And I’m going to do the exact thing I should do.
I’m going to put my thinking cap on and not dismiss this before looking at it. Closely. and in that, to not dismiss parts of it that may also make it a mystery.
As that is what clear headed investigation is all about. Going to places one does not understand.
the world does not come out of a textbook, as the linear safe seeking emotionally derived thought process mind demands. The world, actually... pours out of the things you don’t understand.
Negative proofing is great for engineering. Essential in fact.
Discovery.... means putting that away. And this would clearly be in the realm of discovery. Only an idiot would bring their purely ’negative proofing’ mindset here.
To do so would be advertising a lack of capacity for properly realized discernment, it would be a form of resorting to textbooks in the form of their being some sort of legally enabled dogma, with punishment waiting in the wings. And that ain’t science. That’s religion.
I’ve no idea if this is real or not, but I’m not going to take a dump in my brain and fill/stink it up with projections of dogma.
OK?
