Pynchon goes on about Jesuit conspiracy theories of the time in Mason & Dixon. There's a subplot about there being a secret back and forth going on between them and the Chinese.Catholic Conspiracy in Early Elizabethan Foreign Policy on JSTOR
Malcolm R. Thorp, Catholic Conspiracy in Early Elizabethan Foreign Policy, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Winter, 1984), pp. 431-448www.jstor.org
that's a fictional work i believe?Pynchon goes on about Jesuit conspiracy theories of the time in Mason & Dixon. There's a subplot about there being a secret back and forth going on between them and the Chinese.
I don't have a problem with speculation either. I object when it's not labeled as such. And also in a lot if not all instances, there is a determinable truth - someone pulled the trigger or dropped the gas cylinders and you uncover who it is.I don't have a problem with speculation. I'm not one of those types who doesn't have a view of history, and merely sees events as randomised happenings. Speculation is not the problem here so much as the offensive ability and the privilege to make this the mythos of your world outlook. Which is, in the final instance, existentialism and not materialism. @DannyL
Right, but is that a particularly useful observation? Can't we take it as read that when we say disaster, that's what we mean?Disaster is a human interpretation though. It doesn't exist outside of our cognition.
That was the big point of disagreement between us, as far as I could tell. That he would only entertain things which had already been proven whereas I was happier to speculate.
I thought that was the argument? You said you had little tolerance for conspiracy stuff then I mentioned Gladio, Paperclip etc, you said that was different because they've been proven and I asked whether you'd have dismissed Gladio at the time, before it was proven, and you didn't really answer.That's not at all what I said, but nevermind.
Yeah, it's a novel. A really good one.that's a fictional work i believe?
I thought that was the argument? You said you had little tolerance for conspiracy stuff then I mentioned Gladio, Paperclip etc, you said that was different because they've been proven and I asked whether you'd have dismissed Gladio at the time, before it was proven, and you didn't really answer.
I've said something like this before and he got very cross.Just once again, though, for anybody who is confused by what is going on here: please realise that Luke doesn't actually believe any of this shit or take it seriously at all, and anybody who thinks he does is being fooled. This is why nobody understands where he stands on any of this or why he can't be pinned down. It's because he doesn't stand anywhere and there is absolutely nothing to pin down.
I'm going back through the thread now.I did answer. You're seem to have had a uncharacteristic memory lapse, Archivist.
I'm going back through the thread now.
Just once again, though, for anybody who is confused by what is going on here: please realise that Luke doesn't actually believe any of this shit or take it seriously at all, and anybody who thinks he does is being fooled. This is why nobody understands where he stands on any of this or why he can't be pinned down. It's because he doesn't stand anywhere and there is absolutely nothing to pin down.
I specifically meant the 9/11 theories with that comment. I don't dismiss all conspiracy theories out of hand because there are conspiracies, obviously. I don't think it's that hard to make a judgement on the credibility gaps, unless you want it to be for some reason.
Ah, here we go. Yeah, you did answer. You said your specific issue was with 9/11 theories. I stand corrected,