Date Posted:07:11 Author: Eponymous-22Apr02 Subject: Re: Atlantis's proof In reply to:
Anon-22April02
's message, "Re: Atlantis's proof" on 07:09
Anon, this isn't addressed to me, is it? Because I'm not sure how you could've interpreted my post as endorsing the Genesis story in any way.
Quite the opposite: The contemporary geological and archaeological record effectively prove that the Genesis account of a flood is fictional.
Although my [dis]agreement with "great" minds is not really relevant (and I'm not sure I would have listed all the same names under the rubric that you did), I would note that I think I am at least in agreement with Plato: It is pretty obvious from Plato's text that he knew that Atlantis was fictional, and intended the story to be allegorical. (Read his Atlantean tales here: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html. And here: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/critias.html.) As such, looking for Plato's Atlantis is like looking for Plato's allegorical cave.
Also, this rhetoric about "ultimate truth," "status quo," "mind blueprint," etc. is as unhelpful as it is innaccurate. Modern science doesn't concern itself with "ultimate truth," but with provisional knowledge. The scientific "status quo," whatever it is, is ever-changing, and this dynamic process of change is driven by scientific inquiry itself. And while everyone (including yogis) approaches new data from a preexisting theoretical perspective, that perspective cannot in any useful sense be referred to as a "mind blueprint" - a term that suggests an immutable bias rather than a defeasible, interactive set of heuristics and other cognitive functions. (The idea that science is incorrigibly biased against "new ideas" is decisively rebutted by the rather breathtaking progress science has made.)
