by iamani » Mon Aug 10, 2020 10:37 am
Greetings
'Cursive' (-English) writing is also known as 'writing-in-double' or 'double-writing'. Have you ever wondered why? i know i have. For that matter, why is 'cursive' writing so called - and how important are the answers to these questions?
Turns out - it's quite important...
(...at least if i have it right. Remember this is merely my current opinion.)
In researching the birth certificate and registration process i noticed that all hand-written entries are always styled the same eg for John Henry Doe the first and middle names are styled in cursive - never print - and the surname is always styled in ALLCAPS. Neither of these styles are classed as English. We know that the surname has nothing to do with the physicality of the new-born, so can be set aside in this context, at least for now, so i'm focusing on the given name.
The 'cursive' part is as it sounds at its root - 'curse'. As in: The Curse. We are talking biblical here folks...
KJV Gen 3:
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
...so when the bairn's given name is styled in cursive, who or what is being cursed - the baby, or the biomass (afterbirth)? i believe the answer is in the quoted scripture.
So... who is actually cursed in the quoted passage? The man? No. At least not fully and directly, but perhaps partially. If one pays close attention one will notice that man is not cursed - punished, yes - but not cursed:
"...cursed is the ground for thy sake..."
He seems to be cursing the 'dust of the ground' man is partly made of. Which possibly appears to explain man's removal from land (ground) jurisdiction...
Is the woman cursed? Again, not directly. Punished but not cursed:
"...Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee..."
In other words - woman, you gonna be sorry!
By my reckoning that leaves only one player:
"...Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field..."
Of the three candidates only one is directly accursed - the surpent!
So let's look at what is 'manifested' at a birthing event - we have one mass of three aspects: the baby, the biomass/afterbirth, the mind/will/fiction. Who is who?
Mind/will/fiction = blood (/ink? Bible suggests the 'soul' is in the blood ie formed of dust and water) = man;
Biomass/afterbirth = flesh-and-blood = surpent+man
Baby = flesh-and-blood-and-bone = surpent+man+woman = any one of us.
Baby is violently dis-siezed of the serpent in the pegging of the umbilical, baby is now legally only man+woman, or more accurately just 'woman' but is given the benefit of the doubt for seven years to see if the baby shows presence of man/mind. In days gone by all children were termed as 'girl', males being distinguished by the term 'knave-girl' later shortened to just 'knave'.
So (at least tentatively): Man = blood, Woman = bone, Surpent = flesh.
Ergo: that which bears the accursed name (cursive first-and-middle) is the biomass aka the accursed surpent (a pulsating umbilical can easily be visualised as a snake), and whereas the boneless flesh that is the biomass (placental/umbilical afterbirth) also contains some blood then Man possibly shares the liability with the surpent - but take note that the biomass is boneless... no curse on Woman because, as a ward, she has no capacity for responsibility?
(Tbh i vacillate on the assignment of the various roles as i am yet to fully decode this text, and future posts may contradict this one but i am fairly confident i am on, or at least near, the right track here.)
Another point of note is that because both the biomass and the bairn share blood, and bearing in mind the forced separation (dividing one physical entity into two) it could be said there are now two 'vessels' for one soul, and no-one knows in which (blood)vessel the soul does reside until it makes itself known as manifestation of mind through demonstration of competence (a will). If no such demonstration occurs on the part of the bairn within 21 years it may suggest that the mind/man died with the biomass...
So those of us who have yet to taint our holdings are not considered man, but woman - regardless of physical gender.
The terms 'man' and 'woman' are NOT (imo) gender specific - they refer to status of mind. With mind = Man, without mind = WithOut man = w.o.man. Feel free to substitute 'mind' for 'will' and see where that leads...
Looking at what happened when they 'ate of the forbidden tree' one can deduce the fruits of said tree:
Fear (brought on by shame) - a consequence suffered by man:
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
Sorrow - suffered by woman:
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Guilt - assigned to the surpent:
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field;...
(...who didn't seem at all bothered, and is never heard from again...? Odd...)
...we know guilt assigns liability, and 'cursed' = pledged. So he is 'pledged above' the cattle and every beast of the field, he is made a surety for them.
