Re: Revelations

Thor Cameron (my_colours@hotmail.com)
Tue, 06 Jul 1999 12:40:17 -0700 (PDT) 

Just so's ya know, the reason I'm persuing this is: I'm workin around to a 
Teddy/Hapworth tie in.  It may take a couple of posts to get around to...
Thor



>First, I want to say that in this fabulous book called Holy Blood, Holy
>Grail, by Baigent, et al,  they suggest, among a LOT of other things, that
>Nostradamus was not a prophet, he was a Freemason, it was all codes & info
>for those "in the know".  The way they researched it, it seems to make a 
>bit
>of sense.
>
>All right, so it looks like we're dealing with two things here.  First, I
>guess this is more to the spirit of my first post, Prophecies Are Crap. OK,
>they're not real, then I can say anything I want & call it a prophecy.
>If, on the other hand, we can play that they're real, or at least that 
>there
>can be such a real phenomena, then I think there are a few sub-categories
>here.
>
>1) Cassandra Complex: I know the future, spout it, but is disbelieved.  I
>turn out right.
>
>2) I make a prediction that a statue of Joan of Arc & PeeWee Herman will be
>erected.  I spout it often enough & everybody thinks it's a good idea, so
>fundraisers are held & the prophecy becomes self-fulfilling. I'm right
>again.
>
>3) I know a terrible future & tell it.  I, or others, act on it & prevent
>it.  I am wrong, but only because I originally was right, then  became 
>wrong
>due to intervention.  This also works for the Gypsy & Judge case: a
>self-unfulfilling prophecy, if you will.  I'm not right, but happy about 
>it.
>  BTW: If the gypsy knew the judge was knee-jerk contrary, she could have
>predicted a conviction...
>
>4) I know the future, but say it in such a mystical way that it is only
>understandable in hindsight. Not sure what the point of that would be,
>besides being able to say "ha-ha I knew it first..."
>
>Not sure where I'm going with this.  I'll stop now.
>Thor
>
>>
>>Actually, there is a logical problem with telling the future.  When I say
>>Tell here I mean communicating in a decypherable manner.  The problem
>>looks like the following:
>>
>>   A Judge presides over a trial accusing a Gypsy of being a fraud.  After
>>pleading her case the Judge says, "Okay, This is going to be really easy.
>>If you can predict the future, tell me how I will decide this case.  Will
>>I aquit you, or convict?"
>>
>>   The judge has in mind to do the opposite of whatever she says, no 
>>matter
>>what she says.  Therefore it looks like she can't know this future.  But
>>if you look closely, you see that she can know the outcome, she just can't
>>tell it to the judge.    Hence there are logical problems with telling the
>>future.
>>
>>    How does this apply to Prophecy?  Well, perhaps that's why they are
>>incomprehenible.  Personally, I think Prophecy is a bunch of houey.  I
>>believe they rely on certain reoocuring phenomina in human societies, or
>>in nature.  "The greatest civilization will be concured by relative
>>barbarians."  The terms are vague enough that you could be refering to
>>Rome, the US, Chinese Dynasties taken over by the Golden Horde, the assult
>>on the Library at Alexandria, or the popularity of Bevis and Butthead.
>>
>>    Last year I spend a few days in the library looking into
>>interpretations of Nostradomus that were written in the 1950's.  Just so
>>you all know, the world ended in about 1979.
>>
>>-j
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________
>Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com