Above is a video of a recent conversation with David Whitehead of Truth Warrior.
In it, we discuss a wide range of topics, including Star Myths in general and my most recent book, Star Myths of the World, and how to interpret them: Volume One.
We also explore the subject of paradigms in general, the difficulty of changing one's paradigm, and the difficulty of convincing someone else to consider a new paradigm.
Some of these issues are discussed as well in my recent post entitled "The nine-dot puzzle and connecting 'outlying dots'." We discussed the metaphor of the "nine-dot puzzle" a little bit during this interview as well, as it relates the filters we use to view the "big picture" of this material-spiritual universe in which we find ourselves, and our place and purpose in it -- and also to more specific questions and models, such as our understanding of the shape of our planet and the reason that we see the sun, moon, planets and stars do the things that we see them do.
Having been somewhat taken aback by some particularly aggressive and acrimonious advocates of the "flat earth theory" (whether genuine advocates or not is difficult to know), David was very positive about my recent article entitled "The invisible kraken: Evidence that the earth is not flat," and wanted to spend part of our conversation discussing the fairly recent proliferation of commentary online trying to steer nearly every discussion towards this particular subject of the shape of our planet.
While I don't want to spend much time debating this particular subject any further (that article linked in the previous paragraph presents what I believe are fifteen or so very solid reasons to conclude that we live on a spherical earth which is rotating on its axis once per day and which is orbiting the sun in a solar system which also includes other planets orbiting the same sun), I did agree that it might be worth spending just a few minutes discussing the recent sudden desire on the part of some aggressive web comment-posters to drag every conversation over to this subject (deliberately derailing productive discourse, in many cases).
We discuss the very important distinction between honest critical examination of alternative possibilities, and sheer sophistry which merely delights in advancing arguments that the sophist does not believe, as a form of showmanship or even deceit, not in the pursuit of truth.
Interestingly enough, the day after David Whitehead and I recorded that conversation, an article came to my attention (published on December 09, 2015) which contained a screenshot of the website of a certain US government agency, a website which was discussing a manual written back in the 1940s, and which contained advice for deliberately derailing and disrupting productive activity and turning the situation into "a dysfunctional mess" -- all while appearing to be trying to be helpful and even "reasonable."
Some of the advice from that 1940s manual describing how to undermine productive activity while still appearing to be helpful and reasonable and friendly to the very people one is trying to undermine includes suggestions such as:
- "Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible."
- "Talk as frequently as possible and at great length."
- "Haggle over precise wordings."
- "Be 'reasonable' and urge your fellow conferees to be 'reasonable' [. . .]."
The website in question noted that, although these tactics were described in a 1940s-era manual on disrupting while appearing to be helpful, they remain "surprisingly relevant" to this day -- and demonstrate just "how easily productivity and order can be undermined."
The entire debate over the shape of our planet has somehow turned into a contentious subject, and one I would rather avoid. I personally do not believe there is enough evidence to warrant any real debate on the subject: there is abundant evidence (some of it discussed in my above-linked article) which supports the paradigm of a spherical earth, rotating on its axis, and orbiting the sun. Some of this evidence also appears to be very difficult to satisfactorily explain using the hypothetical mental exercise of a non-spherical earth.
There is also some reason to suspect that at least some of those aggressively trying to steer virtually every conversation in this direction are doing so in order to turn things into a "dysfunctional mess" among those engaged in offering alternative sources of analysis to those presented in conventional media.
There is a difference between honest critical examination of the evidence and of alternative theories that can explain the evidence, and sheer sophistry which does not actually propose arguments in order to try to explain evidence but rather in order to either show off, play games, or even deliberately derail, deceive, or disrupt.
It is too bad that this subject even needs to be addressed. However, for those who have gotten caught up in this disruptive topic, I hope that the above conversation will be helpful.
My advice for anyone still honestly struggling with this issue would be to read through the evidence I offer in the above-linked article, realize that there is a lot more evidence out there which also points to a spherical earth rotating on its axis and orbiting the sun, and realize that there are some reasons to believe that at least some of the most aggressive participants in this debate might be participating simply for the purpose of creating "a dysfunctional mess."
After that, I would recommend ignoring further debate on this subject of "flat earth theories" altogether, which is what I intend to do myself.