Today is a day that I should skip on this thing, but some "strange attractor" brings me to it anyway. Soon, I want to say a bunch of things about what extraterrestrial intelligent lifeforms should be like. This is very complicated and I don't relish it, frankly. Within supposedly reasonably commentary about this topic, are many "opinions" which are, well, complete bullshit. No matter who is saying them; how supposedly sound the credentials, there is a distressingly large amount of useless whack out there. Because I have just posted something that I was immediately criticized for as "whack" [by a friend], I'm not in the best mood, but feel that some "philosophical" addressing of the issue should be made. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I consider things to be useless commentary and often whack when someone utters some speculative remark/concept and then you wait forever to see if they have anything at all behind it--finding that they couldn't even add a page of real relevent facts to what they just blurted out and maybe not a single sentence. The "material" above in the collage relates to that type of whack. My All-The-Way-Fool of the other day may easily be wrong, but it was not arrived at from nowhere. The actual witness evidence of Loch Ness indicates that real encounters are made. The actual scientific and physical search evidence makes a physical animal[s] of the indicated sort very close to impossible. Therefore, as Holmes said, when you eliminate the impossible, what's left, no matter how improbable, is the answer. My "Irish" Olde-style Catholicism has embedded in it a theology that includes the concept of the "neutral angels" and the necessity of GOD finding a solution for their unwillingness to choose either Lucifer's or Michael's way. HE therefore instituted the Parallel Reality wherein they go about their "middle" business under certain constraints but still having much freedom of choice. When I find myself confronted with a very old story [leprechauns, fairies, loch monsters, pookhas, et al] for which I have a pile of current encounters and no way that science has been able to "surround" them, I have a "possible" and time-honored [by my own heritage] "spiritual" hypothesis for what could be going on. Some people may wish to view this as whack, but I believe that I can write a heck of a lot more than a page "defending" why I ended up in such an "awkward" spot.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Here's why I'm lumbering the reader with this: when I begin to discuss the evolution of life in the physical universe, I'll have some strong language for certain speculations. I will reserve those strong statements for those ideas that I believe that even the speaker of them has not defended with more than wide-eyes and a few vacuous remarks that somehow some editor honored with publication. The "street-corner" remarks... what I view as whack. That attitude out of me wouldn't do, if a reader could say, well, you just did the same thing when you fell off the edge of the Earth on the Loch Ness monster. There are "strange-hard-to-believe" things which the hypothesizer has tried hard to defend along several lines, and there are "hard-to-believe" things that the speculator has just spewed forth, apparently because he liked the sound of it. I'm going to try not to do he second thing while not being afraid to do the first. All-The-Way-Fool? When that's where the evidence leads: yes.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Whacky Ideas and All-The-Way-Fool
Today is a day that I should skip on this thing, but some "strange attractor" brings me to it anyway. Soon, I want to say a bunch of things about what extraterrestrial intelligent lifeforms should be like. This is very complicated and I don't relish it, frankly. Within supposedly reasonably commentary about this topic, are many "opinions" which are, well, complete bullshit. No matter who is saying them; how supposedly sound the credentials, there is a distressingly large amount of useless whack out there. Because I have just posted something that I was immediately criticized for as "whack" [by a friend], I'm not in the best mood, but feel that some "philosophical" addressing of the issue should be made. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I consider things to be useless commentary and often whack when someone utters some speculative remark/concept and then you wait forever to see if they have anything at all behind it--finding that they couldn't even add a page of real relevent facts to what they just blurted out and maybe not a single sentence. The "material" above in the collage relates to that type of whack. My All-The-Way-Fool of the other day may easily be wrong, but it was not arrived at from nowhere. The actual witness evidence of Loch Ness indicates that real encounters are made. The actual scientific and physical search evidence makes a physical animal[s] of the indicated sort very close to impossible. Therefore, as Holmes said, when you eliminate the impossible, what's left, no matter how improbable, is the answer. My "Irish" Olde-style Catholicism has embedded in it a theology that includes the concept of the "neutral angels" and the necessity of GOD finding a solution for their unwillingness to choose either Lucifer's or Michael's way. HE therefore instituted the Parallel Reality wherein they go about their "middle" business under certain constraints but still having much freedom of choice. When I find myself confronted with a very old story [leprechauns, fairies, loch monsters, pookhas, et al] for which I have a pile of current encounters and no way that science has been able to "surround" them, I have a "possible" and time-honored [by my own heritage] "spiritual" hypothesis for what could be going on. Some people may wish to view this as whack, but I believe that I can write a heck of a lot more than a page "defending" why I ended up in such an "awkward" spot.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Here's why I'm lumbering the reader with this: when I begin to discuss the evolution of life in the physical universe, I'll have some strong language for certain speculations. I will reserve those strong statements for those ideas that I believe that even the speaker of them has not defended with more than wide-eyes and a few vacuous remarks that somehow some editor honored with publication. The "street-corner" remarks... what I view as whack. That attitude out of me wouldn't do, if a reader could say, well, you just did the same thing when you fell off the edge of the Earth on the Loch Ness monster. There are "strange-hard-to-believe" things which the hypothesizer has tried hard to defend along several lines, and there are "hard-to-believe" things that the speculator has just spewed forth, apparently because he liked the sound of it. I'm going to try not to do he second thing while not being afraid to do the first. All-The-Way-Fool? When that's where the evidence leads: yes.
No comments:
Post a Comment