Re: Revelations

Thor Cameron (my_colours@hotmail.com)
Tue, 06 Jul 1999 12:16:02 -0700 (PDT) 

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