I have often said here and at Intangible Materiality that the prosaic in of itself is paranormal in relation to the thin membrane of correspondences that define it, hence, there is more statistical probability that what we consider paranormal is normal from another perspective and that our view of the world from a personal view is in essence, naive.Our history confirms this. To me it's a matter of whom has the greater grasp of the imagination. The positivist or the skeptic? To this knotted lunacy, Krishnamurti suggests that "You can only be afraid of what you think you know."
Consequently, if you take the larger view of the historical world that surrounds us, this naivety is exponentially compounded into consensus mythologies that are also deeply entangled in a sort of pragmatic deniability that a shoe is a shoe. Yet our defining of shoes is not only theoretical but it's a moving target, in continual verb like process of redefinition. We no longer "believe" in Dragons that will swoop down over our heads, but we also redefined what dragons are, if you catch my drift. I have termed language as the transient theology of what is essentially and starkly unknown. We need a soundtrack for this post and here is your correspondents selection..the Three Little Pigs and the use of language as a defensive shield. that is analogous in my own mind to "Who Is afraid of The Big Bad Universe?" Also..the indeterminate nature of the edicts that language uses. Notice the descriptor of a pig that is gay. Glass Houses made out of language. Who possesses the most sturdy architecture? The curious diversions of the human condition can make veritable folk tales a science for rubes, shills and hoaxers. As in the paranormal, so it is in the normal.
I have also opined that without the prosaic nature of this naive reality, we would not have what we define as anything paranormal to it as a sort of living testament to the uncertainty principle. So, I thought I would share this compendium of excellent essays from The New Scientist that take on this dynamic headlong to see where it will lead or confound us or both.
From a very early age and as I approach stepping into my grave at an accelerated pace, the one defining principle that has been my bane and boon is that I live in a fairy tale. In this public diary, I asked why so few dare to expose their the source of curiosity toward the paranormal in more profound terms to them personally and that sharing them might be a healthy exercise in a round table discussion. Well, there was no comment or discussing to be had as a result, so I took "the bull by the horns" and exposed my own in the post "An Indecisive Universe?" I will let Gurdjieff end this post with yet another fairy tale that could be socio-political, psychological of biologically a determinate of Nature's purposes. It is for you to term. Perhaps it is A, or is it B, or all of the above? Perhaps it's a trick question whereas the actual answer is none of the above. Hansel and Gretel come to mind. Perhaps leaving breadcrumb trails are a psychological crutch, a quirk..I leave to you.