...life can be translucent

Menu

Shakespeare?

Grandma

visitor
Joined
Jun 19, 1970
Messages
385
Reaction score
1
I asked if x was the real author of Shakespeare's works.
6.1.3.6>43.
I think it says x was but it can't really be settled because there will always be arguments about it. but it seems to say to discuss it calmly and even encourages the discussion.
What does anyone think?
 
J

jimnammack

Guest
Conflict means to be obstructed. You are being told that X did not write Shakespeare's works. You have the wrong idea, in other words.

Moving line 1 seems to be telling you that you will be resolving this question soon enough.

Moving line 3 speaks of nourishing yourself on ancient virtue. It says to obey the one above. I'm not sure what that means unless it is saying that Shakespeare is, after all, the author of Shakespeare's works.

Moving line 6 says that you cannot win distinction through conflict. My only guess here is that it is telling you to stop thinking that someone other than Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's works. If that is not what line 6 means, then I am clueless.

Hexagram 43, Breakthrough, indicates that you do indeed figure it out.

In light of this reading, I would encourage you to do a divination asking something like, "Did Shakespeare actually compose all the works traditionally attributed to him?"

Jim
 

willowfox

Inactive
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Messages
5,530
Reaction score
2
Hex 6.1 there is a dispute about who the real author was but Shakespeare has always been the man associated with those books because he has always been the prominent contender. So there is gossip but nothing ever comes of it.

Hex 6.3 this suggests that Shakespeare is the author because the dispute has never been proved to be true. So this says that if X was the author then his name would be on the books, it can be contested but as Shakespeare is the author, he can never be robbed of that title.

Hex 6.6 even though it has been proved that Shakespeare wrote the books, there is still doubt in many circles. X never triumphed in this matter, Shakespeare did.

Hex 43 People have tried to put X's name forwarded as the author, so X has always cast a shadow of doubt over Shakespeare. So this passion to declare X the author has obscured the facts because reason and logic must come before passion. So this hex says that X's influence is now receding, so he is no longer a contender for authorship.
 

Tohpol

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
3,562
Reaction score
5
I asked if x was the real author of Shakespeare's works.
6.1.3.6>43.
I think it says x was but it can't really be settled because there will always be arguments about it. but it seems to say to discuss it calmly and even encourages the discussion.
What does anyone think?

FIW, there are those that say William Shakespeare was a fictional character with a guy literally playing a part as the author. His whole life does appear to be like a actor's part with very little real evidence of an authentic existence except as a poorly rendered stage piece. Strange for someone who was meant to have written the most famous works of literature of all time. Even the name "Shake-Speare" is a probable psuedonym a common practice of the time. This may also be a reference to Pallas Athena the Supreme Muse of the arts (especially poetry). In greek mythology she is shown as shaking her lance at the "dragon of ignorance."

He did exist I think but he was not the author of the plays imo. (Even the well known portrait of Shakespeare used in the original folio editions is a "play" on the portrait of Elizabeth - you superimpose the two perfectly). It seems highly probable that the Shakespeare plays were produced by a group dominant playwrights and radicals of the time headed by Sir Francis Bacon. All of life is in these plays. It would be just like the society of Masons or Rosicrucians of the time to embark on a massive project to educate humanity in this way. They would certainly have an arrogant reason and ideology to do so.

So, the question of who wrote the plays has never been settled (though Oxford academics would like to think so) and I think the IC is firmly illustrating that point. Fascinating subject.

Topal
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
The answer itself seems humorously Shakespearian, i.e. human conflicts and drama of the stage, as well as the proclamations of 43. Line 3 could support Topal's assertions of autonomy. If one (or more?) is in the service of royalty, ones own personal glory isn't important.
 

RindaR

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Aug 2, 1972
Messages
1,085
Reaction score
0
<snip>

Even the name "Shake-Speare" is a probable psuedonym a common practice of the time. This may also be a reference to Pallas Athena the Supreme Muse of the arts (especially poetry). In greek mythology she is shown as shaking her lance at the "dragon of ignorance."

