The scholastics

The scholastics

John Bjarne Grover

Scholasticism is a very interesting part of the history of philosophy and linguistic theory. It embraces much of the later middle ages. Unfortunately, it seems that modern nazi mythomania has urinated on most of the interesting parts so it looks not always so interesting as it was. It may be that most of this is in terms of the names of the thinkers - as installed into nazi mythology. I mention some examples:

The modistae is perhaps the most interesting part of scholasticism. It proposes 'modes' of being, of understanding and of signification, and one frequently meets the latin form 'modum'. It is likely that this could be taken to be about 'Modern' language review. An interesting hypothesis tells that 'Modern Language Review' could have been established around 1905 for the specific purpose of british empiricism since 1850 to break down the philosophical potential in the modistic theories. Terror-driven politics could typically be interested in opposing the revitalization of scholastic modist theory.

Robert Kilwardby (!) is a central name - his fate seems somewhat associated with Roger Bacon, for whatever reason. This is perhaps considered funny and could have fuelled much intrigue. It is of course possible that the murder of Aldo Moro in 1978 was directly inspired by this medieval couple of names. There was also a Robert Grosseteste of those days. The murder of Moro could have served to reinforce the political role of MLR - to the extent that it has such a role.

John of Dacia and Martin of Dacia - one thinks of the death of Lenin on his dacha outside Gorki in 1924in 1924 - could be related to John Gorvin in Moscow one year earlier.

Peter of Spain - see ideas of 'his bag' in the article of the final mystery.

Lambert of Auxerre - could be about the theory that my penis head was replaced in 1981 or 1982 and moved over to somebody else's 'okser' = 'oxen'. Cp. 'Albert of Saxony'.

Walter Burley - cp. Walter B.Early.

William Heytesbury - with his american colleague, cp. the William 'Ockham' theory that he should be in any systematic relation to Vibeke Gröver. 'Heytesbury' is otherwise a concept which associates closely with the basics of the mythos of John F.Kennedy in the sense of 'biers are hending', the bier is lifted up. In The Cambridge translations of medieval philosophical texts, vol.1, there are two translations of Heytesbury, one on 'Compounded and divided senses' and one on "The verbs 'know' and 'doubt'". I am not a supporter of this british style. Is Heytesbury (and later Kennedy mythos) simply about 'anal necrophilia'?

The question could be relevant if the real question is how many of these scholastics are late british inventions - a la Heimskringla etc. One could guess that scholasticism and modism existed and british administration has tried to make so many fake scholastics that the eventual conclusion is planned to be that scholasticism never existed at all. Modism could be seen as a real threat to the british-symbolic program since 1850 - and hence even Modern Language Review could have been started for similar purposes.

When the norwegian PM Bondevik went on sick leave at 'Modum Bad Sanatorium' around the time of the Moscow bombings and Anne Enger Lahnstein took over before she resigned after the bombings, it could of course be taken to imply 'modism of Thomas of Erfurt' in the sense of Modism = Modum, Erfurt = Bad (such as in Tractatus Erubin in the Talmud, near the places use for launching Hitler) and Sanatorium = Thomas. 'Anne Enger Lahnstein' could then suggest that 'Modern Language Review' = 'modism of Thomas of Erfurt'. If one agrees that 'language' is the same as 'erfurt', which perhaps most people don't but some people do, one could see the link between MLR of 1905 and this medieval philosopher anyhow.

Thomas of Erfurt is indeed a very interesting philosopher of language and being - his treatise 'De modis significandi sive grammatica speculativa' of about 1310 - and it is a great pity if this is the simple political program behind Modern Language Review - that is, to keep his philosophy in leash. It is indeed a philosopher who could shake the foundations of british empiricism since at least 1850.

One now and then sees photos of top politicians with corners of mouth pulled downwards instead of the normal upwards smile (cp also Nansen). That could of course mean simply 'Thomas of Erfurt'. Or even 'Modern Language Review' - it could e.g. mean that this is formulated in MLR and hence counts as heavy power - if MLR is used that way.

