get some help.

 

[jond]

Matter of fact, I did read Foucoult's Pendulum. Not nearly as entertaining as The Name of the Rose.
I take it you haven't read my post about the role of the Genesis Seal in Ancient Egyptian mythology and art.

Got any evidence that anything resembling the Genesis Seal was ever utilized in Egyptian mythology and art? No, you have your assertions, which require a number of unreasonable assumptions and conspiracies. What is much more reasonable is the assertion that you've made up this thingy, and retro-fit all kinds of crazy ideas on top of more crazy ideas (much like Foucoult's Pendulum) and the whole thing is nothing but your over active imagination.

 

[Donn]

19b 1-4 1-4 is a male human dwang? You see that?

 

[EvilQuest]

Kingfisher: Hans used the first 64 characters from your OP (apart from the "my fellow skeptics" bit) upon which to base his grids. From what i've seen his results have produced some remarkable possible interpretations which I could take as being evidence of intelligent design on the part of you, the original author. If i were to state that i believe you arranged this text in a deliberate and precise manner so that future grid-iterations of this section of your OP would reveal certain secret messages, how would you convince me otherwise? You could state categorically that it was just a phrase that you used as part of your introduction and that you had no intent beyond that, but I'd just say you were being modest. After all, the emergent patterns clearly reveal not only an aesthetic beauty but also a very real interplay of relationships as each unlocked word or phrase seamlessly flows into the next, providing prophetic messages that we all can learn and take comfort from. And you must have had that in mind when you wrote your OP. No?

We can't ask the original author(s) of the source text from your Genesis Seal, but we CAN ask you about YOUR intentions regarding those all-important characters from your OP.

You either intended such future interpretations, or you didn't. Did you do it by design or was it just chance?

 

[Kingfisher2926]

But you haven't tested them in the same way, and you haven't attempted any definitions of significance. So the fact that you're "not seeing the same degree of order" is a result of the fact that you're not looking, not of the fact that it isn't there.

If you can't understand this point, then you will never understand why we are not accepting your assertions.

You should know that I have already conceded that I can never hope to climb that particular mountain. So I am pressing ahead with the undiminished possibility that, for some purposes, proof of that sort is not required.
I am presenting material that implies people of the past must have revered this phenomenon without proof. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence available to make it likely the Genesis Seal (illusion, if you like) had an influence in human affairs. If you demand proof that it is not an illusion, you rule out-of-hand a potential tool in any number of academic disciplines.
As an analogy, there are academics who study the effect the Bible has had on societies that placed their trust in its absolute truth. For that purpose, it would not matter whether the Bible is 100% true or 2% true. It exists, and it had an effect that can be understood in terms of people's behaviour.

 

[dafydd]

You should know that I have already conceded that I can never hope to climb that particular mountain. So I am pressing ahead with the undiminished possibility that, for some purposes, proof of that sort is not required.
I am presenting material that implies people of the past must have revered this phenomenon without proof. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence available to make it likely the Genesis Seal (illusion, if you like) had an influence in human affairs. If you demand proof that it is not an illusion, you rule out-of-hand a potential tool in any number of academic disciplines.
As an analogy, there are academics who study the effect the Bible has had on societies that placed their trust in its absolute truth. For that purpose, it would not matter whether the Bible is 100% true or 2% true. It exists, and it had an effect that can be understood in terms of people's behaviour.

Present this anecdotal evidence.

 

[Kingfisher2926]

You could state categorically that it was just a phrase that you used as part of your introduction and that you had no intent beyond that, but I'd just say you were being modest. After all, the emergent patterns clearly reveal not only an aesthetic beauty but also a very real interplay of relationships as each unlocked word or phrase seamlessly flows into the next, providing prophetic messages that we all can learn and take comfort from. And you must have had that in mind when you wrote your OP. No?

There is a qualitative rift between my perception and yours. You say there is aesthetic beauty in the patterns obtained from my OP. I, on the other hand, am saying that there is content but no appreciable order. One example will suffice, though there are plenty more in The Genesis Seal.

In the G1 Square, the extreme R-H corner (3x3 group) contains the vertical emergent word for 'light', and the contrasting, horizontal, emergent word for 'thick darkness'. When the text is reversed in the G4 Square (but following the same spiral path), the same 3x3 zone contains 'a ram' in place of thick darkness, and 'life' in place of light. If we regard the ram as a sacrificial animal, there is a clear conceptual similarity between the two pairs of words. They are not just in the same location, they convey the same sort of contrasting ideas.
If you don't accept the improbability of this happening by accident (and I do accept that coincidences happen all the time), then I can show several more examples. As I am sure you will know, by the laws of probability, the odds against them all happening by chance alone is the product of the odds against each of them individually. The trouble is, it must be practically impossible to put real numbers in these boxes.

Now, if you will excuse me, I need to get some sleep.