Re: RI October 2024

Ted Nolan wrote:

William Hyde wrote:

Lynn McGuire wrote:

William Hyde wrote:

>
<snip>
>

I'm still going to run with the George III thing as soon as I can find
a likely victim.

>
Seeing as George III was born in 1738 and George Washington was born in
1732, that did not happen.

>
So says fake history.

>
        "There is the leaky past, but it cannot leak out fast enough
        for safety," Barnaby had taken up his tale again. He always
        came as directly as possible to a point, but the point was
        often a tricky one. "The staggering corpus of past events,
        and of non-central or nonconsensus events, is diminished
        swiftly. More and more things that once happened are now
        made not to have happened. This is absolute necessity, I
        suppose, even though the flesh between the lines (it is, I
        guess, the supposedly expunged flesh) should scream from
        the agony of the compression.
>
        "Velikovsky was derided for writing that six hundred years
        must be subtracted from Egyptian history and from all ancient
        history. He shouldn't have been derided, but he did have
        it backwards. Indeed, six times six hundred years must be
        added to history again and again to approach the truth of
        the matter. It'd be dangerous to do it, though. It's crammed
        as tight as it will go now, and there's tremors all along
        the fault lines. As a matter of fact, several decades have
        been left out of quite recent United States history. They
        should be put back in for they're interesting, and we
        ourselves lived through parts of them--if it were safe to
        do so."
>
        "How about the count of the years and their present total?"
        Harry O'Donovan asked. "Are they right or are they not? Is
        this really the year that it says it is on that calendar
        on the wall? And, if it is, doesn't that make nonsense about
        leaving out recent decades?"
>
        "The count of the years is true, in that it is one aspect
        of the truth," Barnaby said a little bit fumblingly. "But
        there are other aspects. They call into question the whole
        nature of simultaneity."
>
        "What doesn't?" Harry O'Donovan said.
>
        "There are taboos in mathematics," Barnaby tried to explain.
        "The idea of the involuted number series is taboo, and yet
        we live in a time that is counted by such a series. And
        when time is fleshed, when it puts on History for its
        clothes, it follows even more the involuted series in which
        there are very, very many numbers between one and ten."
>
        "Just what do you have in mind, Barney?" Cris Benedetti asked him.
>
        "I have never discovered any historical event happening for
        the first time," Barnaby said. "Either life imitates anecdote,
        or very much more has happened than the bursting records
        are allowed to show as happening. As far back as one can
        track it, there is history: and I do not mean prehistory.
        I doubt if there was ever such a time as prehistory. I doubt
        that there was ever an uncivilized man. I also doubt that
        there was ever any manlike creature who was not full man,
        however unconventional the suit of hide that he wore.
>
        "But when you try to compress a hundred thousand years of
        history into six thousand years, something has to give.
        When you try to compress a million years, it becomes
        dangerous. An involuted number series, particularly when
        applied to the spate of years, becomes a tightly coiled
        spring of primordial spring-steel. When it recoils, look
        out! There comes the revenge of things left out.
>
        "Were there eight kings of the name of Henry in England,
        or were there eighty? Never mind: someday it will be recorded
        that there was only one, and the attributes of all of them
        will be combined into his compressed and consensus story.

>
Is George destined to become his own grandpa?
>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3CvRC4fAmk>
>
>
   I'm My Own Grandpa: A Canonical Analysis
>
   "I'm My Own Grandpa," for those few who may not know, was a
   signature song for country comedy artists (and Grand Ole
   Opry regulars) Lonzo & Oscar. It has also been recorded by
   others, including Grandpa Jones, and it makes a memorable
   appearance in the hilariously stupid movie, The Stupids
   (which is also remarkably clean, one of the few such comedy
   films).
>
   The premise of the song is that an unusual pair of marriages
   result in bizarre relational implications for the character
   in the song, such that he is now his own grandpa (as you
   might suppose from the title).
>
   The bizarre relationships that result from this pair of
   marriages are extensive, and now someone has now gone and
   done a hypertext version of the song that allows you to keep
   track of how all the relationships work, complete with diagrams.
>
   With this in mind (and linking the hypertext version), a
   reader writes:
>
   Would the following be considered licit...  from the [Catholic]
   Church's perspective? ...
>
   <https://jimmyakin.com/2006/09/im_my_own_grand.html>
>
>