#30 - MED - Self-correction in the super-learning event
Hello once again. This is JLL coming to you with Gnostic Intel on the Internet. It's April 21, 2017 and I'm here to talk to you about correction in the super-learning event.
I hadn't intended to make this talk. It came up in response to an email I received about an error I made in talk number 21. And so I decided that it was worthwhile to consider that error because it presents an example of learning from one's mistakes.
The idea that we learn from our mistakes is of course a cliché. It's a routine assumption among intelligent people. But I must say that in the Gnostic practice it has particular emphasis. By that I mean to say that in Gnostic practice, in a Gnostic investigation such as we're undertaking here, the detection and correction of errors not only keeps the investigation on course toward the truth, toward the proof, toward that which is to be demonstrated, but it does more really. You'll see and I hope to demonstrate it in this talk.
In Gnostic practice, when you correct an error, that action actually enhances the learning process and it optimizes or speeds up your velocity as you move along the learning curve. So, someone alerted me to a way I had misspoken or slurred a detail in talk number 21. I engaged in a brief email exchange with that individual, and out of that, something quite remarkable has emerged regarding the way that the Mandela effect operates.
So I'm going to read that email exchange, you'll also find it printed on the tracking page, and then I'm going to comment on what is to be learned from correcting that error. And I want to emphasize at the beginning, I want to emphasize again, that the correction of an error in a Gnostic process of seeking knowledge consists of more than just correcting an error. Suppose that I spelled the word, I wrote the word chance and I wrote an E instead of an A so it came out to be chence. Well then someone points out to me, hey John you wrote, you misspelled, you wrote chence instead of chance. So I go back and I correct the E and I make it into an A, right? Simple enough.
I'm sure you can think of any number of examples of this kind. But that is a straightforward one-dimensional correction. When you are engaged in a Gnostic way of knowing, in a Gnostic way of seeking and acquiring knowledge, one of the proofs that you are proceeding authentically is that any error corrected will produce a windfall of realization. It will produce an augmented learning experience. If I misspell chance with an E, then I've just written chence and I correct it to chance and I don't really learn anything particular, do I? I don't really learn anything that is supplementary to or additional to the meaning of the word chance.
So I would designate that kind of correction of error, which is a typical and frequent kind, to be a simple or one-dimensional correction. But now listen to this email exchange and come to the end with me and observe what I induce from this exchange or what I derive from it, you could say, and you will have an example there of how correction proceeds in the super-learning event.
So I received a message which goes like this. This was on the 19th. “Hi. In installation number 21, you make a reference to an example of the Mandela effect with a material proof. John Deere, spelled with a extra E, and the present John Deer, D-E-E-R, no extra E. You also talk about how meticulous you are as a scholar. I wanted to see for myself, actually not doubting the veracity of your story. Your statement turned out to be false. You said, ‘the current record shows, if you look at the internet, that the name of the company is spelled without the final E’. This is an outright falsification of the truth. This puzzles me. Whatever you wish to teach doesn't need more examples to validate your narrative, and least of all, an extra example that it isn't based on any verifiable truth at all. I'd appreciate a comment. Best, LM." I’ll Just to give you the initials.
So that was the first email in this short exchange. Note again the language, if you go and look at it on the tracking page. Your statement turned out to be false, my statement that I am meticulous in my scholarship. And when I said that the current record shows that John Deer is spelled without an E, well well, the email says, this is an outright falsification of the truth. Strong language there, okay?
But all in all, I found this to be a sober, politely stated message, and so I responded in this way. “Hi there, it is not a falsification. What typically happens with the ME is that once you are pinged to a shift, such as sex and in the city, sometimes you can't be quite sure what you originally remembered. Although in some cases you have absolute certainty about what you remember, compared to the current record, often you do not. I think that all those who are seriously following this phenomenon would agree on that factor. I had seen a clip on John Deer without the E, Deere with the E. Then I was in Depot and I saw the tractor with the spelling Deere with the final E. I was mistaken about which way it had shifted. When I gave the talk, I did not take a moment aside to check which way the shift was working. So, I was mistaken in saying that the current record shows it spelled D-E-E-R-E. Here is the clip I saw. There is the link to the clip.
I do not entirely trust this informant as he seems to manufacture cases of the ME, pleading, I don't remember it that way in my reality. Some cases he reports I find to be genuine. Others are dubious and may be contrived. He seems compelled to come up with a new instance every day. I don't believe the effect works in that way. I intend to mention this error in my next talk and record this exchange with you on the tracking page." And that was the conclusion of my first email.
