Category Archives: INSIDE THE BOOK

Inside the book, Vermeer: Portraits of A Lifetime. Analysis of all the paintings of Johannes Vermeer. The book reveals for the first time that the women featured in the paintings of Johannes Vermeer were members of his own family, his daughters, his wife and mother-in-law, Maria Thins.

THE PURPOSE OF WAR

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

INVASION SAINTS“Old Empire” operatives act as an unseen influence on international bankers. The banks are operated covertly as a non-combatant provocateur to covertly promote and finance weapons and warfare between the nations of Earth. Warfare is an internal mechanism of control over the inmate population.  The purpose of the senseless genocide and carnage of wars financed by these international banks is to prevent the IS-BEs of Earth from sharing open communication, cooperate together in activities that might enable IS-BEs to prosper, become enlightened, and escape their imprisonment.”

ALIEN INTERVIEW AUDIOBOOK

SHERLOCK HOLMES – MY LIFE, Chapter Four

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

 

 

READ CHAPTER ONE

READ CHAPTER TWO

READ CHAPTER THREE

CLICK THE LULU BUTTON TO READ THE ENTIRE BOOK:

Support independent publishing: Buy this book on Lulu.

CHAPTER FOUR: A CHARMING CHESHIRE CHEESE

 

“Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?”, asked Mr. Dodgson.

“That depends a good deal on where you want to get to”, I replied.

“I don’t much care where…”,  said Mr. Dodgson.

‘Then it doesn’t matter which way you go”, said Watson.

“I have solved many obscure and nefarious cases in my career to date.  However, the singular complexity of the matter which stands before us now — these accusations and alternative explanations, present features of a most illogical and inexplicable nature”, I said, passing the butter dish across to Mr. Dodgson.

“Prey, do have some butter with your bread “, I suggested, “while I ring for our landlady, Mrs. Hudson, to bring up the main course of our meal”, I said, stepping across to pull upon the bell chord to alert our mistress that we were ready to be served.

Momentarily, Mrs. Hudson appeared at the door, huffing with exertion of having carried a large tray of dishes up the stairs. She set the tray upon the sideboard.

“Will there be anything else you require, gentlemen?”, she asked. “If not, then I will retire for the evening. I’ve had a long day of shopping and preparations and cooking and cleaning already. Just leave the dishes outside the door when you have finished, and I will fetch them in the morning”, she said bowing herself out the door.

“Please leave to door open, Mrs. Hudson, if you would be so kind”, I said as she started to close it behind her.

“That will not be necessary, Mr. Holmes”, said Dodgson.  “I feel quite reassured that I am safe with you”.

“Very well then. Good evening to you all then, gentlemen”, she said. She glanced back at me curiously and pushed the door closed, turned and trudged back down the stairs.

The meal was hearty, yet bland, as is the traditional fair for the citizens of London: boiled flesh of some unidentifiable creature, peeled and boiled potatoes with a few carrots, bread, butter, and a pot of tea.  Fortunately, I had taken the trouble to supply ourselves with two bottles of red table wine for the occasion, which enlivened the otherwise nondescript flavor of the food.

As we finished eating our meal, and placing the dishes outside the door, as instructed by Mrs. Hudson, I reviewed the peculiar features of our situation with my companions.

“For the sake of securing the status of my identity, and to respond the most singular accusations brought against us by Dr. Doyle, please let me summarize the possible resolutions to this anomaly. Several possible answers may be postulated, as follow:

1. That I am impersonating a fictional character created by Dr. Doyle in his works of fiction, notwithstanding the testimony of Constable Barrett, who one might argue, is himself a fictional character.  That being the case, all here present must also be fictional characters, including Dr. Dodgson.

2. That I am a real person, from whom Dr. Doyle, as the author of works of fiction, has copied my name, address, actions and characteristics as a source of inspiration for his stories.

