Conclusion on the story as of 15 february 2018
The role of names
John Bjarne Grover
It seems that my person is associated with the formation of a secret intelligence project from about the mid 19th century, could be after Napoleon. A part of this is the definition of the centimetre as international standard to be just the length that makes the diagonal on the white philosopher's stone be Euler's constant e = 2,7182818... measured in centimetres.
Another part of the same project has seemingly been to purge all publically accessible archives of information on the white stone - which thereby made this association of the unit with the stone incomprehensible and 'secret'. The recognition of the white stone with egyptian hieroglyphs is thereby difficult or impossible to get hold of for the ordinary voter.
The dirty trick is to pretend that there is a necessary mystic connection between the name of Euler and the unit of the centimetre. However, there is no role for the name in this program - that is the secret. The hieroglyph which looks like an owl (for the sound 'M') is recognizable from the shape of the white stone, the front page - but it is a coincidence that Euler's name means such an owl.
This is the secret which is the reason why my books are not yet published. My person is associated with the link between the centimetre and the white stone - and the reason for keeping my person out of public attention is to try and cover the fact that the role of names in politics is a dirty trick which lends much power to the unconstitutional secret intelligence services.
Names are today nearly everything in politics. That is the reason for the strong power of the services.
It seems that the same international services planned me since long - could be at the time of Hitler or even long before - for being that missing link between centimetre unit and white stone which preserves unconstitutional terror-driven power. ('Al Qaida' means 'the base' and is likely to mean just this 'e'). There were probably (as I guess) two octogons planned for my life - one of 8-9 cases of child abuse up to age 18, and one of 8-9 cases of matrimonial infidelity wherein I had to be the third part. The Kennedy family could have been made for the names of the 8-9 siblings to tell the type of the 8-9 abuse forms: Skull lifted soon after birth = John, rape at 6 months = Robert, chemical injection at 18 months = 'Ted', making it 'tight'. No sooner was I born and the skull had been lifted, Kennedy was elected president. The name of his wife Jacqueline Bouvier told the placename and type of abuse. The Eisenhower doctrine is the republican explanation of the other octogon - by apparently pretelling in its undertext the names of the 8-9 females of the other octogon - it was published not long before my birth.
One version of the two Kennedy assassinations tells that the international service liga did not plan to confess the two first cases of child abuse but could admit the third - I was told that I (in the late 1950's) had swallowed a nut which I found on the floor and the allergic shock nearly claimed my life. Ted Kennedy survived the Chappaquiddick crisis - but it nearly claimed his political life. One of the 8-9 Kennedy siblings was considered mentally sick or retarded and was never mentioned.
Names, names, names. This is the heart of the story. Politics is the art of names - and it functions only as long as I am held secret.
It may be time for a total renovation of the political system - whereby we can return to an interest in the matters themselves - that which should have been the art of politics.
While today it seems that the services can propel a name of a freshman at the party bottom to a high political position in the country in short time if only the name is the right.
This is likely to be the reason why I am so far held out of public attention, why my books are not yet published, why there seems to be secret intelligence interests everywhere around me - could be for 'containing' the secret, the 'beast'.
There is no reason to associate the unit of the centimetre with Euler - except in the sense that he may have been the discoverer of the constant 'e' as the base of the natural logarithms. Do you think he discovered it because his name means an 'owl'? Is that the secret? The Fast Fourier Transform could perhaps have been known in preliminary versions earlier (Gauss) but was [re]discovered in the 1960's by Sande-Tukey - and it was also launched by Cooley-Tukey (or was the Cooley first and the Sande later?). Do you think it was because of the names that they [re]discovered it?
What do you mean 'discovered it'?
My theory is that the real story is the blue metre which I discovered in 2008-2010 on basis of the preliminary work with TEQ (The Endmorgan Quartet) in the years 1997-2008 and on the theoretical background of my work on the history of linguistics in 1992 (expanded for the second part of the PhD dissertation in 1995-97). My own theory on what the story is tells that I may have been made for being the secret and hidden 'missing link' (therefore the ideas of a 'beast of the revelation' to be 'contained' by politics) between the unit of the centimetre and the white stone, but the real purpose with making me could have been to made me write the blue metre.