Now, if you're looking at the tracking page, as you're hearing me read, you'll notice something really odd. The individual pointing out this mistake to me said that it was an outright falsification of truth for me to say that the current record shows the name of the company spelt without the final e. But in responding to him I say I was mistaken in saying that the current record shows it spelled D-E-E-R-E. So what happened in my response to him was I again made a mistake over the spelling of the word. Now this is extremely significant as will become clear as I proceed. So hang on and we go to the next exchange, the next passage in this exchange.
So he writes back to me and says, “Thanks for your reply. Appreciated. Makes it easier for me to continue going along with the coming installations. And thanks for all your efforts to convey these insights. Challenging, but basically pretty encouraging. Best, L”. The initial of his first name.
So then I responded again in the final email in this way. “Hi again, L. This phenomenon is truly baffling. It really spins memory. In the email correcting myself, I repeated the same error, stating, ‘I was mistaken in saying that the current record shows it spelled D-E-E-R-E’. But, of course, that is exactly what the current record shows. I recall it always having been spelled with the ending E. I don't recall ever seeing D-E-E-R, and I drove that equipment over many years when I was doing farm work in my twenties. It's baffling how Moneybag 73, the source of the clip, references genuine residue going back to the 19th century. But the residue is also contradictory, or unstable, you could say. The tractor model Gator, for instance. He finds residue from 2009 spelling it D-E-E-R in ads. Okay, that's clear and solid. When you search, ‘John D-E-E-R Gator plus 2009’, you find many photos of that model, of the tractor, four-wheel vehicle, and some or perhaps all of those insignia read John Deere, D-E-E-R-E. Well, it's as if the phenomenon itself can't make up its mind which version to present.
I reckon this oddness is inherent to the purpose behind the effect. Ultimately, in some cases, but not in all, it does not matter which was the original memory. In some cases, but not all. So, there is a challenge to discern among cases. But what is the purpose of this trickery? It remains to be learned, regards JLL. Thanks for the nudge. Okay?
Now let's just stop for a moment, take a deep breath, pause, and let's make sure we're all on the same page regarding what happened. I used the example of a Mandela shift in the name of farming equipment from the company of John Deere, but I spoke carelessly and inaccurately when I said that the current record shows it as being spelled without the E. That's wrong. So if you look on the tracking page you'll see that I'm using the standard notation I proposed at the beginning of this investigation.
Namely, indicate the occluded form or the way it used to be and the way some people remember it in bold. So you see John Deer, D-E-E-R in bold, that is the occluded form, and then indicate the shift by a forward pointing arrow, a right pointing arrow, and then indicate the occluding form, the way it is indicated or represented in the current record, in capitals, D-E-E-R-E. There you go. And it is an absolute fact that if you look on the internet today, or you look out in the field at this equipment, you will find that it is spelled with an E at the end. Okay? And that's the way that I always remember it.
And I've been in fairly close contact with this equipment, having driven harvesters and things like that, 10 hours a day, back when I was working as a farmhand off and on, say in Washington state. Tak. Fine. Okay. Now we come to the fun part.
It's easy enough for me to correct my error, say I made a mistake. I was not clear on which way the shift was working, right, when I cited this example and then I wrongly said the spelling that was in the current record? That is actually not so. It's the spelling D-E-E-R is not in the current record, but it can be found in residue. Okay, so it's easy for me to correct that mistake, and I've done that. But now let's consider what comes out of that mistake, what can be derived from correcting that mistake.
Well I would say that a marvelous thing about this particular mistake is that it brings into vivid focus some observations about the way the Mandela effect operates. It highlights these operations. You could even say that it magnifies and enhances your observation of how the effect is working. For instance, here's one observation. When someone finds genuine residue, as you see in the clip that is linked to this email exchange, that residue is not consistent with other records in the past.
So the residue is a trace residue but it's not a uniform residue and this is usually the case. I think it's almost always the case. For instance, there was a spelling DEER in a newspaper advertisement from the late 1800s. There was another spelling DEER in an old newspaper. And then there was the spelling DEER on the John Deer boots that were for sale presumably. Are they still for sale? I don't know. Is it the same company John Deer boots and John Deere farm equipment? I don't know. But then there was notably the example from 2009, there's an advertisement for the John Deere Gator, which is an off-road four-wheel vehicle, spelling it D-E-E-R, but then when you go and look for that model, it's spelled D-E-E-R-E. So why would this be so? Why would not the Mandela effect present consistent information in the past for the occluded case of a shift?
