Scholastic Standards at Oxford University
Are Evidenced Within the Employees' Writings
(PD) Deceptivus flaterie painting of Oxford University employee James Legge.
Copyright ©2023, January 25, 2023
Without Oxford University, the Normalcy Project likely would not have achieved its completion. The following gives a brief history of how Oxford University's employees played a major role in the project's progress.
The Catalyst
In 2006, a polite group of individuals in England had online discussions about paranormal activities (paranormal being defined as the word implies: 'beside what is normal'). Most paranormal activities are caused by known natural effects, and the group's goal was to find answers for various paranormal events.
Unfortunately, the group was being openly harassed and violently hated on by two pro-science skeptics. One of the skeptics was a narcissist male who boasted of his Ph.D., and called himself DrABC (not his real name). It was assumed that the second male was DrABC's boy friend, and possibly a teacher's aide or such. DrABC frequently boasted of his Oxford University employment, of which I contacted Oxford University to confirm that he was indeed an employee of the Oxford University psychology department.
Researching DrABC's publications from 2005 and 2006, I gathered several of his papers (of which I still have for reference). DrABC was illiterate: he could not spell accurately, nor use correct words, nor was he able to create a coherent sentence. Examples include his having used 'air' instead of 'err', 'bear' instead of 'bare', 'anyway' instead of 'any way', 'rationale' instead of 'rational', 'logically links' instead of 'logical links', and 'what ever' instead of 'whatever'. All known writings by DrABC were satiated with misspellings, wrong words, contradictions, and incoherent sentences, and yet he was an Oxford University psychology department employee, which proved that Oxford University's scholastic standards were below those of normal USA 3rd grade levels.
Within all of DrABC's publicly available papers on science and psychology, DrABC's psychopathy and amentia were abundantly illustrated. Abbreviated examples from one paper, and in the sequence given by DrABC: (1) science could establish the truth of anything, (2) science makes mistakes that are sometimes corrected, and (3) a thing cannot be true if science does not have empirical evidence. DrABC repeatedly claimed that science was infallible, that science was fallible, and that science was the sole judge of all that is true truth, even when science made mistakes.
The paranormal group's members who knew DrABC personally, said that he had a drinking problem. My opinion was (and still is) that even common unlearned drunks would not have made the mistakes that DrABC made.
DrABC had intensely severe mental problems (of which I incorrectly assumed at the time must be uncommon), but the questions arose: what were the 'science' beliefs that DrABC spoke of? What, precisely, did science claim to be true truth? Before I could form an acceptable opinion, I felt that I needed to learn more about the religion of science, the one religion that I had always purposefully avoided due to all known science claims having always been false.
And So Began the Journey
Four historical examples of fallacies within science and sciencism:
[1] The first time I saw a world map (at about two years old), I commented that all of the continents had once been together. I was hated on and ridiculed by science believers who said that the planet had always been exactly how it is today (which remains to be one of the most absolute dumbest things I have ever heard in my life, and much worse, is that most people today still do not recognize earth's patterns). A couple years later, science made public the theory of continental drift (which is still obviously false, and permanently proves that no sciencian on earth is mentally able to recognize the patterns that even some two-year-old infants recognize as being obvious). My first exposure to science was violently negative, and it permanently established my refusing to accept anything about science unless it could be proven with Nature-based facts.
[2] When I spoke of a green nebula, science worshippers always ridiculed and hated on me because science stated that no green nebulas existed. In recent years, the first photographs were taken of a green nebula.
[3] Science worshippers ridiculed and hated on me for not believing that earth was the only body in the solar system with water. Today, science admits that all bodies in the solar system have water.
[4] Science worshippers ridiculed and hated on me for talking about how some galaxies and solar systems appear to be close together from a distance, but are actually far apart when you are physically nearby. In recent years the first photographs were taken of the gravity lens effect.
Never, not so much as once in my life, had I yet heard of anything from science that was true. Nevertheless, before I could form a firm opinion of DrABC's science, I first needed to know what DrABC's science was.
During the roughly ten years that followed, I poured through thousands of science books and papers, and one of the things that continued to surface was that (except for Bohm) all science worshippers were as incoherent and contradictory as DrABC. It made no difference who the sciencian was: Einstein's outrageously amential writings and contradictory comments were not superior to DrABC's.
After having found all of recorded science to be of contradictions, lies, and inventions, I discarded all science books, and went in search for something positive to do in life. While watching Korean television, I happened to see a reference to a book named Doctrine of the Mean. Being curious, I investigated the title, which led to over five years of my learning and translating ancient Chinese texts.
Amongst the first things discovered in the Doctrine of the Mean book: [1] the title was wrong, [2] the translator could not translate Chinese words, [3] the translator was incoherent, illiterate, and self-contradicting (like DrABC), [4] the translator was of a crude and hateful nature (like DrABC), and [5] the translator was James Legge, who just happened to have been an Oxford University sinology department employee. Homer Dubs' translations were no better, and he too had been an Oxford University sinology department employee.
The world's worst known of biology, psychology, science, philosophy, and sinology, all came from Oxford University. Questions arose: might there be something in their water? No other university fared much better, but, still, why were Oxford University employees so incoherent, illiterate, amential, and self-contradicting?
(PD) Oxford University pre-1898. No harmonious symmetries. All conflicting. Shapes describe mentality.