This means that if the Moscow bombings 1999 served to encode the name of JF Kennedy, and if this name or career is identical with the name of 'William Heytesbury' ('william lifting-up-the-bier'), it could have served to invoke the phenomenon of scholasticism generally. And if the AIDSHIV epidemic was set in circulation with the test vaccines against hepatitis-B in Greenwich Village, New York, such as some data seem to indicate, the epidemic could thereby be called a 'Robert Grosseteste', another important scholastic philosopher. And from his name it bridges over onto Robert Kilwardby and Roger Bacon. A person playing the piano - reaching for the keys - could perhaps be called a 'kilwardby', reaching for the tool. Robert Bacon, Roger Kilwardby.

If Modern Language Review is used for defining terror and major political events in advance, e.g. for the program of inavoidable power use, one could think of such things as AIDSHIV or the bombing of Moscow in 1999 as a way of reinforcing the power contained in this periodical.

When in 2011 I met the man-on-wagon crossing the street with a boy in front, pulling the wagon after him in a rope, I first had no problems with accepting the naturalness in the event. I recorded it in my diary, and immediately felt how high politics started intrigues, but it was a gradual process that I started doubting the reality in the meeting. Why should it not have been in accordance with normal conditions of reality? That his body was too small did not have to be a serious argument - I suppose there could be people of his kind. More alarming was the apparent lack of security means - apparently no protecting edges on the wagon and no belt to keep the body in place. What if one of the wheels hit a pebble? I considered this a serious argument, but it was not decisive. There were two reasons I eventually landed on as proof of the assumption that it could have been a vision or revelation of some kind: One was the puzzling lifting-up on the curbstone by own forces, while the simple rolling board apparently did not contain any such lifting mechanisms, the other was what happened with the cord or rope in front as the wagon hit the curbstone and the boy, now on my righthand side, continued in over the sidewalk and behind me - while it seemed that he did not let the rope slip out of his hands. After all, as soon as the wagon was up on the sidewalk, they would continue. But how could he then disappear behind me with the rope in his hand? The only sensible answer seemed to be that it was elastic - which it obviously was not, and that was the mystery which could not easily be explained.

It is likely that this is what is called the handle in the nazi interpretation of the cabbalism of Sédir: It is a hand holding the rope - and it is a decisive element that it 'falls off' while clearly it does not.

I have guessed that this elastics is the reason for the 'political' abuse of the phenomenon of scholastics, and hence that, if MLR is used or abused for political intrigue, and if much political events serve the one and only purpose of strengthening the power inherent in the MLR, it really could be about this HANDLE which seems to have served to set the holocaust agoing. It could mean genocide principles - in that abuse version of it.

In the worst case, political intrigue has taken all the central names of scholasticism and dressed each and every of them up in perversities - such as the apparent necrophilia parametre of William Heytesbury which could be the background of the Kennedy power. The official pretext for this would then have been the attempt to get the perversities under control by gently guiding them back into decent human behaviour - while the factual interest would be this desperate attempt to block for the development of a technology that can transmit information faster than light - via the gaps opening up in the surface reality.

The bark that falls off the tree and is burnt - which is the concept of the holocaust - is likely to be the nose-trunk with the hair around the opening of the trunk or tube.

A 'high window' could be the small person with zigzag legs lifted high.

'Red lights' could mean the 'full stop' when the wagon runs into the curbstone.

There are no mysteries in these which could lead on to a facilitation of the construction of a holocaust - the success in the construction in the 20th century was a result of exploitation and abuse, not of any mystic concepts. If one lets two trains front collide and the drivers see the disasters coming through the windows in the last moment, that is not something which could make it easier to construct any genocide or mass murder - it only infuses a certain mystic thrill in the partakers in the business. (Then it really is a little better to go to church or something like that). It is very possible that Sédir gave the archetypes a rewrite in order to protect the esoteric knowledge from insight - I do not support that sort of esoteric secrecy since it only leads to the opposite of what it was intended for (such as 'holocaust' instead of fur around the nose-trunk). Esoteric is not something which should be constructed as a boy club - it is something which is a fact if it is difficult to understand. The problem resembles the apparently bad habits of british culture of trying to hide away a precious piece of knowledge if it is found and reserve it for the stategies of the government or for freemasonry - such as the FFT or keys to heaven once was: People often get nervous about giving secrets away because then they feel like having nothing left and the competitors ran off with the secrets - however, the fact is normally the opposite: If you give a secret away to society, you normally get two new ones in return. Keeping valuable knowledge locked down normally leads to new problems for society instead.

