by threadbear » Thu 08 May 2008, 02:03:13
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'B')ut let's assume we have one of two paths to explain something that sounds crazy.
Path one is something crazy is happening that no one would ever believe, but that's how whoever is doing it is getting away with it--i.e., it's too crazy to be believed.
Path two is someone believes something crazy is happening that no one would ever believe and there is a good reason that no one believes it--i.e., it's crazy and the only reason the one person believes it is because he/she is crazy.
It seems to me that we ought not put something in the Path one category just because someone claims that they believe it's true. Surely it's reasonable to ask for some proof, or something beyond just a proclamation. Also, if these things would show up on an MRI, someone would have seen them by now. The people who read those are looking for ANYTHING that doesn't look right. An electronic device right in the middle of the face is going to be noticed.
Agreed, but people tend to shove everything into the type two category preferentially, usually based on a simple sniff test, that is scented by how they feel others will react to the information.
Gandalph's experiences, for example, could be unfolding exactly as he is describing them. They could also be an over interpreted series of coincidences, synchronicities, etc....that have their own curious hyper focus or spotlighting feature, highlighting data that supports his subjective reality, while ignoring information that doesn't fit the pattern.
Robert Anton Wilson called this entering the chapel perilous, in The Cosmic Trigger, and says, curiously that we all do this, to some degree. It seems that the hyperfocus, the fixations, the spotlighting of some information that occurs in the mainstream collective, is indistinguishable from what crazy people do alone, and it may turn out that most of our preoccupations that have been granted a kind of exclusivity as "relevant" and "true" are internally consistent, within our society, but pretty untrue, and crazy, nevertheless.
I would say a very tiny implanted electronic device could easily be dismissed as an irrelevant nasal artefact, piece of dirt, whatever, and tossed out, if it didn't conform to what was expected to be discovered.
Not saying I believe Eric B's story is wholly true, but I seriously can't condemn him as being a fool or psychotic based on a cursory glance of his material. It's important to be able to delay judgement before dismissing people's stories. The general audience feels a need to do this in the interest of expediency, as we are deluged with information of all sorts. We have to remember that we are usually prejudging when we do this, though. We should at least grant people's strange experiences with the same seriousness and suspension of culturally based prejudices as we do when watching foreign films.