August 21, 2016 — Paul Davids

[Walter Bosley]

I know that you made a negatively opinionated generalization based on incomplete information without even being sure we're all referencing the same thing in the same context because:

1. You used the word "crap" which in this context a subjective derogatory term that fits the objective definition of the word "negative".
2. You used a subjective evaluation rather than a statement of fact, which constitutes an opinion.
3. You cannot be sure you know the context we're all using the term "reductionist" in because I'm not sure because we haven't discussed that, and therefore that makes it impossible for you to know.
4. Together 1 & 2 & 3 represent sufficient evidence to conclude that the statement I made is a fact rather than an opinion.

That appears to be a loaded rhetorical question and is therefore an informal fallacy that requires no answer. Perhaps you might want to rephrase.

We're all in this conversation together. This is not a private conversation between you and Chris. If you want to have a private conversation with Chris where you can agree with his comments about me without my participation, then open a private conversation with him and you two can rant and rave behind my back all you want ... LOL ( or wouldn't that be as much fun for you ? ).

That's more loaded language that doesn't address the issue of what you mean by reductionism or why you think it's crap. But thanks for asking how I know that what I said was true because having the opportunity to explain it to you has definitely put a smile on my face ... LOL.

Wow. All this relating is really important to you, isn't it? Not putting you down, just an observation. I'm going to disengage from you, not because you're right (and you're not) and not because I can't respond (and I could) but because there's something going on at your end and I don't want to show a lack of compassion. Say what you need to in my direction, I will understand. It's cool.

 

[Randall]

Wow. All this relating is really important to you, isn't it? Not putting you down, just an observation. I'm going to disengage from you, not because you're right (and you're not) and not because I can't respond (and I could) but because there's something going on at your end and I don't want to show a lack of compassion. Say what you need to in my direction, I will understand. It's cool.

Relating is important to me. Yes. You're a writer who goes on talk shows to tell the world about what he does and thinks, so would it really be incorrect of me to assume that relating is important to you too? Maybe it's not. Maybe you just don't care what other people think, I don't know. If relating doesn't matter to you too, why do you bother trying to tell everyone about what you do?

 

[Walter Bosley]

Relating is important to me. Yes. You're a writer who goes on talk shows to tell the world about what he does and thinks, so would it really be incorrect of me to assume that relating is important to you too? Maybe it's not. Maybe you just don't care what other people think, I don't know. If relating doesn't matter to you too, why do you bother trying to tell everyone about what you do?

Talking about my books is not talking about myself. Relating is less important to me as time goes on, more specifically the need to relate is less important. It's nice when it happens, but it's rather overrated in our times. I'm confident with myself so it's not so important what people think of me and less so whether they agree with me or not. Anyone who might actually be interested in my books wants to hear about the books, not me. That's why I write books, to engage the topics.

 

[Randall]

Talking about my books is not talking about myself. Relating is less important to me as time goes on, more specifically the need to relate is less important. It's nice when it happens, but it's rather overrated in our times. I'm confident with myself so it's not so important what people think of me and less so whether they agree with me or not. Anyone who might actually be interested in my books wants to hear about the books, not me. That's why I write books, to engage the topics.

Talking about reductionism isn't talking about myself either. It's discussing a way to explore questions about the world around us, and your books do raise questions, and talking about them is indeed talking about yourself to a great degree, but that's perfectly OK. It's also OK to consider how reductionism relates to the way you do your research. Do you not take a larger complex issue and break it down into chapters and paragraphs, each a bite-sized piece that makes the whole picture you're trying to convey easier to comprehend and absorb? That is a perfect example of casual reductionism in action. It's not crap. It's a proven methodology that you and Chris and I ( and many others ) all use.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Talking about reductionism isn't talking about myself either. It's discussing a way to explore questions about the world around us, and your books do raise questions, and talking about them is indeed talking about yourself to a great degree, but that's perfectly OK. It's also OK to consider how reductionism relates to the way you do your research. Do you not take a larger complex issue and break it down into chapters and paragraphs, each a bite-sized piece that makes the whole picture you're trying to convey easier to comprehend and absorb? That is a perfect example of casual reductionism in action. It's not crap. It's a proven methodology that you and Chris and I ( and many others ) all use.

Interesting, if true. I don't find this discussion particularly interesting.

Re Paul Davids, I found his Jesus in India film interesting.

 

[Randall]

Interesting, if true. I don't find this discussion particularly interesting.

Isn't that a total contradiction? LOL ... Boz man, maybe it's the sugar and coffee and being after 1:00 pm here, but I just gotta say: You are a really interesting character and a great guest on the show and I think your books would be a colorful addition to any personal library. I'll make sure they get added to the list on the USI website. Right now we have Chris' book Stalking the Herd featured, but it's been there a while. Who knows, every 2¢ that comes in is 2¢ more than before .

