You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] TollBarGemsbok ago 

I'm writing this because there are plenty of folks out there who scoff at the numerical/mathematical analyses of anons like SerialBrain2 on Q drops and POTUS tweets. They say it's absurd to add up numbers in time stamps, or count the alphabetic shifts of corrected letters in misspelled words, then proclaim some secret message has been discovered.

Why are these critics wrong? Because they are just thinking in terms of conscious intent. If it was just about that, they might have a point. It's difficult to imagine that someone is out there creating complex puzzles for us to solve, yet not making them so complex that they cannot be solved at all. It would be an incredible balancing act if this was the case. Even more difficult to imagine is that a group of humans are coordinating amongst themselves to do the same. Yes, some of this happens in a conscious, coordinated fashion, this is not in dispute. But all of it? Impossible. If all we had was conscious thought, the critics would be completely right. Assigning numbers to missing letters in this or that tweet to conclude it's all about googly-eyed little Adam Schiff when the tweet ostensibly had nothing to do with him would be stupid. Literal readings of things would suffice.

However, if we move to the unconscious level, it is not difficult to believe there is some mystery to what we read. Why? Because the unconscious encodes plenty of messages for us, like in dreams. Freud was the first to discover this. Then Lacan demonstrated the scientific basis of this in the 1950's with his analysis of various literary texts. Today, anons continue this tradition.

To understand how the impossible does indeed happen, we just need to widen our understanding of how the maestro cyphers his messages. Quite simply, beneath every conscious intent there is unconscious intent, which is by definition unknown even to the puzzle-maker at the time of the puzzle-making. It is at a later time the anons can step in and make it known to all who care to learn. Just like what the psychoanalyst does in his clinic when his patient talks about last night's dream, the anon also does at home at his computer: he unveils the truth of the unconscious processes that went into constructing a Q drop or POTUS tweet.

There is no mystery to how this is done. Anyone who has done this type of work knows it's usually not very exciting. It's rather dry, mechanical work. Sometimes is hard. Often times its boring. If you haven't done it before, give it a try. If you persevere, you'll likely come out convinced that such decyphering is legitimate.

To get warmed up, you might start with Lacan's mathematical exposition of how the unconscious works in his article "Seminar on The Purloined Letter." You can find it in this book It's difficult going, but there are plenty of shorter and helpful guides like this one which advises you start at page 35 (of that book). You'll see that far from taking the deepest dive you'll ever take, down into the supposed dark depths of the unconscious, the unconscious is actually stuck much more on the surface of things than we might first imagine.

Working through Lacan's model of the unconscious will not only convince you of the legitimacy of anon work which it mimics, it will get the best out of your efforts by having you keep much more to the 'surface' of things rather than taking a 'deep dive.' Yes, the deep dive is a popular phrase in Q research, but it is rather inaccurate. The type of word/number analyses that anons do is not really deep. It is rather more like looking for surface shimmers in the desert heat. Where most people would write these off as mirages, the best anons correctly attribute significance to them. In Lacanian psychoanalytic-speak, they attune themselves to the signifiers which speak to them in Q drops or POTUS tweets, over and above what is heard at the conscious level. SerialBrain2 is one of the best surface shimmer hunters. A natural analyst.

Again, Freud, and then Lacan, were the first to understand this type of analysis. To demonstrate, say you have a dream in which you see a clock face. The minute hand is pointing to 8, while the hour hand is approaching 5. How do you interpret this? Well, the dreamer might begin by inscribing this dream image down on a piece of paper as "4:40." But that would be a mistake when we take into account that this dreamer is American, so that when we initially ask him what he saw in the dream, he spontaneously responds "twenty to five" as most people do in his part of the world. If the analysis proceeds from these words - ie, the signifiers the dreamer holds - it would eventually lead us to "twenty-two five" or "225" which was a particular dollar amount that came up while he was doing his taxes the previous evening, an amount which he worries might cause him trouble if he were ever audited. Had the analysis proceeded from 4:40, it would never lead to this insight, or would lead us to something totally misleading, a misdirect. It goes without saying that you should never analyze strictly from images. These must first be translated as signifiers (words), like how you solve a rebus. Picture-puzzles lose their true significance if simply treated as pictorial compositions.

In the end, the work of anons like SerialBrain2 are impactful because it makes the correct (albeit unspoken) assumption that Q posts and POTUS tweets 'encode' messages not only on the conscious level, but also on the unconscious level. This means we do not have to attribute superhuman efforts on the part of the puzzle makers, because whatever they consciously miss, their unconscious processes will pick up and complete. As Freud said, at the unconscious level, there are no mistakes.