Posted by ovyyus (150.101.217.195) on July 01, 2003 at 19:04:37:
In Reply to: Re: John C./Park posted by John Collins on July 01, 2003 at 14:55:43:
Hi Michael,
I personally think that when the line between the original historical information and derivative speculation becomes blurred it impairs our chances of discovering Bessler's secret.
Parks' blend of history and speculation leads to obvious confusion, no question about it. I can not see how this is helpful at all - beyond the interesting speculation that it is.
I believe we are all guilty, at some time or other, of promoting our own personal interpretation of the available information. I certainly have been. I know that sometimes when a person thinks they have discovered Bessler's secret they find they can easily fit their proposed design to every historical description and this fuels their conviction that their design is correct. In this state of 'Bessler rapture' historical information can sometimes be bent completely out of shape.
May I suggest that all information not originating from Bessler or his contemporaries *is* 3rd hand speculation.
IMO, the litter of past convictions and 3rd hand speculation makes for such a tremendously huge pile of info-garbage that it's sometimes difficult to see over or around it. Got to watch you don't step in it - it sticks like **** :)
My 2c.
Regards, ovyyus
: Hi Michael,
: Perhaps it was misleading, I don't know? I meant only that there is a place for everyone's view of Bessler's work and even though I agree with you and in fact tried, successfully, to get Parks to remove the theological aspect from his work, I still think that if one person's interpretation of Bessler's published works leads to a successful device then it must be worthwhile. Having said that I must admit that my own view of Park's work was that it was far too subjective and full of assumptions.
: So my advice is to read Park's words, look for inspiration, but treat it as fiction.
: JC
: : John, how can you say Parks "interpretation" has a role to play in Besslers work? Stating it that way can be very misleading. It's just an interpretation nothing more, and as for Grim, Park has intermixed his ideas in with everything thst is actually factual from Bessler throughout all of his pages, which in my opinion makes a lot of it garbage. Parks even admitted at the end of his paper he did this.