Backward charged conspiracy

[Meno_]

"Traditional secular conspiracy theories and explanations of worldly events in terms of supernatural agency share interesting epistemic features. This paper explores what can be called "supernatural conspiracy theories," by considering such supernatural explanations through the lens of recent work on the epistemology of secular conspiracy theories. After considering the similarities and the differences between the two types of theories, the prospects for agnosticism both with respect to secular conspiracy theories and the existence of God are then considered. Arguments regarding secular conspiracy theories suggest ways to defend agnosticism with respect to God from arguments that agnosticism is not a logically stable position and that it ultimately collapses into atheism, as has been argued by N. Russell Hanson and others. I conclude that such attacks on religious agnosticism fail to appreciate the conspiratorial features of God's alleged role in the universe."

[Meno_]

"Traditional secular conspiracy theories and explanations of worldly events in terms of supernatural agency share interesting epistemic features. This paper explores what can be called "supernatural conspiracy theories," by considering such supernatural explanations through the lens of recent work on the epistemology of secular conspiracy theories. After considering the similarities and the differences between the two types of theories, the prospects for agnosticism both with respect to secular conspiracy theories and the existence of God are then considered. Arguments regarding secular conspiracy theories suggest ways to defend agnosticism with respect to God from arguments that agnosticism is not a logically stable position and that it ultimately collapses into atheism, as has been argued by N. Russell Hanson and others. I conclude that such attacks on religious agnosticism fail to appreciate the conspiratorial features of God's alleged role in the universe."

Don't get me wrong. This oblique takeoff would. rather wish to slide into a much more egregious , yet sublimely delicate mind into the extreme position , indicated above, and if it was not so, the charge of mine trolling one's self would hold true.

But it is not one, or one's self which is concerning, but his nemesis , or body double: that gives pause,to such a manner to proceed.

Course , this may or may not give rise to further investigations , and I would personally prefer to remain non attached , in a more or less neutral position.

Anything more would indicate a whisper of trail, a shade of slightly more then mere indifference, in the realm of coincidence .

[Karpel Tunnel]

I've pointed out the connection, to atheist conspiracy theorist, between conspiracy theories and theism, at the very least socially.
I wonder how they determined epistemology. One should always go to the stronger advocates of an assertion and not randomly chosen adherents.
You take the average person's defense of evolutionary theory, the theory of relativity, Oficial US history and so on, and you will find yourself with a real epistemological mess and a lot of wrong ideas.

[Meno_]

Karpel says :

: "One should always go to the stronger advocates of an assertion and not randomly chosen adherents"


Quite agreed in a scale of diminishing returns of adherency. looses that, to whatever they can actually attatchthemselves to.

Theistic ' conspiracy ' is reductive, but atheistic conspiracy keeps running a simulated, obsessionally program to fill in the ever increasing gaps , until reality looses it' s objactive ground.

The aesthetic pointillim overtakes the objective perception of the self, and instead of appearing solid, the appearance results in largely as loose attachments pf a porous mess.

This is where Kierkegaard would be constrained to elevate the aesthetic god over that , which should be foundemental.


The Theistic Conspiracy, to inpute a self serving reduction appearently fails at that point.

The only way to get out from such fallacy, is to remember the logical standing of both: The aesthetic is only a simulation of the function of God, within a matrix of incalculable harmonics., upon which , an induction of It's lack is unsupportable The Originals reconstruction, becomes equally insupportable.

At some point, these faux-opposites will tend to follow the same program- to simulate the original standiff, with ever increasing frequency- ( eternally reoccuring) ; until that fallacy, has to align itself with that which it opposes by negative simulation.

Then the universal fallacy appears to reduce it's self to a dark body double. It too gathers just enough power to create the pursuasive illusion of equiminity between the Original and the simulated double.

[Meno_]

And such illusions can only be resisted by an equally seamless ideal, no, not by way of a self depreciating , outright rouge attempt-displayinv all the personal gaps which go but the way of recollection, but by That, which regains It's force of contention , with increasing momentum- by the turn of every new generation.

This idea, was never created at a specific point in time, but grows anew of reflection, every time a metamorphosis becomes the essence of what it means to completely understand why?

