Home > Uncategorized > it’s all a joke

it’s all a joke

archiving an awesome post by seeker1 at arcadia forum

jb1717 wrote:
Why would someone make up such a bizarre story?

Damnit, JB, that’s the freaking heart of the mess for me.

If I could have figured it out, I would have given up on this crap a long, long time ago.

There’s so much weird faking and game-playing going on in this whole scenario. Everyone pulling everybody else’s leg.

But for me it’s like the crop circles: why? Why are they doing this? What’s the point? Why bother?

It’s the same damn thing that intrigues me about the May Day Mystery and Neurocam.

I think Marcus is right. It’s all a joke. But what kind?

This kind?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludibrium

Ludibrium is a word derived from Latin ludus (plural ludi), meaning a plaything or a trivial game. In Latin ludibrium denotes an object of fun, and at the same time, of scorn and derision, and it also denotes a capricious game itself: e.g., ludibria ventis (Virgil), “the playthings of the winds”, ludibrium pelagis (Lucretius), “the plaything of the waves”; Ludibrio me adhuc habuisti (Plautus), “Until now you have been toying with me.”

The term “ludibrium” was used frequently by Johann Valentin Andreae (1587 – 1654) in phrases like “the ludibrium of the fictitious Rosicrucian Fraternity” when describing the Rosicrucian Order, most notably in his Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz, published anonymously in 1616, of which Andreae subsequently claimed to be the author and which has been taken seriously, as virtually a third of the Rosicrucian Manifestos.[1] However, in his Peregrini in Patria errores (1618) Andreae compares the world to an amphitheatre where no one is seen in their true light. This conception of the Rosicrucian world as theater was popularized by the French Situationist Guy Debord in Society of the Spectacle (1967).
Paul Arnold translated Andreae’s usage as farce,[2] but this conception has been contested by Frances Yates (Yate 1999), who suggests that Andreae’s use of the term implies more nearly some sort of “Divine Comedy”, a dramatic allegory played in the political domain during the tumult which preceded the Thirty Years’ War in Germany.

Similarly, the melancholic Jacques in As You Like It (1599-1600) asserts that “All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players.”
It has been suggested that Situationist International was a ludibrium devised by Asger Jorn. Like the Rosicrucians, the Situationist International was a very small group which nevertheless became notorious, even if only for a while. This conception can function as a technique whereby mental projections can be cast into the social imagination.

Robert Anton Wilson has suggested that the Priory of Sion is a modern ludibrium:
The Priory Of Sion fascinates me, because it has all the appearances of being a real conspiracy, and yet if you look at the elements another way, it looks like a very complicated practical joke by a bunch of intellectual French aristocrats. And half of the time I believe it really is a practical joke by a bunch of intellectual French aristocrats. And then part of the time I think it is a real conspiracy.[3]

[snip]

And then RAW turns around and writes shit like this.

http://fusionanomaly.net/surrealism.html

The surrealist movement was launched in 1923 – the year James Joyce, after making cryptic notes for several months, finally wrote the first three-page fragment of _Finnegan’s Wake_, and the year Hitler was initiated in the Thule Society, and occult secret society with a paranoid dread of all other occult secret societies, which it claimed were run by Jews and Freemasons – anyway, that year, the First Surrealist Manifesto promised or threatened “total transformation of mind and all that resembles it.” Among the founders was Raymond Roussel, former associate of Aleister Crowley and Father Sauniere in the Hermetic Brotherhood of Light, and among the later recruits was Jean Cocteau, who eventually became 23rd Grand Master of the Priory of Sion.
– Robert Anton Wilson – _Coincidance_ in _Semiotext[e] USA_

[snip]

There was a Hermetic Brotherhood of Light (Luxor). I have no idea if the people he names were members. The one person writing about them is a “Gnostic” bishop named T. Allen Greenfield and we have had some interesting, if bizarre, conversations.

Throwaway paragraph. Bullshit. What in there is proveable?

One weird thing, though.

I’ve pointed this out before. Cocteau’s signature on the peedox has the little star next to it. That doesn’t mean the signature is authentic. It does mean whoever put that little star there knows he used to do this. Did they know why?

I’ve read dozens of “priory” books and AFAICT I’m the first person to have noticed the connection.

He put a star on his forehead in the mural he did for Notre Dame de France. That appears in Henry Lincoln’s book.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/bibli … ios02a.htm

Also in there is a Black Sun (oh crap here we go) and a Blue Rose, which was BTW a symbol for the Symbolists in early Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_rose

The Blue Rose is a symbol for the imagination, because it is something that can exist only in the mind, not in nature. That’s why it was such an important symbol for the Symbolists and Surrealists.

But back to that damned star.

RAYMOND ROUSSEL wrote a book (play) called Star in the Forehead (L’Etoile au Front) in 1925.

As I dug into Roussel’s bio, I found out that Cocteau and Roussel were both friends of Guillaume Apollinaire, who had a star-shaped wound in his forehead from WW I.

Apollinaire was left with a battle wound on his temple after serving in WW I.

It left a star shaped wound in his forehead; Cocteau writes in one of his autobio works that that’s what inspired him to start putting the star after his signature. Same reason that Roussel wrote Star in the Forehead, where he says the star symbolizes the genius (daemon) of creativity being hatched within the mind.

Both did it as an homage to Apollinaire, the founder of Surrealism.

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: