My main reply is that what looks like obscurity from the outside might not be obscure when seen from the inside. I am sure there are those who would call your work on the Biblewheel both obscure and incomprehensible, especially if they don't take the time to look into it. As I like to remind you, you are talking about something you have not investigated.
Originally Posted by RAM
My impression, after working with this for some time, is indeed that this is made by a man who dislikes obscurity (not secrecy), and a man who is surprisingly scientifically minded (given that this was done around 1600), with an almost unending need for giving extra evidence for even the most insignificant points in his puzzles. He reminds me most of all of a mathematician painstakingly making sure that there are no holes in his argument (and I am a mathematician). At the same time he is extremly playful and humorous. I think I can guarantee that something like "I made this code to show that I invented William Shakespeare?" will never show up in any of his puzzles.
Bacon hated the obscure philosophy of his time. And (I think) he hated obscurity in the sense of being dim or indistinct. But he was not an enemy of secrecy. In his "New Atlantis", where he seems to be describing an ideal society, we can read:
"And this we also do: we have consultations, which of the inventions and experiences which we have discovered shall be published, and which not: and take all an oath of secrecy, for the concealing of those which we think fit to keep secret: though some of those we do reveal sometimes to the state, and some not."
In the essay "Of Simulation and Dissimulation" he writes
"Therefore set it down, that an habit of secrecy, is both political and moral."
and ends the essay with
"The best composition and temperature, is to have openness in fame and opinion; secrecy in habit; dissimulation in seasonable use; and a power to feign, if there be no remedy."