(urth) Pike's ghost

[Sergei SOLOVIEV]

I like very much this formulation - and agree that it is often my reason 
de disagree
with certain theories

 >I fully know that I would like the story less if

Sergei Soloviev


James Wynn wrote:
>
>> James Wynn wrote:
>>> It is a logical error that people fall into.
>>
>> António Pedro Marques wrote:
>> Why do you believe enlightenment came to Patera Silk in the ball court?
>
> Because the text says so.  But --guess what?-- that's NOT the only 
> theory. Marc has posited that the whole event and Silk's communication 
> with the Outsider was engineered by Pas and Kypris. I can bring up 
> technical refutations ("Pas is dead.") but I fully know that I would 
> like the story less if the enlightenment were a ruse. That's also the 
> primary reason I don't believe Lee's "Grand Unified Theory" of 
> aliens=gods or that the ultimate goals of the Hierodules is evil. 
> Nietzsche said that the mind is the slave of the body. Well, often 
> intricately conceived refutations are actually diplomats for our 
> /preferences/. And that potential is always lurking in each of our 
> discourses on both sides.
>
>>
>>> They argue from authority based
>>> on what they consider is "most likely true" or "the consensus". This
>>> liberates them from having to explain WHY what they believe is "most 
>>> likely
>>> true".  They have generously yielded to THEMSELVES the default 
>>> position.
>>>
>>> [...]What I'm
>>> really annoyed by is /smugness/. It makes me want to take the opposite
>>> position just to see how it plays out. I think the smug aren't really
>>> thinking because they have afforded themselves the right not to.
>>
>> And what in your view constitutes smugness?
>
> I think I just described it.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net