Donn
Philosopher
Hello again, tis I.
I hope this board does not get frustrated with me posting the stuff I receive in my email!
I am looking for comment and to learn from the way the logic is pulled apart.
I want to see the process of Skeptical Analysis being applied to this kind of writing.
I hope you enjoy this, it's typical of the stuff I am getting and I feel a little, well, spooked by it and I want to satisfy myself that my inner suspicion is that this is total bunk - only it's so slick and this chap is so very practised.
Here goes...
---------------------------
The Bigger Picture, etc:
Most people are very weary of conspiracy theorists, mostly because they are
very radical in their views and virtually always go against the 'accepted
norm'. In fact, most people have a kind of dismissal trigger that goes off
whenever they even hear the word 'conspiracy', with no help from the
conspiracy theorists here. From an informed perspective, most conspiracy
theorists who like to tackle things from a scientific perspective can be
proven wrong since they often tend to overlook other potential reasonable
explanations other than their often-narrow view of things. The views of
most conspiracy theorists can surely NOT be called 'balanced'.
I am no conspiracy theorist - as I prefer to include as many tangible facts
within my perceptual experience of something. I am NOT interested in plain
theories and conjecture without any tangible substance (that gets nobody
anywhere). Indeed, the Evidence is what matters. [Interestingly enough,
Evidence is subjective for most people... and quite so, the 'weight of
evidence' will vary from person-to-person and society-to-society; a concept
that is NOT too foreign in the practise of Law in all civilized cultures
around our planet]. For a Scientist, indeed, the measure of evidence should
be strict; however, it should NOT be so strict as to cause barriers within
the mind of the Scientist himself... at the very least, the Scientist should
be aware of this should he or she wish to make significant progress or any
great advance in his/her field of Science (and until Scientists stop
limiting Themselves, they will have to continue to rely upon most new
discoveries happening by 'accident').
At Heart, I am a Scientist and indeed I call myself a Scientist whether or
not I have a piece of paper to 'show for anything' (something that others
who call themselves scientists would prefer as a means of categorisation) as
it certainly is NOT the piece of paper that makes the Scientist (look up the
term in a dictionary). [Yes, the definition of a Scientist can be argued to
be a matter of semantics, however, unfortunately, it has also become an
issue of trust due to the lack of honour prevalent in our society.] Indeed
the Domain of Science truly isn't an exclusive field and no-one has a
monopoly over it, even though there are many today who actively present
themselves as 'scientists', when in actual fact they are monopolists who
seek dominion and control of True Science and 'superiority' over others
along with Their own generational dogma - today usually the ones shouting
the loudest about 'how right they are and how wrong some other Scientist
might be' or whom have the greatest on-going media exposure. As I have put
it before, to many-a-sceptic, today's 'Science' is NO better than a dogmatic
religion, along with all it's vices (if you don't believe me, just compare
some of the reactions of some of today's so-called 'scientists' to that of
fundamentalist religious fanatics when their belief-system is perceived to
be 'under attack')... this statement should also NOT be seen as a forthright
judgement over the many True Scientists among us today and the many True
Scientists that have in the past contributed to our society. Indeed, the
original meaning of the meaning of a Scientist is A Seeker of Truth.
A True Scientist Questions Everything and Dismisses Nothing (to believe that
his and other's perceptions of reality are perfect would be arrogant in the
extreme). How is it therefore that what many 'scientists' of today find
themselves dismissing many ideas and concepts MORE than accepting them as
possibility? How is this, I ask, different from a fundamental religious
fanatic going around calling everything that disagrees with his doctrine
"Evil!"?
It boils down to a fundamental matter of an attitude of Limitation verses
Limitlessness and Positivity verses Negativity. Which one do You chose?
Another bit of impetus as backing for what I say, for whatever it is worth
to you or anyone reading this, is the fact that, unlike the conspiracy
theorists, I have personally dealt with agents of some Illuminati groups;
both directly and indirectly and therefore have no question in my mind that
these organisations do indeed exist, and exist at the very highest levels of
government... because I have had a taste of just who these people are and
how they operate there are some things that I am aware of, and this also
connects to another aspect of what I am involved in, which if I had to go
around telling people I would be labelled delusional and paranoid. I am
neither, and let me tell you: Nothing compares to just how paranoid They
are, especially these days.
Yes, I am quite aware that there is INDEED a great manipulation of world
governments, medicine (I know several medical doctors who will agree with
me), science, educational institutions, world events, politics and
(especially) the media. Truth is NOT difficult to twist if one has the
power and 'seeming' authority to do so.
What amazes me is that most people know that 99% of politicians are
self-serving, dishonourable, power-hungry people who really don't have
anyone else's best interest except their own at heart; and yet they find it
difficult to believe that these same people (who are always wealthy) get
together and amongst themselves and other influential groups and do whatever
they can to strengthen and promote Their agendas? They certainly DO, and
yet sadly this is only the tip of the Iceberg...
Anyway, I am NOT here to prove anything to anyone or to make any specific
point! (unless there is a dire need for it or I am asked about my opinion,
in which case I will do what I can to convey it as clearly as possible).
Nobody can 'prove' anything to you unless you chose to prove it to yourself.
I do NOT know how anyone can call this World 'natural', 'normal' or
'healthy'. It has been very UNHEALTHY for a very long time...
Anyway, this is just my perspective... It wasn't supposed to turn into an
essay, like it almost did! ...and the Iceberg doesn't get any smaller.
I hope this board does not get frustrated with me posting the stuff I receive in my email!
