gattino
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2003
- Messages
- 2,522
A search reveals no dedicated thread on this subject, it mostly appears in posting on other subjects.
In this month's issue of FT the "Hierophant's Apprentice" appears to liken the CCs to the Bible Code, quoting a more recent SPR paper in which the author allegedly found the same kind of connections and links in an entirely random series of texts. "This ought to be a game changer" writes the H.A, but no, "both the Cross correspondences and the bible code still have their staunch defenders". The inference I read into that comment, at least, was that thsi was evidence of people's attachments to their cherished beliefs in the face of succesful debunking.
Or maybe I misjudge. Not having read anything of the paper he refers to the first thought that occurred to me is that surely the clear and obvious difference between the CC and any randomly chosen text, is that the hidden messages and links were - weren't they? - specifically pointed out by the alleged spiritual authors of the letters. Eg..go to the reading from X to find the other half of this classical reference, kind of thing.
Or am I wrong? When the CCs were featured in the FT I couldn't follow a word of it, got the jist of what it was all about from one of Chris Carter's books, and got a much clearer sense of the intricacies (but intelligently and overtly directed intricacies,it seemed) in Michael Timms Resurecting Leonora Piper. So I freely confess to being very impressed by very limited information.
So tell me what you know. Does the paper quoted by the Hierophant's apprentice hold much water?
In this month's issue of FT the "Hierophant's Apprentice" appears to liken the CCs to the Bible Code, quoting a more recent SPR paper in which the author allegedly found the same kind of connections and links in an entirely random series of texts. "This ought to be a game changer" writes the H.A, but no, "both the Cross correspondences and the bible code still have their staunch defenders". The inference I read into that comment, at least, was that thsi was evidence of people's attachments to their cherished beliefs in the face of succesful debunking.
Or maybe I misjudge. Not having read anything of the paper he refers to the first thought that occurred to me is that surely the clear and obvious difference between the CC and any randomly chosen text, is that the hidden messages and links were - weren't they? - specifically pointed out by the alleged spiritual authors of the letters. Eg..go to the reading from X to find the other half of this classical reference, kind of thing.
Or am I wrong? When the CCs were featured in the FT I couldn't follow a word of it, got the jist of what it was all about from one of Chris Carter's books, and got a much clearer sense of the intricacies (but intelligently and overtly directed intricacies,it seemed) in Michael Timms Resurecting Leonora Piper. So I freely confess to being very impressed by very limited information.
So tell me what you know. Does the paper quoted by the Hierophant's apprentice hold much water?
