|
Here is a note linked to 'After Word on Reality' near the end of the book
As you will find modern students of magic, you will find modern students of reality. It has always been the case that certain individuals have noticed anomalies in ordinary reality. It has also always been the case that certain individuals have experienced shifts of reality, mostly inadvertent, and sometimes into disturbingly different versions of our world, or even entirely different worlds. Obviously we only know of those who’ve returned to tell the tale. The tale has usually been dismissed as a fairy story, or alien abduction, or religious mania (note the experience of a wide variety of prophets) though there are others. Equally obviously I am unable to comment on these tales, not least because most of the evidence is to be found in some other reality. You may notice from the video clip that I am not impressed by our egos' need for the certainty of external reality. On the other hand, if the Royal Society had not turned its back on Alchemy, preferring the single pointed reality of the "Scientific Method," where would we be today? - a delightfully uncertain question. |
|
Aside from such unexpected ‘accidents,’ there are those who actively seek to change reality or shift between realities; amongst these we can number magicians and alchemists as well as many others. So what are the possible definitions of Reality?
Actually there is only one truth; reality is as fixed as we believe it to be. Sometimes this belief is in flat and incontrovertible contradiction of known facts, and by sufficient mass recognition of these contradictions a reality may be broken or at least shifted.
Let me give you a couple of modern examples:
Einstein proved, and it has been demonstrated by experiment, nothing travels faster than light, yet it has also been proved, by experiment, that certain sub-atomic particles do travel faster than light.
An easier example: certain individuals’ behaviour is well known, it is equally well known this behaviour is defined as criminal under the general law; yet, because these individuals are main-board directors of multi-national companies, or senior members of government or other public servants, it is known they have done no wrong. This has become painfully common in recent years, although occasionally belief slips and some individuals are called to pay a price; seldom under the criminal code they breached.
In the second example the contradiction is usually eased by some re-balancing of perception so that which was always plain and obvious becomes a matter of ‘difficult’ interpretation.
I give you the second example because it is one of the clues to the falsification of reality in 1483.
Shall we look at a few of the reality contradictions surrounding the Princes in the Tower?
First of the speed of light type:
How could the bodies of two boys be buried unnoticed ten feet below the floor of a building which formed the entrance to the White Tower of the Tower of London?
How could the flight of stone stairs above this grave be completely undisturbed?
And yet, how could the floor under these stairs have been disturbed?
Of the perceptual type, when these bodies were discovered and since:
Why were none of these questions asked by those responsible for the building works which brought the bodies to light? Or by those who investigated the bodies? Or by King Charles II himself, or even Sir Christopher Wren who designed an urn for them?
When Sir Thomas More wrote the Princes were buried“mete deep” under the stairs but were later removed, how is it after the discovery, anyone believed the bodies could be the Princes?
Taking up another aspect:
How was the disappearance of the Princes not reported on the day, indeed at the moment, they were found not to be where they were expected to be?
Unless the Princes were impossibly buried where Sir Thomas More said they had been but were no longer buried, where did their bodies go?
If they were not killed at all but walked out of the Tower, again where did they go and by what coercion and by whom were they made to do it?
In all this, we are talking about two of the most famous people of their day in one of the most secure and well watched fortress complexes of any day.
There are wider questions:
Why would Richard III allow himself to be labelled a child murderer when the children in question had been declared no threat to his kingship by the unanimous proclamation of Church, Parliament and people of both London and England?
How could (as some have suggested) Buckingham be responsible when he gave his life in a desperate rebellion against his closest friend because he believed that friend guilty of murder?
The only people with anything to gain were Morton, Margaret Beaufort and Henry Tudor. Tudor was in Brittany, Morton in prison and Margaret Beaufort had only limited access to the Tower. Yes, of course they could act through agents but, if so, how?
It is understandable Richard III did not publicise Edward IV’s bastardy, he wanted to spare his mother’s shame, but there were enough others who knew. Why did the nobility treat the Princes as legitimate when they at least should have known they weren’t, and why did they turn to Tudor who they knew to have no claim at all?