Re Paul Davids, I found his Jesus in India film interesting.

Bringing the thread back to Paul Davids ( good idea ). I've run across the story about Jesus in India before in a couple of places. The first time was in an excellent book by William Bramley called The Gods of Eden where he says that Jesus had come into contact with the Indian maverick movement. Personally, It's my opinion that Jesus probably never existed as a real person, but is an anthropomorphized deification arising out of composite stories passed down by those Essenes who had survived the war against Rome.

 

[technomage]

Isn't that a total contradiction? LOL ... Boz man, maybe it's the sugar and coffee and being after 1:00 pm here, but I just gotta say: You are a really interesting character and a great guest on the show and I think your books would be a colorful addition to any personal library. I'll make sure they get added to the list on the USI website. Right now we have Chris' book Stalking the Herd featured, but it's been there a while. Who knows, every 2¢ that comes in is 2¢ more than before .Bringing the thread back to Paul Davids ( good idea ). I've run across the story about Jesus in India before in a couple of places. The first time was in an excellent book by William Bramley called The Gods of Eden where he says that Jesus had come into contact with the Indian maverick movement. Personally, It's my opinion that Jesus probably never existed as a real person, but is an anthropomorphized deification arising out of composite stories passed down by those Essenes who had survived the war against Rome.

I guess that's as a good a theory about Jesus as any I've heard.

 

[technomage]

Regarding reductionism, I think it has it's place in analyzing complex phenomena and breaking it up into small understandable components. It can be misused when the process eliminates emergent behaviors that can't be explained by the individual parts themselves.

 

[technomage]

Regarding Paul Davids: Very entertaining program and kudos to Chris and Gene for keeping their political opinions out of the show. It really led to a higher quality show that enabled the "Para" in "Paracast" to mean something.

 

[Randall]

I guess that's as a good a theory about Jesus as any I've heard.

Thanks. What I really like about it is how the symbolism plays out, for example:

• You can kill a man but you can't kill an idea ( Sophocles ) - Jesus as an anthropomorphised deification therefore becomes immortal.
• Arising as stories passed down by the children of out of the original religious sect, Jesus becomes the Son of God.
• The stories of Jesus are the link to the original founders, therefore historically speaking in a time-line, the only way to God is through Jesus.

I actually find this line of inquiry to be more fascinating than if he had been a real person. I imagine there are more ways to interpret the symbolism to point the way back to the religious founders, but didn't Dan Brown write a whole novel based on this sort of thing ... LOL.

 

[technomage]

Thanks. What I really like about it is how the symbolism plays out, for example:

• You can kill a man but you can't kill an idea ( Sophocles ) - Jesus as an anthropomorphised deification therefore becomes immortal.
• Arising as stories passed down by the children of out of the original religious sect, Jesus becomes the Son of God.
• The stories of Jesus are the link to the original founders, therefore historically speaking in a time-line, the only way to God is through Jesus.

I actually find this line of inquiry to be more fascinating than if he had been a real person. I imagine there are more ways to interpret the symbolism to point the way back to the religious founders, but didn't Dan Brown write a whole novel based on this sort of thing ... LOL.

I heard a series of lectures by Bart Ehrman on the New Testament and non-canonic gospels that provide some good reasoning for his existence and he explains which aspects were likely true and which were likely invented. Also, I haven't seen any historical sources question his existence (although these may not have survived).

 

[Randall]

Regarding reductionism, I think it has it's place in analyzing complex phenomena and breaking it up into small understandable components. It can be misused when the process eliminates emergent behaviors that can't be explained by the individual parts themselves.

True. Reductionism is a powerful tool, but not everything is best understood at all times as a collection of smaller components. Sometimes personal experience or a holistic approach evokes a different sort of understanding. But it's important to keep the contexts in synch, and that's where I think things go off the rails sometimes. So for example, whether or not a hallucinogenic experience is truly profound is a separate question from whether or not the subject perceived during the experience has it's own objective existence.

 

[technomage]

I would need some evidence to believe that a hallucinogenic experience provides one with any verifiable information about the world. It may help one see the world in a different way and therefore come up with radical insights, but for it to actually enable external information to be transmitted; that's a stretch for me. I'm not saying it's impossible; just I would need some heavy-duty convincing.

 

[Randall]

I heard a series of lectures by Bart Ehrman on the New Testament and non-canonic gospels that provide some good reasoning for his existence and he explains which aspects were likely true and which were likely invented. Also, I haven't seen any historical sources question his existence (although these may not have survived).

When I set about answering the question of whether or not Jesus actually existed, I had, like most others raised in a Christian nation, been taking it for granted that he did. Upon trying to verify that however, I began running into problems almost immediately, and after weaving my way through documents all the way back to the Dead Sea Scrolls in an effort to find one shred of verifiable material evidence, like a scroll Jesus actually wrote, or something he as a carpenter actually made, or anything at all, I found nothing ... zero evidence.