The Circle Found Completion
In the late 90s, I developed the Sensory Quotient (SQ) tests that proved that over 99.95% of all participants could not adequately describe anything, but, the question remained: why? In 2003 the 'three concepts' tests proved that none of the tested individuals (regardless of IQ) were able to mentally assemble three concepts, but, the question remained: why? From 2006 to 2016 I researched thousands of science publications, and the only useful information gleaned was that within all of them there was a continuous stream of inconsistencies, absurdities, and contradictions similar to DrABC's, but, the question remained: why? By 2009 I had verified that most individuals were unable to mentally recognize and to describe aromas, voice tones, nor body language, but, the question remained: why? In 2015 I began a leisurely investigation of the ancient Chinese texts, and one of the first things discovered was that James Legge's translations were of inconsistencies, outrageous absurdities, perpetual contradictions, and of purposeful hate and lies similar to DrABC's, but, the question remained: why?
AHA! The answers began arriving when diagnosing James Legge's and Homer Dubs' mental patterns. Legge and Dubs translated Chinese words relative to dictionary definitions and to the conversational language that may have been common within their era; Legge and Dubs did not translate the Chinese texts by what the original Chinese words implied. Legge and Dubs were unable to adequately describe anything, unable to assemble three concepts, and unable to mentally recognize sensory perceptions, but Legge and Dubs were highly experienced in writing absurdities, contradictions, lies, and hate (as was DrABC). To individuals who are mentally able to recognize sensory perceptions, mentally able to assemble three concepts, mentally able to intricately describe things, and have calm rational mature caring attributes, the Chinese words are very obvious, but the words were not obvious nor capable of being comprehended by Legge, Dubs, et al. If not for the ancient Chinese texts, the life-long question would still be lit brightly: why?
The word 'breathe' is a verb. The word 'good' is an adjective. It is 'good' to 'breathe' (keeps you alive), but the word 'good' does not mean 'breathe'. Nevertheless, that is precisely what Legge, Dubs, and all other known scholar-translators have done; they inserted dictionary adjectives where the original ancient Chinese texts inferred verbs. Example: if a pictograph showed a monitor, a keyboard, and a penguin, then the assembled idea would refer what? A Linux computer? According to Legge, Dubs, and others, the pictograph might mean 'good', and that is precisely what all known scholar-translators did; they inserted wild-crazy English words that were absurd. Legge, Dubs, and all of the others proved that they themselves did not possess the virtue, respect, maturity, caring, nor any other quality trait that the ancient Chinese texts wrote of: by their own hands, the scholar-translators proved of themselves to be bad people with no quality attributes because the scholar-translators did not know what the attributes were.
Humorous (or depressing, or a combination thereof), is of some ancient Chinese words being as simple as the Linux example above, and yet no known publicly available English nor German translation was able to define the words. Deeply frustrating is that European and American scholars have claimed that some of the ancient Chinese texts were burned and lost forever, but, however, at least one of the books does still exist, but, however, since the scholars are unable to assemble three concepts, and too, since the scholars are mentally unable to rationalize what the verb word implies, then the scholars are unable to read the Chinese word, and therefore the scholars do not know what the 'lost' book is talking about. (The book speaks of one of the topmost important topics of all, and, the topic is still never discussed in any known English literature, which strongly suggests that no scholar, no sciencian, nor any ideologist knows that the topic exists, which also implies that the individuals themselves do not possess the quality attributes.)
Example: 'The ??? kept us up all night because of its barking.' Four dictionary synonyms of '???': good, good, good, dog. All known English and German scholars chose the word 'good'. In one Chinese text, the '???' word was used numerous times within a couple paragraphs, and the one and only English word that enables the paragraphs to be coherent, is never chosen by scholars, which left all scholars' translations to be contradictory, incoherent, and quite insane.
Reason enough to smile, is that the ancient Chinese texts are exceptionally good tools for proving that at least some of the ancient Chinese were far more intelligent than any known European and American scholars, and, the texts also proved the sciencism like Jung's to have been fully bogus.
The research and experiments helped to culminate the life-long normalcy project. Now I have solid empirical physics-based evidence that explains why people like DrABC, James Legge, Homer Dubs, and all known sciencians were illiterate, incoherent, and self-contradicting. The reason (sans details), is that the individuals were of an under-developed intellect, one that was literally incapable of rational thinking, and definitely not capable of 'critical thinking' as DrABC had frequently claimed for himself.
Credit Due to Oxford University
In my own region, if a child in the 3rd grade had made as many errors of spelling, word usage, and contradictions as what DrABC and most all other known sciencians made, then the child would have been removed from public schools and placed into a protective environment for the mentally handicapped. However, as evidenced in the writings by DrABC, Legge, Dubs, and several other Oxford University employees, Oxford University's own scholastic standards accept mental retardation as an employment qualification.
And, so, therefore, I owe Oxford University a wealth of thanks for it having been a primary catalyst in my search for answers. If not for the Oxford University employees' absence of acuity, I would not have had the needed contrasts necessary for coaxing me into pressing further for answers.
The all-encompassing bad of Oxford University, also made possible a new beauty: plain people, now beautiful, because, known Oxford University employees, ugly. (a play on some Confucian quotes)
Epilogue
I only researched about a dozen individuals from Oxford University. Statistically, there ought to be individuals at Oxford University who are superior to the individuals I researched, but, as like what Fermi allegedly asked, 'where is everybody?'.