In most cases, fluency in a language is required for optimum understanding of meaning. This
applies to all subjects within that language. For instance, a textbook on quantum physics
would leave most people fluent in a language scratching their heads if they were not fluent in
at least the basic elements of physics, with some degree of knowledge in quantum physics.
This means that more than simply knowing the syntax of a language, one has to know also the
subject matter that one is reading or conversing about.
When one is reading Nostradamus and trying to find meaning, the majority of experts in this
area have sought to make The Prophecies an elevated subject matter of his Almanacs,
Presages, and Predictions. They follow a line of thought that if they know how to read these
publications, then they will know how to read The Prophecies. If they were trying to
understand quantum physics, then this approach would be correct. One best learns the
advanced levels of a subject by first learning the basics. However, they are trying to learn
apples from studying pears; and that is why no one has figured out the true meaning of The
Prophecies.
This can be summed up simply as this: One does not become fluent in prophecy by studying
predictions. There is a difference in source, between those two subjects; and there is a
preponderance of evidence that claims divine inspiration, rather than human calculation, is
the source of The Prophecies. Nostradamus repeatedly stated this evidence in his letters of
explanation; and this makes understanding those two confusing letters the most basic
requirement, well before anyone sets a course for attempting to make sense of the individual
quatrains.
One error that has repeatedly been made, by those who have tried to solve the meaning of
the letters through knowledge of the previous use of poetic puzzlers, is to read (or translate)
the words written as the common application of syntax directs. This makes a common
translation make the claim that Nostradamus stated in his preface that The Prophecies were
written, "in plain prose". This claim is said to come from Nostradamus writing the Latin
phrase, "in solute oratione", which has routinely been translated (in all classical texts in Latin)
as an idiom meaning, "in plain prose".
First, in reference to this argument, reading idioms, as a natural response to syntactical
language learning, is how nothing written about The Prophecies makes sense. That is a tried
and true, inside the box form of thinking, which for over 450 years has scoured every corner of
that box, with no understanding of Nostradamus yet found. Still, when one accepts that in
solute oratione is indeed a common idiom stating, "in plain prose", one has to ask, "Where
did Nostradamus show confirmation for this translation?"
The answer would be, Nostradamus demonstrated writing that was understandable, as in
plain prose, when he wrote the other publications. In the context that surrounds the point
where Nostradamus wrote, "in solute oratione", he made reference to "my other prophecies",
which would be the other predictions he publicized; but that context is developing a
comparison to The Prophecies, with in solute oratione actually being designed to be a
statement of both the others and The Prophecies. However, to make a claim that The
Prophecies was written in plain prose is an untrue statement. There is nothing about The
Prophecies written plainly, in a common manner of speech.
Once again, one has two options at this point of contention. The first option is to see
Nostradamus as a liar, based on the evidence that says there is nothing about The
Prophecies that makes sense, because nothing is written in plain prose. This option leads to
the logical decision to give up trying to find meaning, where nothing can be believed.
However, there is a second option, which requires seeing the same words without the syntax
applied. This means examining in solute oratione as possibly meaning something other than
"in plain prose".
The only way to do this is to revert to a literal translation, based on the meaning of those three
Latin words, which can then be cherry-picked to form other phrases. This means that when
one becomes non-fluent in Latin, and when one is not aware of the common Latin idiom that
leads one instantly to think, in plain prose, one is free to come up with phrases that means: in
free style (of language); on explanation speaking; and/or among unrestricted speech. This is
precisely what the style of writing is in The Prophecies, which means to make sense of
everything, one has to stop being so restricted by syntax.
Now, this is a breakthrough of thought; but it means nothing if Nostradamus did not confirm
this claim of meaning. He did just this; and that will be the direction of the next talk.
applies to all subjects within that language. For instance, a textbook on quantum physics
would leave most people fluent in a language scratching their heads if they were not fluent in
at least the basic elements of physics, with some degree of knowledge in quantum physics.
This means that more than simply knowing the syntax of a language, one has to know also the
subject matter that one is reading or conversing about.
When one is reading Nostradamus and trying to find meaning, the majority of experts in this
area have sought to make The Prophecies an elevated subject matter of his Almanacs,
Presages, and Predictions. They follow a line of thought that if they know how to read these
publications, then they will know how to read The Prophecies. If they were trying to
understand quantum physics, then this approach would be correct. One best learns the
advanced levels of a subject by first learning the basics. However, they are trying to learn
apples from studying pears; and that is why no one has figured out the true meaning of The
Prophecies.
This can be summed up simply as this: One does not become fluent in prophecy by studying
predictions. There is a difference in source, between those two subjects; and there is a
preponderance of evidence that claims divine inspiration, rather than human calculation, is
the source of The Prophecies. Nostradamus repeatedly stated this evidence in his letters of
explanation; and this makes understanding those two confusing letters the most basic
requirement, well before anyone sets a course for attempting to make sense of the individual
quatrains.
One error that has repeatedly been made, by those who have tried to solve the meaning of
the letters through knowledge of the previous use of poetic puzzlers, is to read (or translate)
the words written as the common application of syntax directs. This makes a common
translation make the claim that Nostradamus stated in his preface that The Prophecies were
written, "in plain prose". This claim is said to come from Nostradamus writing the Latin
phrase, "in solute oratione", which has routinely been translated (in all classical texts in Latin)
as an idiom meaning, "in plain prose".
First, in reference to this argument, reading idioms, as a natural response to syntactical
language learning, is how nothing written about The Prophecies makes sense. That is a tried
and true, inside the box form of thinking, which for over 450 years has scoured every corner of
that box, with no understanding of Nostradamus yet found. Still, when one accepts that in
solute oratione is indeed a common idiom stating, "in plain prose", one has to ask, "Where
did Nostradamus show confirmation for this translation?"
The answer would be, Nostradamus demonstrated writing that was understandable, as in
plain prose, when he wrote the other publications. In the context that surrounds the point
where Nostradamus wrote, "in solute oratione", he made reference to "my other prophecies",
which would be the other predictions he publicized; but that context is developing a
comparison to The Prophecies, with in solute oratione actually being designed to be a
statement of both the others and The Prophecies. However, to make a claim that The
Prophecies was written in plain prose is an untrue statement. There is nothing about The
Prophecies written plainly, in a common manner of speech.
Once again, one has two options at this point of contention. The first option is to see
Nostradamus as a liar, based on the evidence that says there is nothing about The
Prophecies that makes sense, because nothing is written in plain prose. This option leads to
the logical decision to give up trying to find meaning, where nothing can be believed.
However, there is a second option, which requires seeing the same words without the syntax
applied. This means examining in solute oratione as possibly meaning something other than
"in plain prose".
The only way to do this is to revert to a literal translation, based on the meaning of those three
Latin words, which can then be cherry-picked to form other phrases. This means that when
one becomes non-fluent in Latin, and when one is not aware of the common Latin idiom that
leads one instantly to think, in plain prose, one is free to come up with phrases that means: in
free style (of language); on explanation speaking; and/or among unrestricted speech. This is
precisely what the style of writing is in The Prophecies, which means to make sense of
everything, one has to stop being so restricted by syntax.
Now, this is a breakthrough of thought; but it means nothing if Nostradamus did not confirm
this claim of meaning. He did just this; and that will be the direction of the next talk.
| Beware: Do Not Let An Idiom An Idiot Make |
| All Material Copyright of Robert Tippett with the exception of the obviously stolen stuff Reproduction by Permission Only |
Archive List
A Little Bit More --->