As far as I know, it never does. Please inform me if you know of any example. It's mysterious, isn't it? I mean, it's really baffling, but I can make an observation. I can make an inference from that. Could you say that the effect is testing your probative faculty? It's testing you to see how closely you can observe. It's showing you traces of residue and you have to be smart enough to detect and locate these traces. You have to want to find these traces. So you find these traces of residue, that is, deer spelt without the final e, and yet you don't find them uniformly, do you? Why not? Because if you found them uniformly, they would be too easy to find. So the fact that there are only rare and scattered instances of residue shows that the source behind the effect is testing you, is testing your ability to investigate and to search out details. It’s testing your ability to in fact to be meticulous, if I may use that word which I applied to myself. I'm going to get back to that point at the end of the talk, by the way.
So that's one thing you can infer from this. The other thing you can infer is that there is a universal phenomenon connected with the effect, which can be called the ambiguous or ambivalent factor, the factor of ambivalence. Ok? How many times have you heard this? The moment that someone is exposed to a Mandela effect, such as Kit-Kat with the hyphen, KitKat without the hyphen, typically the individual might say, oh no, that can't be. It shows KitKat without the hyphen now, but I remember that Kit-Kat always had a hyphen.
Sometimes the certainty of remembering and distinguishing the one version from the other is strong, but even then, after not too long, it's difficult to find someone saying, oh wait a minute, now I'm not so sure. Not so sure if I remembered it being with or without the hyphen. Not so sure if I remembered it being with or without the final e. So, what is happening there?
Well, the effect is pinging you by giving you two versions of something that you remember. It is causing a discharge of your memory, an initial discharge, which tells you, oh yeah, I remember it's always been that way, or which tells you, no, I remember it as having been another way, and then it toggles back and forth between the two. Now this is not true in all cases, and I think it's extremely important to distinguish this aspect of the phenomenon. I'll give you an example, speaking for myself.
There are some cases of the Mandela Effect to which I am somewhat indifferent. I'm pretty certain, I mean I'm 100% certain that for me it has always been deer with a E at the end and it has never been simply D-E-E-R and that's not an issue for me. But there are other cases where, and I do not deny or invalidate anyone who remembers it as being, as always having been D-E-E-R before it was occluded. I have no issue, I have no argument. Neither one of us is right or wrong. We are both responding to the same phenomenon. And the point is to look at this baffling phenomenon together, no matter which side of the memory line you're on.
And as we're looking at it and looking into it, we're attempting to get a sense of what it's doing to us. What is she doing with your mind? What is she doing with your memory? And again I ask you this question: why would in some cases you feel adamant about a certain shift and in other cases it's ambivalent and it doesn't really matter. For instance, I would say, jif, jiffy peanut butter, it doesn't really matter to me. I seem to remember, and I'm pretty sure I remember it as jiffy, but it may have been jiff, you know. It’s not an issue. I call that an ambivalent case.
But when you come to something like “Interview with a Vampire”. This is not an ambivalent case for me. I am absolutely, 1000% certain that I remember “Interview with a Vampire” and I saw it written, “Interview with a Vampire”, and so “Interview with the Vampire” is an altered case. It's not an ambivalent case. It's an altered case. And why would these two cases exist? Why would I have in the collection of Mandela effects that I am contemplating in the inventory that I'm building up, let's say, why would there be some cases that are ambivalent? Could have been one, could have been the other, but there are some cases which are adamant. Let's use that term. That's a good term. It sticks well in the mind.
I'm adamant on “Interview with a Vampire”, but I'm ambivalent on Jif Jiffy or something, or Tidy Cat, or Tidy Cats. Right? I'm pretty sure it was Tidy Cat, but maybe it was Tidy Cats, you know. Why do these two instances exist? This existence of these two instances, in the case of everyone who takes this phenomenon seriously, is telling you something about the way it works. It's telling you something about what it is doing to your memory. You recall that I said that we can use the example of a braid in talking of what is happening to memory with the Mandela effect. And in fact, there is a Mandela effect about braids, which is Wendy's braids. That deserves a little bit of consideration in an upcoming talk. But just consider that in the procedure of recombinant DNA, the two strands of the DNA braid are separated.