3.  That I am a real person, and that the author is an imposter, or a fictional character.  Inasmuch as you visited the alleged gentleman yourself upon this very morning, one would assume that he, like ourselves, is not a fictional character.

4.  That Dr. Watson and I are both fictional characters, including all of our surroundings, environs, apartment, possessions, bodies, memories, expertise and identities: a hypothesis which seems to have been disproven thus far, unless further evidence presents itself to our attention.

5. That Mr. Dodgson and Dr. Doyle are real characters, including all of their surroundings, environs, apartments, possessions, bodies, memories, expertise and identities, and Dr. Watson and I are both impersonating fictional characters, as discussed.

6. An alternative solution may also be proffered: that each and all of what is supposed to be “real”, whether deemed fact or fiction by the observer, are equally illusions. Therefore, neither comprises a definition of reality or fantasy, accept by the subjective opinion of the observers, creators and / or characters”, I concluded.

I paused momentarily to fill my pipe, and allowed sufficient time for the gravity and details of my proposition to be absorbed by Dr. Watson and our guest.  Neither of them had anything further to offer in the argument at the moment. No doubt they were confounded by the apparent absurdity of my arguments. Nonetheless, taking silence as permission to continue, I resumed my deductive analysis.

“I have observed that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside”, gentlemen.

“I do not see what you are getting at, Holmes”, said Watson. Mr. Dodgson looked up with equal, but silent, agreement.

“On the contrary, Watson, you can see everything. You fail, however, to reason from what you see. You are too timid in drawing your inferences”, I said, taking a seat in my armchair, and inviting our guest to take a cigar from the box I offered.

“However, before we digress, let me allude to the discussion that Mr. Dodgson and I had when I visited him in is quarters.  He himself mentioned several methods of investigation which he has studied in the alchemical works of Sir Isaac Newton, and in his own mathematical application of portmanteau poetry to the development of mathematical thinking.

“Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing.  It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different”, I said while crossing over to the sideboard.

I picked up the manuscript that Mr. Dodgson had given me when I visited him entitled, Alice’s Golden Hour. While flipping through the pages to find a particular passage, I asked Mr. Dodgson a question about his work.

“Might I inquire as to the origin of one of the fictional characters whom Alice meets in Wonderland — The Cheshire Cat?”

“Frankly, I believe the idea came to me from an old expression I learned as a child”, replied Mr. Dodgson after momentarily pondering the question. “I believe it to be derived from a cheese which was sold in Cheshire, near my home. The cheese was molded in the shape of a cat. The cheese was cut from the tail end first, so that the last part eaten was the head of the smiling cat”.

“Very well”, I said. “Let us then observe that you have extracted something from the reality of your childhood, and with a liberal application of your creative imagination have used it to conjure an illusion…an alternative to reality, as it were. Is this not so, Mr. Dodgson?”

“Well, yes, I suppose. However, I fail to see what relevance my fictional tales have to our current situation. Certainly you do not suppose that I am to believe that reality can be conjured from a work of fiction?  The notion is absurd!”, he replied.

“I do not ask you, or anyone, to believe anything whatsoever. Belief is a matter of personal opinion or conviction which cannot be shared by anyone else, accept to the degree that they share a similar opinion.  Some  men believe that the world was created by an omnipotent, invisible being in seven days. People in some aboriginal tribes believe that the world is supported on the back of an enormous elephant which stands upon the shell of a colossal tortoise”, I said, finally arriving at the pages I was looking for in the manuscript.

“As for myself, I believe that what is true for you is true for you, although no other person may agree upon your belief. Regardless, a truth for you, may not be true for others. Is that not a fundamentally sound assumption?”, I asked.

“I suppose you are right Mr. Holmes. It is difficult, if not impossible, to stay apace of your ability to remain logical in the face of a situation which is so absurdly enigmatic. You are proposing that the philosophical paradigm of reality should be considered of equal importance with fiction. How can you ever solve a criminal case, your occupation, if every piece of hard evidence could be a contrivance of imagination on the part of the investigator or of the criminal?”, said Mr. Dodgson.

