# Thread: Thoughts and Findings related to the Maranatha "Key" Pt. II

1. Originally Posted by jlockest
Whoa. Good grief H - you totally miss it don't you? Either that or you're just being intentionally obtuse.
I am not discussing about how you draw the lop sided hexagram-cum-circle-cum-square. D showed how that was constructed - it has been shown elsewhere. The issue I have is in HOW you select the points in the text and give them relevance. Using your argument I could take your constructed geometry, move it around the base document, change its scale and then give some pseudo importance to the elements of the text/items it touched at certain points.
You also assume that the shape you're creating has some relevance anyway. You have taken what somebody else has said and simply tried to apply it to a document - and then totally ignored any other shapes that may be in that document.

In the ones I've done, the dots have been numbered. So the formula is to start at any number and join from that number to the next highest/lowest. Obviously it's easier if you start at 1 (if the puzzle has a 1 ) and work up, but you don't have to.

It is in your eyes becuae you have done two things. One you have automatically assumed that the shape you're drawing has some importance and secondly you are assigning importance to some parts of the base - which have no more importance than any other points. You decide they have importance. A bit like people who wake up at night and see the clock says '2:22' and think '...spooky, sacred numbers...'. The numbers have no importance outside of the mind of the viewer. I think your editor realised that H, and that's why he/she made you use 'sacred geometry' - to give some feeling of importance to a shape and subject that is in the mind of the viewer.

Denial of reality? I thought you did that? No? I told you to google the geometric shapes in paintings - and I thought you poo-poo'd them as only yours are real?

The person could not have drawn the shape from the R without prior knowledge. To do that the R must be singled out from the text to have some importance. Then the person would have to have known a scale. Then the person would have to know what shape to construct and where that R fitted into that shape.

I don't think I ever contested that at all. I did contest the relevance of the points chosen to make the shape - and the relevance of the shape itself.

Fact? The fact that you draw a shape - the you assume has some significance in the first place - and place it on a document or artwork and then give importance to the points it touches? Ignoring points it doesn't touch? What facts H?

What about the other plus signs? You project to one plus then project through another - what is the rule /plan/method system in that?

If I were you, I'd go back to joining up the dots H. Just for simplicity. Join up ALL the odd letters (ie raised ones) on the parchment, or join up all the plus signs or... but at least have some method or some way of showing that one letter is more significant than another.

Or try this. Just pick up your geometric design and move it two characters to the right or left or up or down - and I bet you will get some characters under intersection points that have some relevance to someone - then try increasing or reducing the scale. Then think how many combinations you have in way of movement and scale - and see how many 'relevant' characters are touched.
But even after all that, you still then have to show that your base geometric shape had any relevance anyway, let alone prove any form of intent on behalf of the author/artist.

Just do as I said above H - change the scale, change the position and I bet your lines connect points or lay on lines or....

But it's 1:35 now and ...'oooh spooky - all odd sacred numbers...', and I have to go.
Hahahaha!

Its your idea, why dont you do that? Then, I can just sit back and point out how it doesnt work. I'd love that.

Keep it going, keep asking "how you chose", as if that changes the fact of what is there. Keep criticizing the motive for using certain terminology, because you think that the way you look at things should be the same for everyone else.

You just cant accept what is there. I can accept that. But there's no need for further discussion at this point because it has turned into a debate of personal motive, not really what is there or observable.

I get it. Its a lot to take in. But your preferences for how a thing is produced changes nothing in terms of what is there. Nothing.

You find no relevance. Not everyone needs to think the way you do. You think its all arbitrary. I dont. And, I think there is more to it even then what is so far discussed. I am sure, that you dont. Just like the video with no sound, surely your expectation for a verbal description means that there is something wrong with audio, rather than the simple fact that there was no sound.

2. Expert Twelever Sapphire
Join Date
Aug 2006
Location
UK
Posts
1,661
Originally Posted by hayward
Hahahaha!

Its your idea, why dont you do that? Then, I can just sit back and point out how it doesnt work. I'd love that.