This is why it should not be necessary to connect the computer to the internet for having it cleaned of viruses. The society has no right to rape the hard disk - they should expect to get the secrets given instead, when they have reached the necessary maturity.

I refer also to Rig-Veda 1-24-12 including the 'shunah shepo' which in sanskrit means something like 'swollen foot' ('Oedipous Rex') and could mean a 'male erection'. Hence 'L as dick' could associate with a 90 degrees angle.

Conclusion: If Modern Language Review were founded in 1905 for purposes of political intrigue relative to the engineering in Germany of nazism and holocaust, the 'Modist Long-which Review' would have served the purpose of being the real secret of the archetype - while the germans and other parts of the continental times were busy with installing the intrigue on basis of the concept of the HANDLE = 'hånd-taket' = 'the hand-grip'. It would then have been this hand-grip or hand-grasp which was the whole story for a british harvesting of the political profits from the holocaust on the continent. It would also have been the same man-on-wagon archetype which was the basis for the launching of Hitler for his government with the collapse of Wall Street. Stockmarket economy is 'elastic' in contrast to the hand-solid basis for a natural economy or one based on the metallic value of coins.

Example: It happened one day that I passed a corner where a high window pane had fallen out and crashed against the Bürgersteig underneath. It was scattered in 'thousand pieces' and the area was cordoned off. If this Fensterscheibe had been pushed out in order to 'mean something', it could have been for this 'high window' which probably is just a rewrite of the high-lifted man with the zigzag legs. If so, it could in principle be about false ideas of following a 'Sédir' sort of receipt for making a very powerful state out of Austria - the elastic ring muscle around Vienna could come to be the most powerful administrative unit in the world. However, such false ideas would be to lead the country astray and 'homo' and would serve only the power interests of England and their associates - for making that andorran ring muscle which is contained in such phenomena as the elastics of the sholastics. The 'socalled' elastics. 'Scilicet' (= 'of course', 'naturally', 'certainly' - and other 'elastic' variants) = the ski-pigg, the she-pig etc.

The principle would then be that the 'andorran' enclave would be about encoding precisely this 'elastics' in the ring muscle, 'holding' a tight albeit essentially elastic grip around a 'L as dick' sort of 'handle' from behind = 'hånd-taket'. The elasticism and limited powers therein would be precisely the power of England and USA and not Austria.

The trick would be to employ all other essentials from the archetypes - except for this single elastic element - which then could emerge in the form of e.g. 'modist long-which review'. If the continent is busy with arranging events with 'red lights' and things like that, it is likely to be only for this single purpose of letting themselves be cheated into providing power for the angloamerican elastics - the more than 100 years of political history potentially encoded into the MLR - via the socalled 'andorran enclave'. How is the problem solved? It is solved by refraining from participating in the intrigue. If the train crash was arranged by public interests in order to 'mean something' in this sense of it, two 'lok drivers' seeing it happen through their high windows ('high lo[o]k driver' = 'heil UK driver' which could have been the reason for the nazi 'Heil Hitler' - the nazis day in day out through the period 1933-45 shouting 'Hitler is a UK driver!') and things like that, that is only for giving the national power away to the angloamericans. It is not so easy to compete with those more than 100 years of elastic power demonstration. In particular, 'red lights' could mean the 'full stop', also in the sense of 'consonantal articulation', in terms of the wagon coming to the curbstone for a full stop and a slightly time consuming climbing up on the Bürgersteig before the two - the boy in front and the man-on-wagon - can continue, and that means that 'red lights' in this sense of it is the moment before the 'elastics' start. It means giving the national power and control away to the angloamericans.