“Quite the contrary”, I said. “But rather than keeping to my methods alone, let me ask you what meaning you attribute to the following passage in your book”, I said, turning to the page which described in the encounter between Alice and the Cheshire Cat.

“Let me read your own words to you.”

“…she was a little startled by seeing the Cheshire Cat sitting on a bough of a tree a few yards off.

The Cat only grinned when it saw Alice. It looked good-natured, she

thought: still it had VERY long claws and a great many teeth, so she

felt that it ought to be treated with respect.

‘Cheshire Puss,’ she began, rather timidly, as she did not at all know

whether it would like the name: however, it only grinned a little wider.

‘Come, it’s pleased so far,’ thought Alice, and she went on. ‘Would you

tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?’

‘That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,’ said the Cat.

‘I don’t much care where–‘ said Alice.

‘Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,’ said the Cat.

‘–so long as I get SOMEWHERE,’ Alice added as an explanation.

‘Oh, you’re sure to do that,’ said the Cat, ‘if you only walk long

enough.’

Alice felt that this could not be denied, so she tried another question.

‘What sort of people live about here?’

‘In THAT direction,’ the Cat said, waving its right paw round, ‘lives

a Hatter: and in THAT direction,’ waving the other paw, ‘lives a March

Hare. Visit either you like: they’re both mad.’

‘But I don’t want to go among mad people,’ Alice remarked.

‘Oh, you can’t help that,’ said the Cat: ‘we’re all mad here. I’m mad.

You’re mad.’

‘How do you know I’m mad?’ said Alice.

‘You must be,’ said the Cat, ‘or you wouldn’t have come here.’

Alice didn’t think that proved it at all; however, she went on, ‘And how

do you know that you’re mad?'”

“So, Mr. Dodgson, let me pose the same question to you that young Alice asked of the chimerical cat in your own story: how do you know whether you are mad or not mad? How would you satisfy yourself that I am not mad? How do we know that everyone is mad or not mad?”, I said, rising from my chair to place the manuscript upon the sideboard.

I refilled my pipe once again, in anticipation of the protracted debate that was sure to follow on the heels of these profoundly absurd, yet existential queries and arguments.

Mr. Dodgson did not seem the least bit nonplused by my insinuation  regarding his sanity, or the sanity of all. Rather, he thanked us very cordially for our hospitality, rose from his chair and reached the door to exit the apartment. As he reached the door he turned back to me.

“Mr. Holmes, I will leave the resolution of this mystery entirely in your very capable hands. If anyone were able to solve the questions you pose to me, I assure you that I am not that man. Neither are any of the mentors whom I have studied, including Sir Isaac himself. I trust that you will be kind enough to inform me of your eventual success, if such is possible. Good day to you, gentlemen”.

With that, he departed, clomped down the stairs. Through the window we saw him walk briskly away through a light drizzle of rain in the direction of the train station.

“What do you make of it Holmes?”, asked Watson, who seemed to have been disquieted by our visitor. “I must admit that our meeting with this  gentleman is the most perplexing I have ever had,” he said, resuming his seat in front of the fire.

“Yes. Most perplexing, indeed”, I agreed, taking my own seat and refilling my pipe. “Most perplexing.”

“What do you know of this Dr. Doyle?”, I asked Watson after an interlude of silent contemplation.

“Well, I can’t say that I know anything about the man”, he said. “Have you not heard anything of him?”

“No.  I have not.  However, our friend, Mr. Dodgson seems to know quite a good deal about the fellow. So much so, that he was entirely certain that it is I that perform the part of an imposter in an imaginary play invented by this man!”, I observed.