I am looking for comment and to learn from the way the logic is pulled apart.
I want to see the process of Skeptical Analysis being applied to this kind of writing.
I hope you enjoy this, it's typical of the stuff I am getting and I feel a little, well, spooked by it and I want to satisfy myself that my inner suspicion is that this is total bunk - only it's so slick and this chap is so very practised.
Here goes...
---------------------------
The Bigger Picture, etc:
Most people are very weary of conspiracy theorists, mostly because they are
very radical in their views and virtually always go against the 'accepted
norm'. In fact, most people have a kind of dismissal trigger that goes off
whenever they even hear the word 'conspiracy', with no help from the
conspiracy theorists here. From an informed perspective, most conspiracy
theorists who like to tackle things from a scientific perspective can be
proven wrong since they often tend to overlook other potential reasonable
explanations other than their often-narrow view of things. The views of
most conspiracy theorists can surely NOT be called 'balanced'.
I am no conspiracy theorist - as I prefer to include as many tangible facts
within my perceptual experience of something. I am NOT interested in plain
theories and conjecture without any tangible substance (that gets nobody
anywhere). Indeed, the Evidence is what matters. [Interestingly enough,
Evidence is subjective for most people... and quite so, the 'weight of
evidence' will vary from person-to-person and society-to-society; a concept
that is NOT too foreign in the practise of Law in all civilized cultures
around our planet]. For a Scientist, indeed, the measure of evidence should
be strict; however, it should NOT be so strict as to cause barriers within
the mind of the Scientist himself... at the very least, the Scientist should
be aware of this should he or she wish to make significant progress or any
great advance in his/her field of Science (and until Scientists stop
limiting Themselves, they will have to continue to rely upon most new
discoveries happening by 'accident').
At Heart, I am a Scientist and indeed I call myself a Scientist whether or
not I have a piece of paper to 'show for anything' (something that others
who call themselves scientists would prefer as a means of categorisation) as
it certainly is NOT the piece of paper that makes the Scientist (look up the
term in a dictionary). [Yes, the definition of a Scientist can be argued to
be a matter of semantics, however, unfortunately, it has also become an
issue of trust due to the lack of honour prevalent in our society.] Indeed
the Domain of Science truly isn't an exclusive field and no-one has a
monopoly over it, even though there are many today who actively present
themselves as 'scientists', when in actual fact they are monopolists who
seek dominion and control of True Science and 'superiority' over others
along with Their own generational dogma - today usually the ones shouting
the loudest about 'how right they are and how wrong some other Scientist
might be' or whom have the greatest on-going media exposure. As I have put
it before, to many-a-sceptic, today's 'Science' is NO better than a dogmatic
religion, along with all it's vices (if you don't believe me, just compare
some of the reactions of some of today's so-called 'scientists' to that of
fundamentalist religious fanatics when their belief-system is perceived to
be 'under attack')... this statement should also NOT be seen as a forthright
judgement over the many True Scientists among us today and the many True
Scientists that have in the past contributed to our society. Indeed, the
original meaning of the meaning of a Scientist is A Seeker of Truth.
A True Scientist Questions Everything and Dismisses Nothing (to believe that
his and other's perceptions of reality are perfect would be arrogant in the
extreme). How is it therefore that what many 'scientists' of today find
themselves dismissing many ideas and concepts MORE than accepting them as
possibility? How is this, I ask, different from a fundamental religious
fanatic going around calling everything that disagrees with his doctrine
"Evil!"?
It boils down to a fundamental matter of an attitude of Limitation verses
Limitlessness and Positivity verses Negativity. Which one do You chose?
Another bit of impetus as backing for what I say, for whatever it is worth
to you or anyone reading this, is the fact that, unlike the conspiracy
theorists, I have personally dealt with agents of some Illuminati groups;
both directly and indirectly and therefore have no question in my mind that
these organisations do indeed exist, and exist at the very highest levels of
government... because I have had a taste of just who these people are and
how they operate there are some things that I am aware of, and this also
connects to another aspect of what I am involved in, which if I had to go
around telling people I would be labelled delusional and paranoid. I am
neither, and let me tell you: Nothing compares to just how paranoid They
are, especially these days.
Yes, I am quite aware that there is INDEED a great manipulation of world
governments, medicine (I know several medical doctors who will agree with
me), science, educational institutions, world events, politics and
(especially) the media. Truth is NOT difficult to twist if one has the
power and 'seeming' authority to do so.
What amazes me is that most people know that 99% of politicians are
self-serving, dishonourable, power-hungry people who really don't have
anyone else's best interest except their own at heart; and yet they find it
difficult to believe that these same people (who are always wealthy) get
together and amongst themselves and other influential groups and do whatever
they can to strengthen and promote Their agendas? They certainly DO, and
yet sadly this is only the tip of the Iceberg...
Anyway, I am NOT here to prove anything to anyone or to make any specific
point! (unless there is a dire need for it or I am asked about my opinion,
in which case I will do what I can to convey it as clearly as possible).
Nobody can 'prove' anything to you unless you chose to prove it to yourself.
I do NOT know how anyone can call this World 'natural', 'normal' or
'healthy'. It has been very UNHEALTHY for a very long time...
Anyway, this is just my perspective... It wasn't supposed to turn into an
essay, like it almost did! ...and the Iceberg doesn't get any smaller.
Philosophy is not about empirical investigations, but is all about reason and rationality and applying these to exam our presuppositions regarding the nature or character of reality, of knowledge, and of values. It has absolutely nothing to do with science.