Clearly all this 'esoterics' must not be reserved for secrecy and intrigue but must be brought to the surface of public attention. When it probably was Hitler's specific task to create worldwide aversion against the archetypes, to the extent that people after 1945 shouted 'nazi!' after anything which smelt of archetypes, and nothing could be more unpopular, that was only for reserving this knowledge for this power-intrigue program of the angloamericans. It is probably no coincidence that Walt Disney's ('Salt Business!') cartoons of type 'Donald Duck' = 'man-on-wagon' was launched in parallel with Hitler in Germany: It was for lifting this religious and mystic field over into the realm of cartoon and fun and ridicule - totally unserious matter which nobody would take seriously after the war.

It is very easy to avoid the angloamerican trap. It is just to take these matters seriously as scientific studies. There is more than one reality - and that is the problem in academic institutions.

It seems that the whole political paradigm could be resting on this single point - the elastics of the rope of the boy, which for most interpretations probably corresponds to the genetic connection between the father behind and the son in front, and when this connection is 'elastic', it means that the genetic disposition corresponds to the earthquake of 1960 between Concepcion ('conception') and Temuco ('team-of-co'), that is, the additional influence on a person's physical and spiritual endowment from the factor of calendarial telescopes - an influence which means that the many genetic children of the 'Eichmann' at the root of the Concepcion quake could be quite surprisingly different - much more different in type and appearance than normal brothers and sisters are. It is this 'elastics' which seems to be the essential story, and many would probably deny its role and claim that it is a matter of 'Temuco' = 'co-incidence'.

It is likely that it is not so many people who have met the man-on-wagon personally and who can testify the elastics of the rope by personal experience, and the phenomenon of the role of the calendarial telescopes need not necessarily be called 'elastic' - there are many other words which could cover it better. It is likely that the man-on-wagon would count as a reasonably high mystic (and far from political) experience, and those who have met him (or them - why does the boy look so tired?), have perhaps (and for very natural reasons!) not invested enough work into political analysis to be in the position of being able to see the connection to british administration. It is probably in this abuse of even mystic knowledge that the problem is rooted. (It is probably normal to take the expression 'is nothing sacred?' as an american standup-comedian joke, and it could have been designed for precisely the reason of this problem - that political administation, or some political administration, seems to be inclined to abuse just anything if they can wring some power out of it).

The question is of course whether the role of 'Temuco' - the conditioning of human individual bodily and spiritual endowment by calendarial telescopes - is a reality, if it really exists, or if it is a fiction created by politics for engineering the 'elastics' as an important factor in the public attention. When Nixon resigned and left with a double V-sign in helicopter waiting outside the White House, it could have been for telling of this 'Temuco' - which could have meant just that public attention to the role of the calendarial telescopes in the creation of modern mythology. But that does not answer the question whether this sort of conditioning really exists - or if it is all a giant hoax in the service of the 'elastics' which means the rope from the boy in front to the man-on-wagon behind. This man-on-wagon is the same as Charles' Wain, the Ursa Major that circles around the Pole Star which is the boy in front - with the nose-trunk similarly finding her interpretation in the Southern Cross (cp. also the facial outlines of Sachs and Celan). This is probably the reason for the polish factor in the formation of modern mythology. It means that elastics in the relation between the pole star and Ursa Major - which even could be the same as the role assigned to Modern Language Review in the formation of modern concepts of political power.

My view is that since the man-on-wagon with boy in front does indeed exist as a mystic phenomenon, it is likely that the conditioning factor on human individual endowment from calendarial telescopes also exists. If so, it should be lifted out of the shadows of political intrigue and included in the schoolbooks.

However, even if the man-on-wagon with boy in front exists as a mystic phenomenon, that does not mean that the rope is elastic. It is rather that there are no good human concepts for it. Could be it simply is an error in the spiritual domain - and that the british program is to say that it was an error of the pope to excommunicate Henry VIII. Was he 'a lass-dick'? He married too often?

I notice also the equation 'elastics' / 'a his bag'.

Could be it is geographic all of it - the britons still despair because their country has detached from the continent, and so they are trying to build an em-piri-cism to the continent. For example, they hope to succeed in their plans to assassinate Bad Conscience - if they had made it, it could have been a bridge to the continent due to the total empiricism it means.

How far back in history must one go to seek the explanation? Before Henry VIII - could be as far back as the scholastics.