<snip>

Topal
And knowing the author/s penchant for bawdy puns, 'twould be another feather in the cap of the penster....

(or perhaps I am just feeling naughty...)

Rinda
 

Grandma

visitor
Joined
Jun 19, 1970
Messages
385
Reaction score
1
"All of life is in these plays"
Absolutely, plus they are very scholarly and scholars who believe Shakespeare wrote the plays and sonnets have to explain away alot of knowledge that is contained within the plays. I just studied King Lear in class and found an amazing hidden allegory about Egyptian religious beliefs in it. The knowledge is a little more easily available today with the internet but back in S. day it was more obscure. Shakespeare is said to have known some Latin and a little Greek, but some beleive the plays show evidence of knowledge of alot of Greek and the use of sources not available in English or Latin. Shakespeare's plays also introduced 500 words into English some used for the first time by him. This by a man who there is no evidence that he even attended school, could not write his name without blotting it, and left no library or written records in his own hand, and whose daughter was illiterate.
But Topal, when you say the Rosicrucians were writing the books for their own agenda, well what do you suppose it was and then are the plays sort of "evil", with a NWO sort of message?
Of course X is Francis Bacon, very close to royal circles, some say very very close. Very well educated, a "mother" who was a scholar who knew Greek, who left a writers notebook that contains many parallels to Shakespeares works.
But aside form logic, line 3 seems to address the issue of a false author.
I did ask "did Shakespeare write Shakespeare "1.4>9.
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
I did ask "did Shakespeare write Shakespeare "1.4>9.
1.4, another image which strikes me as funny. Old Italians have an expression, which I think is spelled metà metà, which means half and half. The comment is accompanied by a hand motion (aren't they all?), which is a hand wavering in the air, not unlike a dragon wavering in the air. This is as if to say: he created it, sort of, or, he played a role in the creations but did not create it entirely.
 

Tohpol

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
3,562
Reaction score
5
1.4, another image which strikes me as funny. Old Italians have an expression, which I think is spelled metà metà, which means half and half. The comment is accompanied by a hand motion (aren't they all?), which is a hand wavering in the air, not unlike a dragon wavering in the air. This is as if to say: he created it, sort of, or, he played a role in the creations but did not create it entirely.

I think that's exactly the case. Front men often have "a part to play" in such things in order to give a double security to the illusion. Interesting...

Topal
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
Being creative (cough cough) with 9, using just trigrams - influence is out of reach, not able to grasp the wind. Another might be: Shakespeare is not available at this time to answer; he's on the upside of heaven.

Either the Yi has a lot of humor or I'm just in a goofy mood.
 
J

jimnammack

Guest
Susan:

I have read similar things about Shakespeare, and those things have caused me also to doubt that he was the author of the works attributed to him. One alternative possibility is that Shakespeare had documents available to him from people who did travel widely, and that he used those documents as his inspiration. I have read that his Macbeth play is loosely based on a history of Scotland he read, but he changed many of the facts around quite extremely in order to create a more interesting play. In real life, Macbeth was one of Scotland's most popular kings.

Hexagram 1, The Creative. "Great indeed is the sublimity of the Creative, to which all things owe their beginning and which permeates all heaven." To my mind, this says quite clearly that Shakespeare was indeed the original author.

Line 4 says in order to advance, one must dare to relinquish one's foothold and soar into realms of unchartered space. For you, this may mean that you need to let go of your firmly held notions as to Shakespear's authenticity. Your firm belief that Shakespeare did not author the works attributed to him would be your "foothold" in this situation.

