(urth) cumean again (was: Re: Fr Inire + Cumean + others)

[Jane Delawney]

On 17/07/10 14:15, Craig Brewer wrote:
>> I'm inclined to disagree with this, invoking Occam's Razor; it's  simply
>> unnecessary.
>>      
> Not criticizing the theory of the Cumean, but I just find it awesome that you
> invoke Occam's Razor to eliminate the possibility that she's an alien in favor
> of the vicissitudes of four-dimensional perception as related to Hindu/Buddhist
> cosmology.
>
>    
Oh my, Craig, what an awesome response! I don't know whether to do 'I am 
not worthy' or ... what, actually!!

However - the four-dimensional perception thing is not restricted to 
Hindu/Buddhist cosmology; I mentioned that only because *as far as I 
know* it is only that philosophical structure that uses the 
(cosmological shorthand) term 'long body', and that was my main point here.

I still think that there is less of a disruption to current knowledge / 
beliefs in seeing this vision of the Cumean as a vision of a 
four-dimensional entity than there is in the notion that this 'proves' 
that she is an alien. All of us exist  in four dimensions (including 
time needless to say) and from a point of view 'outside' of time would 
appear somewhat serpentine (I really hate to contemplate how much of my 
'long body' is currently knotted around a certain UK town :) ). I think 
that's a given, known already, however  you like to put it. But the 
existence of aliens is still purely theoretical. Therefore if you posit 
the Cumean as alien vs. the vision of her as a human seen in hir full 
four dimensional reality, I think Occam's razor still applies and still 
favors the latter.

usual reason for monkeying with the header, sorry about that

cheers

JD