Keep it going, keep asking "how you chose", as if that changes the fact of what is there. Keep criticizing the motive for using certain terminology, because you think that the way you look at things should be the same for everyone else.

You just cant accept what is there. I can accept that. But there's no need for further discussion at this point because it has turned into a debate of personal motive, not really what is there or observable.

ther
I get it. Its a lot to take in. But your preferences for how a thing is produced changes nothing in terms of what is there. Nothing.

You find no relevance. Not everyone needs to think the way you do. You think its all arbitrary. I dont. And, I think there is more to it even then what is so far discussed. I am sure, that you dont. Just like the video with no sound, surely your expectation for a verbal description means that there is something wrong with audio, rather than the simple fact that there was no sound.
If I were you then H, I'd give up with me. Because - yes, you have drawn a geometric shape - so that exists. And yes, there is text on the Dagobert parchment and objects in paintings. BUT you have singularly failed in saying what is relevant about the points your shape touches in either the parchment or the painting. You ignore some points and use others. So, as I said, by then moving the geometry up,down left or right by any degree you chose OR by changing the scale of the geometry, it will still touch other points. AND if you can't then say what makes YOUR points any more relevant than the new points, then your geometry and its relationship to the text/artwork only exists in your mind.

As foir arbitrariness H - you can't argue that the points touched aren't arbitrary without then showing what plan/method/system you had for choosing them - as that is the meaning of arbitrary - ie selected WITHOUT a method/plan/system. So by NOT showing your method of selection, the points by definition are arbitrary. You won't even say how you chose the start point, let alone the second point on the construct.

3. Originally Posted by jlockest
If I were you then H, I'd give up with me. Because - yes, you have drawn a geometric shape - so that exists. And yes, there is text on the Dagobert parchment and objects in paintings. BUT you have singularly failed in saying what is relevant about the points your shape touches in either the parchment or the painting. You ignore some points and use others. So, as I said, by then moving the geometry up,down left or right by any degree you chose OR by changing the scale of the geometry, it will still touch other points. AND if you can't then say what makes YOUR points any more relevant than the new points, then your geometry and its relationship to the text/artwork only exists in your mind.

As foir arbitrariness H - you can't argue that the points touched aren't arbitrary without then showing what plan/method/system you had for choosing them - as that is the meaning of arbitrary - ie selected WITHOUT a method/plan/system. So by NOT showing your method of selection, the points by definition are arbitrary. You won't even say how you chose the start point, let alone the second point on the construct.

No, that's not how this works. If you want to prove your theory then you need to do your own drawings and post it so we can see. I dont think you're going to produce a geometry that will be justified on all sides, nor will it correspond with the "device" in the upper left. That is the point here. But by all means please do that it would be great.

4. Expert Twelever Sapphire
Join Date
Aug 2006
Location
UK
Posts
1,661
Originally Posted by hayward
No, that's not how this works. If you want to prove your theory then you need to do your own drawings and post it so we can see. I dont think you're going to produce a geometry that will be justified on all sides, nor will it correspond with the "device" in the upper left. That is the point here. But by all means please do that it would be great.
Correspond with the device in the upper left? So why does any geometry have to correspond with that device? Can't you see it's the same question H? YOU keep assigning significance to the point s that YOU touch. Surely you can see that no matter what MY geometry touches, I will simply do the same. So, no matter what my geometry touches, by virtue of the geometry touching them they're significant. The 2:22 in the morning syndrome.

5. Originally Posted by jlockest
Correspond with the device in the upper left? So why does any geometry have to correspond with that device? Can't you see it's the same question H? YOU keep assigning significance to the point s that YOU touch. Surely you can see that no matter what MY geometry touches, I will simply do the same. So, no matter what my geometry touches, by virtue of the geometry touching them they're significant. The 2:22 in the morning syndrome.
No, your claim is that the points of the geometry can be shown to be arbitrary by moving the shape around and proving that it can be reproduced everywhere with the same accuracy. So, in order to prove your theory, you will have to demonstrate how all of the points in your geometry -- the lines or intersections,-- are each justified in the parchment. Not just 3 or 4 but accounting for each. Next, your proof should also account for the anamolies that appear in the parchment (plus signs, dots, etc.) ---which were obviously placed there deliberately whether or not you know the reason--- otherwise your geometry will just appear like a layover of the image over the parchment. By doing that you can then prove beyond a shadow of a doubt how every instance is a matter of choice and is thus arbitrary. Otherwise, you are simply validating my theory by saying that this occurrence seems rather rare and unlikely.

