Dear John,
You seem like a nice guy. You seem like an intelligent guy. I guess that's why it's so hard for me to understand your refusal to even consider any idea which doesn't fit the conclusion you've already drawn with respect to what happened on 9/11/01. I certainly understand (and even agree with) your objection that it's likely that someone would have talked about their involvement in such a hideous scheme. I don't know how to explain that this hasn't happened . . . except to point out that in a media-biased world, there is much that cannot be said loudly enough for anyone to hear it. At any rate, I don't understand why this point becomes a shield to deflect any other idea concerning what happened on that day.
I can't help but think of an analogy here. If the police were investigating a murder scene, would they begin by deciding that certain people could not have committed the crime? Obviously not. They would begin with the physical evidence and move from there, constructing hypothoses and drawing conclusions supported by the evidence they could discern. They would look for motive, opportunity, and advantage.
If we begin in like manner, perhaps you would at least see that there are anomalies in both the 9/11 event itself as well as in the subsequent investigation which would prompt, at the least, serious inquiry. To dismiss such evidence without consideration is simply not rational.
As a wise young friend pointed out to me, it's obvious that you don't want to risk appearing to be a "dupe" by lending easy credibility to an idea which is outside of the paradigm you've already constructed. Still, one who declares himself to be a skeptic certainly should not be so quick to dismiss, mock, and ignore.
Sincereley,
Brother K.
3 comments:
You quoted me! I'm honored. It seems like people will fight for their countries, families, and their self interests, but none of these so much as their own ignorance--everybody does this, even the most docile pacifist... This is so beautifully illustrated in "Pleasantville," and, of course, by our friend, John. "I never know what time of day it is on my battlefield of ideals," say Roy, but I think for most people it's less of a battlefield and more of a massacre of ideas outside of our comfortable schemas.
i concur, Frodo & Brother K. This is why belief is simultaneously our strongest weapon, and why it's so hard to overcome. If you are really, truly determined to believe something is true--either because it fits with the paradigm that you have constructed/chosen to give logic to the world, or because you have so much of your own self-esteem and self-image wrapped up in that belief, or both--that belief cannot be shaken, no matter how many opposing bits of proof are thrown in one's face.
It takes a really honest person to see through their own mental walls. It takes someone who values the truth more highly than any self-image or idea to challenge one's own worldview. I feel that it is only through constantly turning to ourselves with new information and new realities that we can truly construct any belief system that is meaningful and worthy. Desperately clinging to a conclusion and attempting to fit in what evidence will be allowed therein, working back to a truth, will never produce a truth.
Just ask Edward deVere.
Well . . . I have few readers, to be sure, but they sure is smart ones.
Post a Comment