So let's say that your memory is being separated into two strands. Along one strand of your memory are all those things that you remember imperatively, and you are adamant about exactly how you remember them. But in the other strand of your memory is a collection of events and items and topics and words and titles and brands and lines of dialogue that are ambivalent and that you are not adamant about them. Is that the way this effect is operating? Well, it would appear to be so. And how did I come by that observation?
I came by that observation from having corrected this error. So you see that some amplification of the learning process happens with the correction of errors in the Gnostic way of looking at things and additionally I would say I would affirm that in the super-learning experience this is the case. You have the proof that you are in the super-learning experience when your errors produce an amplified insight, when they produce an amplified realization or observation that wasn't there before. And this is a beautiful example of this happening.
Finally, I'd just like to say regarding the initial remarks of the individual who wrote me, I'm not offended or put off or anything, and I'm not going to stand here in some righteous manner and correct him. He expressed himself in the manner that was honest and appropriate to him. I can say, however, that my statement that I am meticulous as a scholar is not falsified by the fact that I made this error or any error whatsoever. A meticulous person can also make errors. So the inference that because I made this error that my claim to be meticulous is false is not a correct inference.
Also, the statement in the first email, this is an outright falsification of the truth. So I said, “the current record shows that the name of the company is spelled without the final E”. That’s not a falsification of any truth. It's just a mistake. It's a mistake because I was ambivalent about the two instances but in going back and correcting my mistake the ambivalence comes to light doesn’t it? The ambivalence comes to light. And everyone has this ambivalence with certain cases of the Mandela effect, but not with others.
So out of this little incident comes a lesson. You come away from this little incident like wondering, this is really interesting, you know. How come some cases of Mandela's shift really, really don't seem to matter much to a certain individual. It varies from one person to another. As I said, in some cases but not in all, it does not matter which was the original memory. In some cases but not all.
So, this is a vital distinction. I can't say right now what this distinction means or what it implies, but I implore you to hold this distinction in mind. I am convinced that this is a vital distinction in our discernment of how the Mandela effect operates and it will prove to be continued to be fruitful as the investigation proceeds. So that's it for now. That's all that I care to say or all that I need to say about what you might call my Dear John letter that I received. You can see in the tracking page what the definition of a Dear John letter is. This is a dear John letter about one letter in the John Deere name.
So now I will proceed to the next talk, which will be 29, and in that talk I'm going to look at what can be called the super-cluster in the array of Mandela effects, considered as clues or jigsaw puzzle pieces. You'll see that with this talk I've uploaded the image of a three-piece constellation of Mandela effect signals. You know, this word constellation may prove to be useful.
Constellate, to constellate, is a verb, and it goes back to the early work, the first work really, of C.G. Jung, around 1902, 1903, 1904, when he was studying at the Burgosli Clinic near Zurich, and was actually working there as a junior staff member, and he studied the constellation of psychic contents.
So when we look at the way that certain clues or instances of the Mandela effect connect with others, we can refer to a constellation of signals. And the way to picture that metaphorically is by the piecing together of jigsaw puzzle pieces. So I've included here, along with this talk, as an illustration, a three-piece constellation. There you see the large uppermost piece, and that is the translation of Mandela to Amygdala, so that is from the set of six clues in the name Mandela.
So you can see that there is a large tab attached to that piece protruding from that piece which would then connect to the set of the other Mandela clues drawn from the name. So you have the Toxo puzzle piece, shocked to the amygdala, connected to KitKat and TidyKat cats.
Now you see that the KitKat piece is indicated by the usual notation. The occluded form, which I remember, has a hyphen. That's printed in bold. The current occluding form, which you see on KitKat packages, is indicated in capitals and that has no hyphen. Finally, there is Tidycat cats and I just put a forward slash between them because I can't remember which one was supposed to be the one that has been overwritten by the one in the current record. So you see Tidycat cats is an ambivalent case. For me, KitKat is an adamant case, okay? And so you see, with the illustration of jigsaw puzzle pieces, how to fit together the clues coming through the Mandela effect.
So finally, as a preview, I can tell you that I'm preparing right now, I have it right here on my desk, a similar jigsaw puzzle illustration of the super-cluster. And the super-cluster would be that part of the jigsaw puzzle wherein the most number of pieces are constellated so far.
So there is a super-cluster in this investigation and in fact it has I guess nine or ten pieces that all fit together so I'm preparing the illustration of that the graphic illustration and I'm preparing the upcoming talks on that which will proceed immediately following this one. So hang in there. Thanks as ever for your attention. Thank you for nudging me about my errors and my misspoken words, and until the next time, may your attention be rewarded by the truth.