All of that transmutes into Hexagram 9, The Taming Power of the Small. This puzzles me a bit. Keeping in mind your question, "Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare?" I think the Commentary on the Decision contains the relevant information. It says, "The yeilding obtains the decisive place, and those above and those below correspond with it." This seems to be saying that all the pieces of the puzzle come together through this divination. Proper correspondence occurs, in other words. Even though Shakespeare was not widely travelled, he was widely read and learned a great deal from the writings of others, and therein lies the inspiration of many of his plays.

Jim



Nevertheless, when you asked the I Ching if X was the proper author, you got a negative resonse.
 
J

jimnammack

Guest
That last line should have been the second sentence in my first paragraph. I don't know how it flew loose.

Jim
 

Tohpol

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
3,562
Reaction score
5
But Topal, when you say the Rosicrucians were writing the books for their own agenda, well what do you suppose it was and then are the plays sort of "evil", with a NWO sort of message?
Oh boy, that's a big question! One I'd like to answer but I'd be here all day! :D All I can say, is that you're getting into a very complex set of agendas and beliefs which were best symbolised by Sir Francis Bacon. I'm not saying he DID have a part in this or the Masons, but it is highly probable. After all, anyone with any influence in the civil service and high society was an "Initiate" or credente of some order or another. It was all the rage at that time. Still is, though in slightly different forms. Interesting you mention the NWO.

Remember that Bacon wrote New Atlantis. which is full of alchemical references, religious overtones and the same ideas of Utopia and an Elite ruling the world. Well, this is not unlike the wide-ranging dogma of the New World international Order as espoused by Bush Sr. in 1992 and now a mainstay of corporate government, education, military and much New Age philosophy.

The works of Shakespeare may have been no different in their drive to inform us, as all with great art. However, great surges of creativity always have an initial impetus behind them and it is that impetus imo, and its directives which can give us real clues as to how the future is shaped, for better or for ill.

Anyhow, the authorship of Shakespeare's works amounts to speculation however compelling, unlike the ideas of the NWO which are very much more clear and present.

That gives me a question for the IC...:mischief:

Topal
 

Grandma

visitor
Joined
Jun 19, 1970
Messages
385
Reaction score
1
Rinda,
Thanks for posting that link about the new debate.
But what question did you ask for the 56>57 answer?
Personally, I think it was Francis Bacon and he could have done the writing mostly alone. He was a member of certain esoteric groups and I think he is preaching their philosophies in his works so in that sense he had help. Only my opinion, though.
 

Tohpol

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
3,562
Reaction score
5
Rinda,
Thanks for posting that link about the new debate.
But what question did you ask for the 56>57 answer?
Personally, I think it was Francis Bacon and he could have done the writing mostly alone. He was a member of certain esoteric groups and I think he is preaching their philosophies in his works so in that sense he had help. Only my opinion, though.

56>57 is Rinda's signature I think.

As to the link to the report - I think it's spot on.

You could be right Susan, Bacon was powerful, intellectually capable and certainly inspired enough to do it alone. But with the sheer depth, precision and volume of works it seems unlikely to me. My feeling is that this guys were all about group endeavour. They seldom acted alone when steeped in all this freemasonry and Rosicrucian stuff. I think the Shakespeare works can be likened to the old cathedral building process. There were the Master designers and craftsmen who made the plans, the framework and structure and the actual workers who carried out the labour. I'm convinced it was a group headed and steered by Bacon. And probably with full support of the Queen.

Topal
 

Grandma

visitor
Joined
Jun 19, 1970
Messages
385
Reaction score
1
Your theory sounds logical, Topal , and it sounds like you know alot about this type of thing. I think the mention of de Vere being the leading contender to the authorship according to this new investigation is just to throw people off. They were written in secret code in the first place and part of these peoples plan is to keep things hidden from the masses, while at the same time having it hidden in broad day light.
Check out this website_http://www.sirbacon.org
It also presents the theory that Bacon and the Earl of Essex were the queen's and Robert Devereaux's sons. Also, Bacon wrote Don Quixote and The Fairie Quuen book, and a major book about codes from that time period.
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top