“Well, my dear fellow, in my professional opinion as a doctor, I am certain that this gentleman is suffering from the residual effects of some narcotic. His own fantastical story, from which you read to us this evening, seems very peculiar indeed!”, said Watson. “And, his behavior is quite inappropriate for a professor of mathematics at Oxford, certainly. Perhaps the allegations suggested in the newspaper, that the man is a pedophile, or a kidnapper, should be investigated more thoroughly”, he suggested.

“Perhaps”, I said. “Let us sleep upon the matter for the moment. In this instance, however, the best way of successfully acting a part is to be it”, I conjectured. ”

___________________________________

Copyright © 2011 by Lawrence R. Spencer. All Rights Reserved.

 

EVERYTHING LOGIC

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

A–“WHICH IS THE WAY BACK TO KANSAS?”

“I’d give anything to get out of Oz altogether, but which is the way back to Kansas? I can’t go the way I came.”–Dorothy

“The only person who might know would be the great and wonderful Wizard of Oz himself. He lives in the Emerald City and that’s a long journey from here. Did you bring your broomstick with you?”–Glinda, the Good Witch of the North

“No, I’m afraid I didn’t.”–Dorothy

“Well then, you’ll have to walk. It’s always best to start at the beginning and all you do is follow the Yellow Brick Road.”–Glinda in ‘The Wizard of Oz’

One of the primordial questions Dorothy was trying to answer in ‘The Wizard of Oz’ was, “which is the way back to Kansas?”

Trying to figure out the answers to the mysteries of life here on planet Earth is even harder than Dorothy trying to get back to Kansas–none of us have a broomstick to ride, we don’t have a good witch to ask for directions and there is no Yellow Brick Road to follow.  So, we’re stuck here having to figure it out for ourselves, logically, using the information we have in our environment.

To begin at the beginning, the Land of Oz is a type of Universe. According to Webster’s Dictionary, a universe is defined as: “an area, province or sphere, as of thought or activity, regarded as a distinct, comprehensive system or world.”

The physical reality we all share on Earth and everything throughout the surrounding space is called the Physical Universe (PU).

On the other side of reality is your own imagination, your personal perceptions, viewpoints, dreams, hopes, desires, and creations, which comprise Your Own Universe (YOU).

The Land of Oz can be considered to be a Universe dreamed up by Dorothy, as conceived in the mind of L Frank Baum, the author of the book. (It has been speculated that the author created the “Land of Oz” after glancing at his file cabinet. The two file drawers were labeled “A-N” and “O-Z”. Dorothy could just as easily have been transported by the author’s pen into the imaginary “Land of AN”.)

In the movie version of the story, Dorothy creates the Land of  Oz in a dream, induced by a knock on the head, using remnants of Kansas in the physical universe mixed together with creations from her own universe–which, for Dorothy, existed over the rainbow in the Land of Oz.

Every Universe seems to be made up of its own, peculiar set of Laws. The PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, for example, is built on a set of agreed upon Laws.  A few examples of these Laws are:

The Law of Motion: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

The Food Chain Law: “In order for one life organism to live, another life organism must die.”

The Law of Gravity: “Whatever goes up, must come down.”

The Law of Time: “Time marches on.”

Most of us take the Laws of the Physical Universe for granted because everyone seems to agree with them. However, such laws leave a lot to be desired when compared to the Laws of a Universe we might create for ourselves!

In YOUR OWN UNIVERSE you can create any set of Laws, or have no Laws at all. You can make them, change them or break them. The Laws of YOUR OWN UNIVERSE can be anything or nothing, limited only by your imagination.

In YOUR OWN UNIVERSE, everything you wish comes true, because you are the “wizard” of YOUR OWN UNIVERSE!

In Dorothy’s universe, Scarecrows and trees can talk; witches can be beautiful and fly in magic bubbles; Munchkin girls join the “Lullaby League” and Munchkin boys have a “Lollipop Guild”; horses can change their color; and, Dorothy can dye her eyes to match her gown.