The very widest question of all; why, after approximately five and a quarter centuries, do the questions here posed remain unanswered?
After chapter 40 of The Necromancer you might think I neatly solved the puzzle and dealt with the consequences in Thomas’ brave new world. I’m still reluctant to unbalance that reality in any way but there is a serious problem posed by these questions for the reality in which you and I still find ourselves. For the answer to that you’ll have to read the After Word on Truth - A Prayer to Ma'at.
Actually there is only one truth; reality is as fixed as we believe it to be. Sometimes this belief is in flat and incontrovertible contradiction of known facts, and by sufficient mass recognition of these contradictions a reality may be broken or at least shifted.
Let me give you a couple of modern examples:
Einstein proved, and it has been demonstrated by experiment, nothing travels faster than light, yet it has also been proved, by experiment, that certain sub-atomic particles do travel faster than light.
An easier example: certain individuals’ behaviour is well known, it is equally well known this behaviour is defined as criminal under the general law; yet, because these individuals are main-board directors of multi-national companies, or senior members of government or other public servants, it is known they have done no wrong. This has become painfully common in recent years, although occasionally belief slips and some individuals are called to pay a price; seldom under the criminal code they breached.
In the second example the contradiction is usually eased by some re-balancing of perception so that which was always plain and obvious becomes a matter of ‘difficult’ interpretation.
I give you the second example because it is one of the clues to the falsification of reality in 1483.
Shall we look at a few of the reality contradictions surrounding the Princes in the Tower?
First of the speed of light type:
How could the bodies of two boys be buried unnoticed ten feet below the floor of a building which formed the entrance to the White Tower of the Tower of London?
How could the flight of stone stairs above this grave be completely undisturbed?
And yet, how could the floor under these stairs have been disturbed?
Of the perceptual type, when these bodies were discovered and since:
Why were none of these questions asked by those responsible for the building works which brought the bodies to light? Or by those who investigated the bodies? Or by King Charles II himself, or even Sir Christopher Wren who designed an urn for them?
When Sir Thomas More wrote the Princes were buried“mete deep” under the stairs but were later removed, how is it after the discovery, anyone believed the bodies could be the Princes?
Taking up another aspect:
How was the disappearance of the Princes not reported on the day, indeed at the moment, they were found not to be where they were expected to be?
Unless the Princes were impossibly buried where Sir Thomas More said they had been but were no longer buried, where did their bodies go?
If they were not killed at all but walked out of the Tower, again where did they go and by what coercion and by whom were they made to do it?
In all this, we are talking about two of the most famous people of their day in one of the most secure and well watched fortress complexes of any day.
There are wider questions:
Why would Richard III allow himself to be labelled a child murderer when the children in question had been declared no threat to his kingship by the unanimous proclamation of Church, Parliament and people of both London and England?
How could (as some have suggested) Buckingham be responsible when he gave his life in a desperate rebellion against his closest friend because he believed that friend guilty of murder?
The only people with anything to gain were Morton, Margaret Beaufort and Henry Tudor. Tudor was in Brittany, Morton in prison and Margaret Beaufort had only limited access to the Tower. Yes, of course they could act through agents but, if so, how?
It is understandable Richard III did not publicise Edward IV’s bastardy, he wanted to spare his mother’s shame, but there were enough others who knew. Why did the nobility treat the Princes as legitimate when they at least should have known they weren’t, and why did they turn to Tudor who they knew to have no claim at all?
The very widest question of all; why, after approximately five and a quarter centuries, do the questions here posed remain unanswered?
After chapter 40 of The Necromancer you might think I neatly solved the puzzle and dealt with the consequences in Thomas’ brave new world. I’m still reluctant to unbalance that reality in any way but there is a serious problem posed by these questions for the reality in which you and I still find ourselves. For the answer to that you’ll have to read the After Word on Truth - A Prayer to Ma'at.