All three (fear, sorrow, guilt) are pre-cursors (ha!) to 'wisdom'.
From this we can also deduce further labels applied to man and woman. For instance LORD God is very specific as to whom the surpent is 'cursed above' ie all cattle and every beast of the field:
Cattle = physical chattel = movable property = flesh-and-blood-and-bone = our physical selves = Woman
Beast of the field = a fiction = intellectual property = Mind/will/fiction = our fictional selves = Man
Which possibly means the surpent just became surety for the deeds of man (beast of the field) and woman (cattle) ie he holds legal title as trustee/guarantor.
...now where have i seen those terms 'cattle' and 'beast of the field' before...?
KJV Gen 2:
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
...was not man formed of the (dust of the) ground (plus water/mist)? Would this verse not then suggest that man is a 'beast of the field'? Also note this is first appearance of the name 'Adam' and bear in mind the possibility that 'man' and 'Adam' are not originally one and the same thing. Look at what Adam is doing - he's 'naming' things. Such is usually the preserve of the creator of a thing and furthermore 'that which names' is Logos ie 'meaning' and 'word'. Also bear in mind that these 'beast of the field' are 'formed' rather than 'created' or 'made' (a very interesting word btw) suggesting these creatures are written into existence like deeds, titles, wills etc.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Names = titles;
Cattle = chattel goods = movable property = people-as-slaves;
Fowl of the air = ? (still working on that, but note that the surpent was not cursed above the fowl of the air...)
...now look at this marvel of grammatical dexterity:
'...but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.'
This is possibly a false allusion to Adam and man being one and the same and it is done very simply - this (again imo) is the correct arrangement of that line:
' ...there was not found an help meet for him, but for Adam.'
...which of course suggests Adam to in fact be the only prospective 'help meet' for man.
KJV Gen 3:
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.
Subtil = a concept hard to grasp.
It can also be broken down to:
Sub-till = under the (tilled) ground
So that which is subtil/underground is beneath the notice of man... (i believe this is what sub-repo sur-repo refers to)
...i think this verse is key to one's understanding, but for now we're just concerned with the reference to the 'beast of the field' which in this case illuminates the reason why 'man' did not protect Eve from the surpent - he is not aware of nor can he even comprehend the existence of the surpent. Why? Because knowledge of the ways of the serpent was removed in chapter two (the rib - another word for close scrutiny if you want good understanding). So he did not see or hear the surpent at the time of 'eating' (which is evidenced by the fact he blamed the woman and even LORD God rather than mention the surpent), nor even when the LORD God was chewing-out the three of them prior to kicking them all out. Man had no idea he was even eating of the forbidden tree until it was too late and the fruit (ie the experience) could not be returned. The fact that the surpent was not too subtil for Eve ie she noticed and recognised it; marks man as the 'beast of the field' referred to, which by process of elimination marks woman as 'cattle'.
So the entity being referred to when the given/pledged name is hand-written in cursive would appear to be, by deduction from the above interpretation, the surpent in physical form ie the biomass (coincidentally also known as 'the lamb of God') which is/was also your living flesh-and-blood which means it is/was you...
(...and the pledged/given (accursed) name is always hand-written (which means someone is feckin' liable!) in cursive-english and which is why on the original form for birth registration it asks for: 'child's given name, if any' which is basically asking the parent to confirm and sign that they are pledging the child to the owner of the (birth) register!)
If something is pledged it is cursed, and:
Given = pledged
...so:
Given name = pledged name (/title) = title to the accursed
So the biomass is you and yet isn't you, simultaneously. It's two things at once... which leads me to wonder whether Heisenberg's quantum super-positioning uncertainty principle and the 'Schroedinger's cat' theory were brought to public notice just to lend pseudo-scientific quasi-legitimacy to the possibility of one thing being two things simultaneously for the Catholic Church...? Same as they did for the heliocentric theory...? Hmmm...
...and double-writing? Well, you are writing for your 'double' with every (cursive-english) signature, which is why we print our autograph and don't join it to the surname.
Would you believe i thought this would be a short post...?
Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law