Message #262088

[Hermocrates]

Any good Atlantis buff, myself included, is eagerly engaged in these type of discussions. There should not be any stones left "unturned" when searching for Atlantis. And why not? One myth can be as charming as another, as long as the rules are set accordingly, and the investigations, contemplation, speculations, hypotheses, imagination, facts, fiction, and more importantly, the source or sources from which these flow from is also taken into consideration. For this last, the source, I would say that 90% of the matter can be easily resolved right off the bat. Can we rely on this source? What else has the source given us in addition to a particular myth or story? And based on the character of the source, is it a trustworthy source? And this source can be history, valid science, speculative science, a nation, a tribe, a group, or even one single person. Additionally, a source can be a writ, whether on stone, tablets of other material sufficient to maintain the writing for long periods of time. Further, sufficient faith has to be placed on the abilities of those considered experts in the present time, to correctly interpret these writings and symbols, as being genuine, and their true meaning also deciphered. It is never an easy matter to fairly consider these myths and stories as to their truthfulness; did they really occur, did they partly occur, were they considerably over exaggerated, and is there some hidden meaning, or message?

What sort of “message in the bottle” are we considering, and do we know who, where, and when was the message sent out? Therefore, so as to get to any end (conclusion and opinion) one has to begin at the beginning, the source. And this beginning is what sets anyone on a long and tortuous perilous journey, or a smooth and easy voyage home. One that starts out in the wrong direction will have no end to wild adventures (speculations) and worthy of being a fellow passenger on Odysseus' ship. Odysseus' source for his wild and almost endless journey home (conclusion and opinion) was his offending a certain god, Poseidon, and also his character of being a wily thinking man. Since no one can easily prove anything about the gods, as we know how ignorant we are in these matters, because every source telling us of them are only men, then one story is as plausible, or ridiculous as another. And any proof, in favor or against, is futile, because it is still only man against man. And sad to say, man has neither discarded the gods, nor proven them, as we, mankind, are no closer to know, 100%, how it all came to be; whether always here or becoming. Sure we think that we have more plausible theories today than did the ancients, but, are we there?  And so, what is the other easy, smooth, sailing home and to arrive at a more probable conclusion and, possibly, a correct opinion? It is this, partly.

Thus far in what anyone has been saying, with small exception, the works of intelligence have not been set forth; and now we must place by the side of them in our discourse the things which come into being through necessity—for the creation is mixed, being made up of necessity and mind. Mind, the ruling power, persuaded necessity to bring the greater part of created things to perfection, and thus and after this manner in the beginning, when the influence of reason got the better of necessity, the universe was created. But if a person will truly tell of the way in which the work was accomplished, he must include the other influence of the variable cause as well. Wherefore, we must return again and find another suitable beginning, as about the former matters, so also about these. To which end we must consider the nature of fire, and water, and air, and earth, such as they were prior to the creation of the heaven, and what was happening to them in this previous state; for no one has as yet explained the manner of their generation, but we speak of fire and the rest of them, whatever they mean, as though men knew their natures, and we maintain them to be the first principles and letters or elements of the whole, when they cannot reasonably be compared by a man of any sense even to syllables or first compounds. And let me say thus much: I will not now speak of the first principle or principles of all things, or by whatever name they are to be called, for this reason—because it is difficult to set forth my opinion according to the method of discussion which we are at present employing. Do not imagine, any more than I can bring myself to imagine, that I should be right in undertaking so great and difficult a task. Remembering what I said at first about probability, I will do my best to give as probable an explanation as any other—or rather, more probable; and I will first go back to the beginning and try to speak of each thing and of all. Once more, then, at the commencement of my discourse, I call upon God, and beg him to be our savior out of a strange and unwonted enquiry, and to bring us to the haven of probability. So now let us begin again.