Dorothy’s first awareness of the particular universe she calls the Land of Oz is the realization that she is definitely NOT in Kansas. When she opens the door to her farmhouse, which has just crash-landed in Oz, Dorothy compares her past experience in Kansas with her present experience in Munchkinland. The Technicolor flowers, a good witch in a flying bubble, all the little brightly dressed people, a yellow brick road, etc, are definitely NOT similar to anything she has ever seen in Kansas.

The Land of Oz is an example of what Earth scientists would call an anomaly. For Dorothy, the anomaly is a departure from the usual arrangement of things as compared to her past experiences. In the universe of Oz, everything is so completely different from the universe Dorothy is familiar with in Kansas that she thinks she is lost.

How do you find the way back home when you are lost?

One way is to ask someone for directions. Of course, if you’ve ever been sent on a wild goose chase by a stranger, the experience taught you that it is a good idea to be somewhat selective as to whom you ask for directions. So, how do you know who is a reliable source of directions or information?

Perhaps it would be a good idea to find out something about the person from whom you are asking directions before you act upon what they tell you. Right? (Or, is it left?)

In our example, should Dorothy be asking for directions back to Kansas from the local natives, the Munchkins?

The main reason one would ask a local resident for directions is that one makes the assumption, otherwise known as an hypothesis (which is the first step in creating any scientific theory), that someone who lives in the area will be a reliable source of information and will give correct directions.

Well, in Dorothy’s case, the Munchkins have lots of familiarity with the Land of Oz, but they have no familiarity with Kansas. Fortunately for Dorothy, they are honest enough to tell her that they don’t have a clue where Kansas is, and they pass the buck to the Wizard of Oz, who they believe knows everything. And, based on their familiarity with the Yellow Brick Road and Munchkinland, they are certain that it leads to where the Great Oz lives.

Most would agree that a certainty is better than an assumption. When one has no familiarity based on personal experience or observation, it is best not to assume that one knows the correct directions. So, one asks for information from someone one believe knows–like a scientist, for example–who is supposed to be familiar with the area or subject in question.

Do the local Munchkins or local scientists of Oz give Dorothy the correct directions to help her get back to Kansas?

When Dorothy crash-landed her house in Munchkin City, the Munchkins cowered under the bushes and flowers in terror of retribution for the death of the Wicked Witch of the East from her mean, nasty, ugly sister, the Wicked Witch of the West.

Their benevolent, all-powerful protector, Glinda, the Good Witch of the North, who the Munchkins trust implicitly, is not much help in solving Dorothy’s problem, either. To begin with, Glinda does not have all the information regarding the situation, because she was not even there when Dorothy crashed her house into Munchkin City and inadvertently killed a wicked witch.

Undaunted by her lack of factual information, the first thing Glinda does after coaxing the Munchkins out from their hiding places, is to sing them a song about her assumption, or hypothesis, regarding Dorothy’s crash-landing. She sings: “Come out, come out, wherever you are, and meet the young lady who fell from a star. She fell from the sky, she fell very far, and ‘Kansas’ she says, is the name of the star.”

So, where did Glinda get the idea that Dorothy came from a star? Dorothy never said that she came from a star! But, somehow this all seems very logical to the Munchkins. Even Dorothy doesn’t object to Glinda’s false statement!

In our analogy, Glinda’s assumption that Dorothy fell from a star could be called a scientific theory. The theory proposed by the Good Witch of the North is that Kansas is a star! This theory is based on an assumption derived from an apparent anomaly as measured against her own personal experience and by information received from the Munchkins who are supposed to be a reliable source, but, who did not actually see the house crash because they were all in hiding. In truth, none of them have any familiarity with Kansas or cyclones or farm houses or dogs or little girls, either!

To complicate matters further, Glinda has to put on the appearance that she knows what she’s talking about in front of all her Munchkins followers, even though she is really just making a wild guess. After all, she has a very good job being the protector of the Munchkins, who appear to be utterly defenseless against their enemies, the Wicked Witch sisters. Anyway, Glinda is a good witch, which means she is probably really trying to help, so, they all believe her scientific theory that Dorothy has fallen from a star.