It is line 14 of the blue PEB (POLAKK English Bloggi) which is the secret which tells of a hitherto undiscovered acoustic or poetic logic - the existence of which can be proven even if it probably still takes some time to find it. If it be successfully defined it could (not surprisingly) also mean the end of terror. It is the parallelism of PEB with TEQ that suggests this: TEQ contains 16 books which define one poetic function each, while PEB contains 365 'sonnets' of 14 lines each - in such a way that line 1 in each sonnet is about book 1 of TEQ with poetic function 1, line 2 in PEB is about poetic function 2 in TEQ - and so forth up to line 14 for TEQ book 14.
It is this poetic function 14 of TEQ which suggests in its distributional semantics that there has to exist an acoustic logic.
For line 14 in PEB I have so far not detected this - but I have found traces of what I call 'simultaneous discoveries in the exact sciences' - a theme also for the lecture in the theory of science which I wrote for the PhD degree (the lecture was rejected by an evalution committee - even if I think it can be argued that it could be difficult to find a more optimal theme - which I chose myself - and possibly even discussion for this field of study - could be they tried to keep the secret undiscovered?). In line 14 I have found traces of the famous priority disputes of Newton-Leibniz, Bolyai-Lobachevsky etc.
So what do mean 'discovered it'?
I mean that swindle for making 'simultaneous discoveries' is not serious science but dirty political business.
Could be the plan was to keep me secret (and uninteresting in most aspects of life) and to gradually fade me out of history - could be even from the archives, like the knowledge of the white stone - untill perhaps even my pension could disappear and I would be in the ditch again. I hope this will not happen.
'Simultaneous discoveries in the exact sciences' - is that the same as the co-existence of 'semantic' and 'acoustic' logic?
The question is arguably interesting. Swindle is not interesting, of course - and to tap a person's computer and launch the 'simultaneous discovery' is totally uninteresting.
Click here for the lecture in the theory of science which I wrote in 1996. Today I can notice the high relevance of the discussion of Laban and the flocks of sheep in terms of the role of the white stone and its similarity with the head of a lamb or sheep: "Hence, the transference of similarity from the peeled rods to the sheepskin represents THE NATURAL PHILOSOPHY WITH IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECT AND SUBJECT" - which would be about precisely the idea of the form of subjective consciousness materialized into the white philosopher's stone. Indeed Kuhn's discussion looks interesting on this background.
The lecture was rejected for the PhD or the socalled equivalent 'dr.art' degree by a committee consisting of Erik Brown, Lars Johnsen and Marianne Skånland plus 'expert opinion' by Michal Walicki. The letter from Brown dated 21 november 1996 starts as follows (the translation is my own - in the 1998 published booklet 'The doctorate', a translation of 'Doktorgraden' which contains the material for the rejection of the dissertation as well as this lecture in the theory of science):
Dear John Grøver! I send this letter on behalf of the committee for your lecture in the theory of science for the dr.art. degree. All members, Lars Johnsen, Marianne Skånlad and I myself, agree that the lecture, in the form it has now, cannot be accepted. Below, I have explained the reason for this, in a reasoning which we all agree upon. (Before this letter was sent to you, a copy was sent to the other two members, who have accepted the contents). In addition to this, I include an expert opinion from senior scientific officer Mickal Walecki at the Institute of Informatics, whom we have used as an expert on the things you write about mathematical/logical foundation research.
Why was it rejected? My view is that it was rejected in an attempt to keep the secret undiscovered - that is, the secret of my person which seems to be historically connected with the idea of a missing link between the white stone and the unit of the centimetre - which probably was defined around the time of the scientific discoveries I discuss in the lecture.
It is high time to downgrade the secrets of the white stone ('lapis philosophorum') and get all the details of this history up in daylight.
My view is also that the PhD degree of mine should be accepted and not rejected. My dissertation was called 'A waist of time' and is in 5 parts which provide a theoretical basis for the 5 works of poetry I have worked out since then - the 'unmetric' work in 16 books called 'The Endmorgan Quartet' plus the four metric works (blue, red, yellow and white metres). The 5th and last part of the dissertation is the short title part ('A waist of time') which can be seen to provide a suggestive theoretic basis for an elementary acoustic logic via the fundamental theorem of linguistics contained in the white metre 'Stillhetens åndedrag' (2016) - a work which exhibits a peculiar semantic mirror symmetry via negations - poem 1 is the opposite of poem 64, poem 2 of poem 63 etc. Then of course the way the poetic work took form is of interest.
