I watched an episode of Modern Family on television last night. It was a repeat of the Thanksgiving show. The main theme was about dreamers versus Pritchetts (the family name, all who have characteristic traits as dream squashers). Here’s part of the script:
Cameron (Cam): “There are dreamers and there are realists in this world. You’d think the dreamers would find the dreamers and the realists would find the realists but… more often than not, the opposite is true. You see the dreamers need the realists to keep them from soaring too close to the sun. And the realists… well, without the dreamers, they might not ever get off the ground.”
Camwas moved to give this analogy because he had told a true story (yet a boring one) that the non-dreamers had all heard before (several times obviously). Some had written the story off as having been made up, too impossible to believe (Maybe a little embellishment? No?). Cam said his story was true; and, in the end, everyone went out to prove it true.
Ah, the perfect world of TV sitcoms.
Alas, they did not write that script because they knew I was dreaming of telling the whole world the true (yet boring) story of Nostradamus and The Prophecies. Hey everybody, let’s go down to the football field and see how I am not making all this up! It really is something you can see for yourself, even if it does take a few missed attempts before we sail that proverbial pumpkin over 120 yards in the air. If the disbelievers see just how possible it is, and they lend a hand, then we can all see the truth!
Oh yeah, I remember now. I am a cast member of a real modern family of disbelieving human beings, and not a figment of some Hollywood scriptwriter’s imagination. Sorry. I got carried away.
Anyway, the part of that episode that comes to mind now, and the reason I write today, was when Ed O’Neil’s father character, Jay, told his stepson, Manny, the Thanksgiving centerpiece Manny made was, “not your best work. It’s a swing and a miss.” Sofia Vergara’s character, Gloria (Manny’s mother), had told Manny his work was “great,” building up his confidence to try anything, rather than tell him the truth and potentially have him never try anything again. The realist, Jay, felt it was an important life lesson required to set Manny straight, so he “would know what he’s good at, and what he’s not good at.” With that help, Manny could then focus on utilizing his assets and not his liabilities.
In short, Jay was not trying to destroy Manny’s dreams. He was trying to teach him how to avoid potential embarrassments in planning future dreams. While we all learn from our mistakes, the fewer mistakes life teaches us the happier life will be.
That part stuck with me after watching it because I recently acted like Jay. I told someone whom I did not know, someone who had a dream of solving Nostradamus, that he was wrong. He had a theory about anagrams with special made-up rules. His theory was a swing and a miss. It is not his best work.
I told him so in an email, one he received out of the blue. I did not tell him that out of malice. I was simply trying to help him see how embarrassing his opinion was. It was embarrassing because he was not taking a logical (a realist) approach to his dream. I explained how the logic made it easy for disbelievers to keep on disbelieving. Using logic can actually make disbelievers see reason to believe.
The man turned out to be from Quebec,Canada. From the tone of his response, I can presume that means he believes Quebec is a colony of France, and not in any way under the jurisdiction of the British Crown’s colony of Canada. I imagine his attitude reflected the hatred between the French and English, showing it to be still alive and thriving in Quebec. Perhaps that hatred is best demonstrated by all the people in Quebec speaking French when English speaking tourist come to town. I have experienced a similar French attitude towards others not speaking French before. It seems to be an inside joke for Frenchies to pretend they do not know English, until one who speaks English attempts to speak French first. It seems to anger the French to be expected to be bilingual, in particular when English is the second language in use.
Sarcasm can be how some French-speaking natives belittle people who do not speak French. They can call them names in French, then laugh, knowing the person they just offended does not know they were just offended. It represents the best of both worlds to them, because they feel a sense of victory from conflict, and yet they do not get their French asses kicked in return. Sadly, that has historically happened to France when it has tried making direct confrontations, dating back to the 1600s. Losing in direct confrontation to Great Britainis why Quebec is a part of British Canada today.
That attitude is reminiscent of the scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where the French, from the safety of their high castle walls, shout insults down at King Arthur and his sidekick, Sir Robin.
French sentry: “I fart in your general direction. Your father smelt of elderberries and you mother wears army boots.”
That aside, I sent an email to this man explaining the logic of his premise was obviously missing. His reply was arrogant and led to him stating, (paraphrasing) “because I had not sent him an email in French, thereby displaying my level of fluency in French for him to assess, that meant that I was incapable of telling him anything about the meaning of Nostradamus.” You see, Nostradamus was French, and he wrote in French words (mostly).