[Meno_]

A total 0 sum of collected conspiracies, can not be had, like adding weights to both plates of a weight measure, either side, if a model/simulation balance, will tend to weigh their own internal fasticity, by semblance to the other that it weighs itself against., then

the various effected parts of extensions are inversely proportional to the measure of extension, since usually seamlessness develops toward a progressively diminishing plane of phenomenal significance.

The sum can never become 0, by virtue of the fact, that increasing subtlety magnifies rather then minimizes phenomenal differences.

That's an irony obvious to those to whom the devil is in the detail.

[Meno_]

The thing is, everything is melange. The Sino/Russian conflict was hard said to have consisted in purely didactic Heglelian/Marxian discrepency, it's strange after effects exemplify in the illusion of analogical semblance of mirror like affects between the internal and external Sino/American reflection.

China graduated from the analgesic Russian mysticism, that Rasputin harbored in by way of individual spiritual strength, and paralleled Dostoevsky's darkest moment through 'The Idiot' and 'Letters from Underground'.


Even when disbelievers dispelled more significance to Saint Germain , but mentioned by Mm. Blavatsky about his vampiric power.

Communism/Socialism has been degraded by nationalistic fervor, by the instinctual hybred 'gulash' of fisperahing plurality of choice. The famous son of Count Rakotzi, transcended temporal insignificance into an essentially progressive despair born through the heart of Europe.

That heart was torn apart by turn , the Holy Roman Empire, a cultural relic of which was totally bivact by the Council of Europe, and later , the Treaty of Trianon.

The heart remeined. , though , and stilled but not totally eliminated by the incessant heart beat.

The goulash remained and the ideologue, taken up by successive echoes.

Goulash is simply a stew, in which the delicate ingrediants are seasoned by a red addative, the paprika, alchemically fermenting the covered ingrediants below.

Can East-West detante follow one forged between Holy Russia, with it's own divisive relics of proto Islamic Ottoman mysteries, which can challenge the Eastern mysteries of Zen confusions between action and utterance?

Can a dispersed ideal ever simulate the faith, that for so long tempered the cradle of civilization?

[Meno_]

Basic das ein-dasein


So what does Heidegger mean when he says we “we are ourselves the entities to be analysed” (ibid, p.67)? Well, the being that lies ontologically prior to individual persons, or theoretical objects, or even the Cartesian ego. In fact, it even lies syntactically prior in existential statements: There is an ego, there is a person, there are lumps of granite. In short, “There-is”, literally Da-Sein [1].


as it's probable relation to ? Kant , et al

[Meno_]

Basic das ein-dasein


So what does Heidegger mean when he says we “we are ourselves the entities to be analysed” (ibid, p.67)? Well, the being that lies ontologically prior to individual persons, or theoretical objects, or even the Cartesian ego. In fact, it even lies syntactically prior in existential statements: There is an ego, there is a person, there are lumps of granite. In short, “There-is”, literally Da-Sein [1].


as it's probable relation to ? Kant , et al

Or the pseudo Kant of between the ontological double mirror between Sinai/Russian & Sinai/American basic ontology..

[Meno_]

In the broadest possible sense, all reductive rationalizations can rise to the conspiratorial level, since a lot of projected( objective) arguments are missing.

That is why I disagree with the Theistic conspiracy.

The AI memory is approvhing ideal programming, and if it is understood as inclusive in a general evolutionary context, then the argument for the total realization of conscious objectivity is within it's own condition.

Therefore, the memory of Everything is a sine qua non.

Descartian doubt is imperfectly presented, in this sense, and Hsserl/Heidegger were correct.

Saint Anselm, on the other hand proves to be far more convincing , in a near tautologious proof, although, empiricism has a long way to go from coincidence with certainty


The idea presented by John, becomes much more convincing in light of this type of argument., however, getting away from an anthropomorphic optical illusion can prevent from the delusional idea to take a foothold.

[Meno_]

Falling backwards , into basics is the feeling I get as well. But basic what? Or merely dressed up in a newly created original of a distant model.

[Meno_]

Never get apprehensive to the point of panic. That is unaffordeable.

[Meno_]

What now, brown cow?

[Meno_]

For some, there are only signs and signals left to connect to reactions , affirming either a progressive it regressive challenge.

Reality testing is like if always was , stick a finger up into the atmosphere to predict the type of weather coming our way.

Who dare do that in the very eye of the hurricane?