I say thanks for an accepted degree - even if I do not need it for practical work. An accepted degree will enhance my credibility and improve my relations with society - my status is otherwise alarmingly low and possibly even suited for a gradual fade-out. The 'viva' is published in 'Doktorgraden' (1998). For the second lecture needed for the degree one could use the chapter 'Christ as the arbitrary morphemic sign' - in my 'Time and the sonnet' (1999).
And what are you doing [here], John?
It is normal in communication with new people that this question quickly comes up. You meet somebody new and enter into a little dialogue and then the question is there quite immediately. My official status is so nothing that it is not permitted to come up with it - simply because the scandalously low status is to agree to the strategy of the society which rejects my work and grants priority to the abuse of it by terrorists and 'nazis'. I can only say, to present myself, that I live from a disability pension but write poetry which I think is good. Ah yes, where is it published? Er, it is not published yet but... Er, I have a master degree in linguistics and even worked for three years as a research fellow at a university to qualify for the doctorate degree, but unfortunately I failed... The public status tells that the poetry is not goodenough and the academic failed and therefore it is futile to protest against those who tap it and abuse it in 'simultaneous' terror for making that Mr.Evil Satan, the Beast of Terror. Which means that I cannot enter into a dialogue with new people without risking to support the enemies of my work and of the people and society generally - simply because the official status is not the truth and the work I do is much better and I would say important than the public status tells - and therefore to enter into dialogue on presentation format which reduces my work to the public status is not right.
So if I try to enter into a dialogue, it ends up with my conversation partner feeling subconcious sympathy with the terrorists because of what I have told - and that is against the law and not permitted by the society.
So it is Mr.Loneliman - waiting and waiting to be publically accepted. Otherwise, if I start taking up initiatives for contacting people, I risk being in support of the enemies of the society - and hence it is nearly a criminal act for me to try and get into contact with people. No wonder the conversation goes not well but soon butts against something and stops up rather quickly.
It seems to be standard that when somebody has written a book, it must be sent to peer review at a publisher. The myth tells that the reviewer is neutral and without any biases and never peeps to personal interests - which means that if it is rejected, that is because it is not goodenough. '...wish you all the best with your attempts at some other publisher'. The hopeful author can then try another, and some are so persistent that they never give up but get the book finally accepted at the 187th attempt. It took more than 20 years - but it was worth it, said the author.
Then one can start the work with the second manuscript.
But to start writing book 2 before book 1 is accepted is to go on red lights.
In my case, to wait for acceptance of book 1 before I started on book 2 was not possible. I did send my TEQ book 1 to some publishers but had to stop the game and continue without 'standardized accept'. It is, by the way, very doubtful whether this 'standardized accept' is anything but the reactionary inertia that prevents anything new from developing - like that research council who can never support a scientific project if they know not in advance what the final end result of the research will be.
So I had to continue working without public accept and have written a couple of dozen books or so (taking it to be 16 books in TEQ). To submit a book to peer review is today so totally impossible that it is out of the question for me - simply because a rejection is a blow to the whole story. I have to wait for the publisher to contact me.
But this also means that I am living in a constant state of waiting for a positive response from society to my important work. I do believe that I have brought the world forwards in a positive direction with my work and then it is critically important with some positive response. This is what I am waiting for.
It must be observed that there is an ocean of difference between political opinion and empirical fact - it is a difference which resembles the relation between politics-by-names and politics-by-matters.
Terror works on opinion but not on fact - people do not give up their belief that 2+2=4 even if the news on TV look bad. My work with PEB line 1 has shown what was the nature of Hitler's error (he mistook the redundancy in english language for biographical cueing of history) - and line 14 can take it much further. The paradox is all to easy: If somebody claims responsibility for a bombing, one should believe that they immediately lose all public sympathy. Then how can terror function politically? It is because it functions on opinion-by-names and not on facts-of-knowledge.
Of course the world will steer towards a state of peaceful harmony and not towards a tyranny by terror.
Why does it seem difficult to come out with the truth of the white stone and Euler's constant? Could be that is because if one did tell it, then many people who have much power today could come to lose that power and they wouldn't like it. But doesn't that mean that the power is not well justified if its foundations must be kept secret? Could be, could be.
- Downgrade the stone
- Allow for serious and non-secret academic studies of ex nihilo matter
- Consider me a normal person and not a beasst to be contained
© John Bjarne Grover
The story continues here
On the web 15 february 2018
Last updated 18 february 2018
© John Bjarne Grover