Yes, the geometry I've shown depends on the device in the upper left. Your geometry however, your HYPOTHETICAL geometry, depends on taking the ready-made shape, moving it around and showing that it is justified on all sides through points or lines connected with the parchment. Now is the time to show evidence for your claim.

6. Expert Twelever Sapphire
Join Date
Aug 2006
Location
UK
Posts
1,661
Originally Posted by hayward
No, your claim is that the points of the geometry can be shown to be arbitrary by moving the shape around and proving that it can be reproduced everywhere with the same accuracy. So, in order to prove your theory, you will have to demonstrate how all of the points in your geometry -- the lines or intersections,-- are each justified in the parchment. Not just 3 or 4 but accounting for each. Next, your proof should also account for the anamolies that appear in the parchment (plus signs, dots, etc.) ---which were obviously placed there deliberately whether or not you know the reason--- otherwise your geometry will just appear like a layover of the image over the parchment. By doing that you can then prove beyond a shadow of a doubt how every instance is a matter of choice and is thus arbitrary. Otherwise, you are simply validating my theory by saying that this occurrence seems rather rare and unlikely.

Yes, the geometry I've shown depends on the device in the upper left. Your geometry however, your HYPOTHETICAL geometry, depends on taking the ready-made shape, moving it around and showing that it is justified on all sides through points or lines connected with the parchment. Now is the time to show evidence for your claim.
Originally Posted by hayward
No, your claim is that the points of the geometry can be shown to be arbitrary by moving the shape around and proving that it can be reproduced everywhere with the same accuracy. So, in order to prove your theory, you will have to demonstrate how all of the points in your geometry -- the lines or intersections,-- are each justified in the parchment. Not just 3 or 4 but accounting for each. Next, your proof should also account for the anamolies that appear in the parchment (plus signs, dots, etc.) ---which were obviously placed there deliberately whether or not you know the reason--- otherwise your geometry will just appear like a layover of the image over the parchment. By doing that you can then prove beyond a shadow of a doubt how every instance is a matter of choice and is thus arbitrary. Otherwise, you are simply validating my theory by saying that this occurrence seems rather rare and unlikely.

Yes, the geometry I've shown depends on the device in the upper left. Your geometry however, your HYPOTHETICAL geometry, depends on taking the ready-made shape, moving it around and showing that it is justified on all sides through points or lines connected with the parchment. Now is the time to show evidence for your claim.
No. Your whole premise is based on assuming significance. You assume that 1) The shape your drawing is significant in some way - why not a simple triangle between the three plus points? Whay not any other set of geometrical shapes? 2) The points it touches are significant. BUT you ignore other similar significant points - if you use two + signs, why not all three? If you use one path from the top left symbol, why not the other two, you use an R for the centre of your circle and ignore other R's - and on top of that you're not even consistent in your method. Your first line (from yoyur video) projects from the top left symbol to a plus sign (and stops there), and then the next line is from the plus sign to another plus - BUT in this case, because that doesn't suit your shape, you extend THROUGH the plus to some point that YOU decide. All the way H, YOU are deciding what is significant - but you refuse to say why or how you select the points - and then in the challenge to me, apparently I have to justify the points that my diagram will touch - why? That's the point I've been making. If you can't rationalise and justify the points, then ANY part of the text could be significant. And from that it doesn't take much to see that you can move your geometry anywhere on that text and change its scale and just say that whatever points it does touch are then significant.

