Facts are not necessarily conclusive of anything by themselves but the interpretation of the facts is what counts...
I
suspect that some people would rather imagine that facts are the
equivalent of a theory or will "naturally" give rise to a theory on
their own. This is the opposite of Newton's view, as he viewed the
Cosmos as a cosmic cryptogram. Yet the "natural" view seems to be the
mentality of those who believe in the "order out of chaos" creation
myths that emerged out of the Masonic and secret society networks of the
Darwins that helped produce the eugenics movement and some of the first
scientific dictatorships and so forth. Interesting that modern
creation myths themselves happen by happenstance to protect anyone that
is conspiring... given that everything is often said to
be explicable in terms of chance/chaos/nothing according to
proponents. It seems to me that this "order out of chaos" mentality
leads to a huge blind spot with respect to recognizing intelligent
agency or the fact that organisms usually "conspire" or camouflage the
fact that they're sentient with the perception that they're not in order
to prey on others or avoid being preyed on and so on and so forth.
Everything that is sentient "conspires," seems to me.
_________
It seems to me that we need better conspiracy theories built up by
"skeptics" in order to try to understand what's going on in the world.
But that would mean that the skeptics would have to be capable of being
real skeptics on the one hand (Left?) and theorists (Right?) on the
other, almost simultaneously. You can get your hands mixed up
sometimes... and then it's hard to remember which side of "the base" is
symbolic or right. "Fool me once..." --W.
Could Bush read and write, right?
Anyway... I'm glad he didn't wind up as a
scapegoat, even if he was apparently left to read about Pet Goats by "right wing" zealots and so forth.
No comments:
Post a Comment