Of the Big Bang and fossilised lice

And now to begin with the long awaited answers for the unnecessary questions…. Why unnecessary?... Because the answers are not really going to change anything much.

I wanted to start with the tattoos, but last night I was just sittin’ around and I had this epiphany and I thought I should write it down before I lose it.

So with reference to the last question as to whether Dan Browns books might have even a tiny smidgen of truth in them?

I was thinking what his books essentially depict are various conspiracy theories… Attacking an assortment of authorities in the world, which a few years back no one would have dared do. And we as his loving audience drink up the spate, (truth or lies, one can never actually prove) enjoying every second of it. What he illustrates are slurs on the very foundations of what we believe.

Yet we enjoy it and want more. Can’t count the number of times I’ve heard people raving about those novels and whining for the next one. Is it just because they are such good reads or because a tiny part of us revels at the idea that this might actually be true (all the thinking about this in the third person)? But god forbid if someone actually says things like that to our face and meaning it about something we have actually been involved in, then it becomes offensive.

Doesn’t this mean that we have double standards. That we choose to believe only what we want to believe. And come to think of it, isn’t THAT what is the crux of all his books. Therefore, even though his stories, as many say are just mountains made out of molehills, the molehills themselves not based on concrete proofs, it seems pretty conclusive that the concept in essence is an unequivocal truth.