I even looked into the so-called Shroud of Turin claim, and within an hour or so was able to deduce that it was either a hoax or a false claim. That was interesting because at the time there was a huge debate about it and nobody had hit upon the key ( that I know of ). I also ran into stories and myths, none of them particularly well documented from a historical perspective, but some were created before the story of Jesus, and on top of that I ran into all kinds of other people who had concluded that like other ancient religious mythology, the stories about Jesus were conjured up by story tellers well after his ascendance had supposedly taken place.

Ultimately I was forced to conclude that although Jesus may have been real, it's not very likely, and that there are actually better explanations. That doesn't mean those explanations are true. But IMO the most reasonable line of inquiry regarding the question is to pursue the anthropomorphized deification ( Euhemerizing ) thread rather than assume there was actually a Poseidon, Shango, Quetzalcoatl, Droshalla, whatever you're into. Maybe they're all just Vorlons ... .

​

 

[Randall]

I would need some evidence to believe that a hallucinogenic experience provides one with any verifiable information about the world. It may help one see the world in a different way and therefore come up with radical insights, but for it to actually enable external information to be transmitted; that's a stretch for me. I'm not saying it's impossible; just I would need some heavy-duty convincing.

Well said.

A quick aside on the B5 clip is that I think Sheridan probably had plenty of time to be rescued by the jet pack team because the shuttle runs along the core of the station making the distance to the outer shell a fair ways. I'm not sure how wide the station is at that point, but at a given a radius of around 1000 feet, and given that a human leaps at about at about 8 feet per second, if he would have leaped straight at the ground it would have taken at least a couple of minutes to get there, but he actually leapt out sort of upwards.

Therefore he should have remained fairly aligned with the core, encountered wind resistance and slowed down some, while the shuttle went ahead of him and blew up. He would have then drifted past on through the debris, and because there's little gravitational acceleration actually pulling him down, assuming he didn't collide with anything sticking out along the core, he could have slowed down using air resistance and caught onto something or be rescued. But hitting the ground that was rotating at 60 miles an hour in less than 2 minutes would not have been the outcome.

So Kosh, being a super smart alien must have known he didn't actually have to rescue Sheridan, which means he really was a bit of an exhibitionist underneath that hard shell ... LOL.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Here I go, setting myself up for attack, so whatever.

I think Jesus was real. I think he was devoted to a path like Buddha, etc. I think what he said is accurate, though I think a whole bunch of inaccurate stuff has been built up in his name.

As regards Jesus being the way to God, here's my personal interpretation: Jesus' path to God comes from when he said (and I'm paraphrasing, so atheists cool your MFing jets or I'll come down on you like Samuel L in Pulp Fiction) 'Have I not told you, ye are as gods?'. Christians HATE when I bring that up but they can suck it. I personally think (and NONE of you need to even entertain agreeing with me so relax on this) that the example of the whole Jesus myth/parable/allegory as messiah/savior is just a way of telling human beings that they can achieve that next status via Jesus' path/method/what have you.

So, I expect my character, credibility and everything else to be attacked now. Whatever.

 

[Randall]

Here I go, setting myself up for attack, so whatever.

I think Jesus was real. I think he was devoted to a path like Buddha, etc. I think what he said is accurate, though I think a whole bunch of inaccurate stuff has been built up in his name.

As regards Jesus being the way to God, here's my personal interpretation: Jesus' path to God comes from when he said (and I'm paraphrasing, so atheists cool your MFing jets or I'll come down on you like Samuel L in Pulp Fiction) 'Have I not told you, ye are as gods?'. Christians HATE when I bring that up but they can suck it. I personally think (and NONE of you need to even entertain agreeing with me so relax on this) that the example of the whole Jesus myth/parable/allegory as messiah/savior is just a way of telling human beings that they can achieve that next status via Jesus' path/method/what have you.

So, I expect my character, credibility and everything else to be attacked now. Whatever.

You seem to like exploring contentious history so I think it's better if you figure this one out on your own when you have the time. If you're at all interested, there's some other people who have come to pretty much the same conclusions I have, and because I've already been there and done that, I'm not all that interested in rehashing it all out here in gory detail. It's enough that I have sufficiently good reasons to believe what I do now. If you don't want to make the journey yourself, it's entirely understandable. If you do, perhaps start here.

- Richard Carrier, PhD. in Ancient History: youtu.be/WUYRoYl7i6U

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Walter whats your thoughts on Chamelo by Robert Guffey ? if you read it ? and could David Paulidies investigation correlate with your books?

 

[Walter Bosley]

Walter whats your thoughts on Chamelo by Robert Guffey ? if you read it ? and could David Paulidies investigation correlate with your books?

I'm intrigued with Paulides' work.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

It would be a good show Walter and David with Gene & Chris.