I almost replied that logic says, “If the French have not convinced the world why to believe their conclusions about what Nostradamus meant, having now over 456 years of past history as proof of that failure, then being fluent in French cannot be considered even remotely as the foremost qualification to assess.” Since I did not know the man, I just let him feel he had won the argument. His future embarrassment will be his to earn and feel special about. Your work is “great.”
In the final analysis, he did have a point, relative to his talent being his French fluency. That is a talent several million French-speaking Quebecians also possess. That talent can help those who do not speak French. For those who can speak the language of prophecy (i.e. Nostradamus), but who may not be fluent in the French language, a French teacher can assist them, playing a valuable role. However, a fluency in French only goes as far as correcting those who may be led down rabbit holes, chasing after mistranslations.
We all have special talents. All talents can be utilized best through working together, as a team. Working against one another keeps progress stalled. An idea about anagrams may be good to consider, if it follows standard rules of solving anagrams (not special rules). An idea about The Prophecies being written in a special language, one in the tongue of God (not restricted to French syntax), can still find more meaning through fluency in the language by which God chose to have a prophet write. I know that if I was fluent in French I could have saved many hours of looking words up in a French-English dictionary. However, I know that my not being fluent in French allowed me to see the expanded meaning of individual words, where one fluent in French might have been misled to misinterpret in a linear manner.
To believe speaking one’s native language is the do-all for solving Nostradamus is as if a paint store owner should think he is the only one capable of producing art through painting. The reality is that without someone having a paint store, from which to obtain paint, and without having those who can use paint as a medium for freely expressing deeper meaning of life, and without having those who have the ability to admire and understand the the work of painters, the only works of art in the world would be cave paintings. In that case, cavemen would simply have used leftover foods on fingers, of different colors, as paint. The only meaning would be found in how they took delight in wiping their fingers clean on the closest wall.
The man I emailed and told his best work was not placed on a website for all to see reacted as would a grown up Manny, having only heard his work was “great,” by friends and family trying to build up his confidence all his life. One would think all his work, trying to solve Nostradamus, was motivated from some heartfelt desire to have all know the truth. However, his reaction was typical of someone hell-bent on propelling ego, making truth nothing more than an occasional, meaningless byproduct.
If anyone sees where I have erred in my public work on Nostradamus and The Prophecies, then tell me … please. I have nothing to gain by having people believe what I say, without those people having tried and tested what I say first. I do not seek people who idolize me for my accomplishments. I seek people to help me try to save as many souls as possible … if not save the whole world from idiotic, egotistical demise.
I say that Nostradamus was divinely inspired to write a book name The Prophecies. Nostradamus said that; and I have tested that to the point of belief. I welcome those to challenge the logic I have used in my testing.
I say there are systems of rules that must be accepted, in order to understand the language of The Prophecies. Nostradamus says that, directly and indirectly, in his letters of explanation. I have tested the meaning of those letters to the point of belief. I welcome those who can logically show how the words written by Nostradamus do not explain those rules.
I say that The Prophecies tells a story, with nothing random. That means the quatrains are a puzzle in need of being rearranged into the story explained in Nostradamus’ letter to Henry II. The letter to Henry II explains that by itself being a puzzle, needing to be dissected into pieces that must be placed in the right order, to read them intelligently as a story matching the story of the quatrains. I have tested that and found that matching story, well enough to find belief. I welcome those who can logically tell me what the letter to Henry II says, and where an explanation of randomness is found.
I say Nostradamus was a prophet of Jesus Christ, who wrote The Prophecies for our modern benefit. The proof of that comes from what was written in 1555, but which has since come true infallibly, as our past. I have tested that to the point of belief. I welcome those to logically challenge my interpretations of well over 200 quatrains, which have either completely come true as history confirms, or have partially come true with the future parts predicted by common news reports, in no way related to Nostradamus as the source.
Now, all I want is a show of hands. Who here thinks I made it all up? Who believes I have something worthwhile to teach others? Who believes there is no way to test what I have tested and come up with the same conclusion? Who is up to saving souls, one’s own and others?
Why don’t we go down to the football field and try to fling this theory through the goal post?
Comments