In their cute little minds, the Munchkins have accepted, without question, the logic, which underlies the assumption that is the basis of Glinda’s scientific theory:

SKY equals VERY FAR equals STAR equals KANSAS.

This kind of reasoning process could be called “Everything Logic”; i.e., Everything Equals Everything. This sort of logic might also be the definition of stupidity.

Example: If KANSAS equaled SKY equaled STAR, one could theoretically gaze up into the heavenly firmament to watch Kansas cattle grazing on the twinkling prairies in the stars above.

Unfortunately, much of what we call “science” on planet Earth is based on “Everything Logic”.”

— Excerpted from THE OZ FACTORS, by Lawrence R. Spencer

 

WORLD AS MYTH

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

World As Myth

The Number of The Beast, by Robert Heinlein is a series of diary entries by each of the four main characters who describe their travels through time and parallel universes to The Land of Oz, and to Barsoom, the fictional planet (Mars) created by Edgar Rice Burroughs.  In the novel, the Biblical number of the beast turns out to be, not 666, but (6^6)^6, or 10,314,424,798,490,535,546,171,949,056, which is the initial number of parallel universes accessible through the continua device. It is later theorized by the character Jacob that the number may be merely the instantly accessible universes from a given location, and there is a larger structure that implies an infinite number of universes.  As in many of his later works, Heinlein refers to the idea of solipsism, but in this book develops it into an idea he called “World as Myth” —the idea that universes are created by the act of imagining them, so that all fictional worlds are in fact real.

Sherlock Holmes: My Life, by Lawrence R. Spencer is based on the same concept.  In my book, Sherlock Holmes is a REAL person, who lived and breathed.  The stories of his real-life detective investigations were published, without his knowledge or permission, in a conspiracy to defraud and deface the greatest detective who ever lived!  With the very able assistance of his brother, Mycroft Holmes — the most powerful man in the British government — a conspiracy between Dr. Watson, the authors of Peter Pan, and Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, and powerful financial interests, is discovered and foiled!

I wrote the book long before I read The Number of The Beast.  However, I am pleased to discover the “great minds” a like-minded!  Why can’t there be a nearly infinite number of parallel universes?  If one can imagine a universe, you have created it.  It exists, at least for you, subjectively.  Is it possible that Sherlock Holmes and Robert Heinlein could be enjoying an adventure together right in this moment, in a parallel universe of their own design?  Now, THAT would be a really interesting universe!

Another book, The Big Bleep: The Mystery of A Different Universe, by Lawrence R. Spencer explores a similar theme.  It is a universe concocted from the universes of hardboiled “film noir” crime novel by Raymond Chandler, a convention of plants who decide to collectively “hold their breath” to prevent new oxygen from being created in order kill off all the evil humans on Earth, and a conglomeration of pulp comic Superheroes, fighting to help the “heroes” of the story Peter, The Potted Plant (a stand-up comic) and a “Public Dick” named Sam Shovel, owner of the Unexistential Detective Agency of America, to solve the mystery of the murder of Carmel Underwood and rescue humankind from extinction!  Simply stated, The Big Bleep is sort of like a Pulp Fiction version of Columbo riding a Harley-Davidson motorcycle through the movies The Maltese Falcon, Alice In Wonderland and The Wizard of Oz, with a Elvis and bunch of comic book super heroes bouncing back and forth between an X-Rated Universal Studios Botanical Garden Theme Park and a convoluted Las Vegas strip mall in a 5th Dimensional time warp!

The idea that universes are created by the act of imagining them is not new. Every history book in every library on Earth is a fictional universe filled with imagined events created by the conquerors of vanquished nations and extinct species in an imaginary time-line of undocumented fantasy!

DOUBLETHINK

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

DOUBLETHINK — “To know and to not know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy is impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy. To forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself.”

~ George Orwell, from the book 1984