7. Originally Posted by jlockest
No. Your whole premise is based on assuming significance. You assume that 1) The shape your drawing is significant in some way - why not a simple triangle between the three plus points? Whay not any other set of geometrical shapes? 2) The points it touches are significant. BUT you ignore other similar significant points - if you use two + signs, why not all three? If you use one path from the top left symbol, why not the other two, you use an R for the centre of your circle and ignore other R's - and on top of that you're not even consistent in your method. Your first line (from yoyur video) projects from the top left symbol to a plus sign (and stops there), and then the next line is from the plus sign to another plus - BUT in this case, because that doesn't suit your shape, you extend THROUGH the plus to some point that YOU decide. All the way H, YOU are deciding what is significant - but you refuse to say why or how you select the points - and then in the challenge to me, apparently I have to justify the points that my diagram will touch - why? That's the point I've been making. If you can't rationalise and justify the points, then ANY part of the text could be significant. And from that it doesn't take much to see that you can move your geometry anywhere on that text and change its scale and just say that whatever points it does touch are then significant.
Actually, Yes. You wanted to prove that the points holding the shape are irrelevant and you cited that this could be done by moving the shape around and chosing points where it overlaps to show this is what I have done. Apparently, you think that you can do this anywhere and it will show the whole thing is arbitrary. So now is the chance to stop your hypothetical debate and use visible evidence. Geometry is not approximate. You seem to think it is.

But if you show your geometry and it fails to produce a shape justified all around then what have you really proven? You will have proven that you can line an image up with a few points on the document such as all your google examples. Should anyone then accept this as proof of your claim, that it is a product of willfull perception or would it only help to reinforce the unique quality of what you have willfully percieved not to acknowledge?

8. PS- Its kind of hilarious that you have a problem with whether the first line stops at the plus sign or continues. As if it would make a difference in terms of the present geometry either way. The first rule and definition of a line in geometry is that it is a straight path that extends infinitely in either direction.

9. Expert Twelever Sapphire
Join Date
Aug 2006
Location
UK
Posts
1,661
Originally Posted by hayward
Actually, Yes. You wanted to prove that the points holding the shape are irrelevant and you cited that this could be done by moving the shape around and chosing points where it overlaps to show this is what I have done. Apparently, you think that you can do this anywhere and it will show the whole thing is arbitrary. So now is the chance to stop your hypothetical debate and use visible evidence. Geometry is not approximate. You seem to think it is.
No, I think geometry is exact. You constantly confuse the geometry - I have not disputed D's geometry - with the significance of the points on the underlying document. I see how that specific geometry (D's 45 degree hex) is constructed. What I dispute is YOUR assignment of significance to the points the geometry touches on the underlying document(s).
Can I also then ask - is your 'exact geometry' at 45 degrees? I don't have computerised drawing tools, but it looks a bit shallow to me.

Originally Posted by hayward
But if you show your geometry and it fails to produce a shape justified all around then what have you really proven? You will have proven that you can line an image up with a few points on the document such as all your google examples. Should anyone then accept this as proof of your claim, that it is a product of willfull perception or would it only help to reinforce the unique quality of what you have willfully percieved not to acknowledge?
Why not? Why are your points of significance any more relevant than any one else's?
Why is the shape that you're constructing any more significant than any other shape drawn on those documents?

10. Expert Twelever Sapphire
Join Date
Aug 2006
Location
UK
Posts
1,661
Originally Posted by hayward
PS- Its kind of hilarious that you have a problem with whether the first line stops at the plus sign or continues. As if it would make a difference in terms of the present geometry either way. The first rule and definition of a line in geometry is that it is a straight path that extends infinitely in either direction.
Keep laughing. I think again you're getting confused. You're confusing a 'class' with an object. IE the class definition of a line would presumably be as you state - ie an infinite straight line. Thne same as the 'class' circle would not have a radius defined. But in a geometrical shape the 'class' is used to construct the object - and by then the object (the line) has an attribute of length defined - as a circle would have a radius.

But maybe it's me misunderstanding geometry and you're right to laugh at me....