a reply to: bjarneorn
I wouldn't want to talk for anyone else
but it seemed to me if you wanted to think about the piece and consider a message then it was not one
of all conspiracy theories being laughable, paranoid fantasies (after all, for those who care to spare the time a peek at history quickly deflates
that argument) but rather that in considering an event it's important to maintain a healthy scepticism. After all if, for some nefarious reason, I
would rather you didn't follow up on a particular line of enquiry it may be difficult for me to target you individually and persuade you that you are
mistaken and just to drop it and even if successful with you, following that approach I then have to make the same efforts with every other individual
who starts down that path. Considering how quickly ideas can spread today it seems an approach which demands an unnecessary, if not unfeasibly large
amount of time and attention. If though I can simply muddy the waters with theories, lies, bluffs, double bluffs and stimulating conspiracy theories
(perhaps tinged with a few tasty, well placed facts) not only is it possible that you may be swamped to the point of flailing about in the mire, a
voice in darkness without any recognisable authority or sanction who, rightly or wrongly, can then be dismissed as petty and paranoid, but so too can
anyone else who may start down that path.
It seems the first step in attempting to avoid this mess, this potentially disorientating whirlpool of whispered rumour and counter-rumour, is to try
and view things as clearly as possible; a position which to me strongly suggests that before all else we strive to refuse our own bias. As best we
can at any rate. Surely the first step in refusing lies and the casual acceptance of propaganda is to try and refuse our own. If there are those who
would delight in muddying the waters surrounding a particular event how joyful they would be to see others, particularly those with genuinely good
intent, adding (albeit accidentally) to the mess.
The passion of surprise and wonder, arising from miracles, being an agreeable emotion, gives a sensible tendency towards the belief of those
events, from which it is derived. And this goes so far, that even those who cannot enjoy this pleasure immediately, nor can believe those miraculous
events, of which they are informed, yet love to partake of the satisfaction at second-hand or by rebound, and place a pride and delight in exciting
the admiration of others. With what greediness are the miraculous accounts of travellers received, their descriptions of sea and land monsters, their
relations of wonderful adventures, strange men, and uncouth manners? But if the spirit of religion join itself to the love of wonder, there is an end
of common sense; and human testimony, in these circumstances, loses all pretensions to authority.
David Hume (1711 - 1776)
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a
man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to
believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on
the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Proposed Roads to Freedom
Fantasy abandoned by reason produces impossible monsters:
Francisco José de Goya
If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins
there is any underlying message to be taken here then rather than it being a call to dismiss the idea of any and all conspiracies (which
would seem a very weak - particularly on ATS) it seems a cautionary tale urging prudence for the sake of clarity and accuracy when trying to work
toward a sincere understanding. How can urging reasonable caution in a area so ripe for fantasy and thus easy dismissal be anything but
too, it is considered that the video offered here emphasises certain points through use of a little light relief well, perhaps that's not a
bad thing either:
One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important.
I know I've rolled my eyes and been left with a wry smile aimed at myself after getting carried away before. (I seem to be particularly vulnerable to
such flights of fancy or overly elaborate considerations between 02:00 and 04:00). You may view this thread in a dim light but then anyone can offer
any words and the reader will interpret them as they will. Here though I'm not seeing anything which, after consideration, seems wholly negative. In
fact quite the opposite. There may well be those who take a superficial glance at such a piece, giggle and move on but how time consuming and tedious
it would be to offer disclaimers and convoluted explanations alongside every single post. (How bored are you here, now, with my explanation? How many
people do you think have read this far? And of those who have, many I'm sure would love to be able to bill me for wasting their time!)
Also, let's be honest - it's gonna kill the joke.
Don't get me wrong bjarneorn I understand a defensive stance considering the nature of the topics discussed here but to lose ones sense of humour,
particularly in this area, seems to perch upon a precarious precipice.
edit on 25/7/14 by JAK because: (no reason given)