Wow!

Three days ago, I was beginning to realise that much of what I had been working on in terms of human evolution was rubbish, and then I admitted it to myself. Then I accepted I had to “throw it all out and start again”. Then I started working again, and then I started realising that not everything had only one use. Much of my previous work is going into the foundations of the new. The result is rather rapid progress.

I never thought it was possible to do what I’m doing. It would not seem possible to have views about the things I have views on in terms of human evolution, given the sparsity of information. Its a vast chasm with almost no evidence, yet I am spanning it … it’s like single handedly building a bridge across the Atlantic. It should not be possible, it should be inconceivable, it was stupid to try … but I’m doing it.

I think the key, is that I don’t have a lot of people telling me it can’t be done, and I was stupid enough to wonder this way and then start playing with the bits until something started to emerge.

Perhaps, a bit like ignoring Elven Pastry (health and safety) means that things can be done that otherwise would be stopped, so ignoring academia, means that I can think things that they would not “allow” and so I can make progress where they do not. Not that a bridge that ignores Elven pastry is safer than one that does not, but once you have one bridge, it is much easier to build the next, because we know what works. it will never be perfect first time,  but it is proof of concept and that is enough to encourage others to consider their own bridges.

Anyway … back to 5million years BC, where Mr Ug is about to get out his … I can’t think of the word for it … that thing that looks like a baseball bat … anyway he is about to use it on Mrs Ug (seriously! Truncheon, baton? Penis substitute? Wallop … club, that’s it. Yes, Mr Ug is getting out his club and walking into the cave to pull out Mrs Ug and get into their rock car powered by feet on a tar mcAdam road to go watch a movie) … and that is what other ideas of human evolution look like to me.

Sense check

I decided that a substantial proportion of the work I had been doing was “wrong” in the sense that there was no modern human equivalent (as I had thought). So it was scrapped. A mere few days later (I would suggest academics move a lot slower), I have thought about the evidence and decided that there is only one way forward which is supported by available evidence. I then take what I have been working on an rapidly adapt it. Indeed, I am beginning to reuse ideas from the pathway I rejected only a few days ago.

Am I reusing bad stuff just because it it to hand?0

And, does that mean what I am doing is very “unstable” in the sense it is easily changed? It took quite some time for me to finally reject my previous work, and it now seems to be useful again, so a lot of it isn’t changing and in that sense is good and stable.

But then, am I too fixed to ideas I have already come up with? Am I prepared to embrace new ideas? I clearly held onto the previous version for some time, was that right? The decision to drop it, was based on evidence, it was not a whim. It was the outcome of allowing the evidence to dictate not of me forcing my own views on the evidence (everyone says that!). I suspect others would see me as far too willing to embrace new radical ideas.

Is the fact that I am not publishing, symptomatic of an unwillingness to have my work scrutinised? Or is it as I believe, because I don’t want to waste time trying to argue with people who have preconceived ideas and will never embrace anything new from someone like me, no matter how much effort I waste on them?

I do not need anyone else to accept my work to know it is good. If others do not like what I produce and so reject it, that is their problem, not mine. If they are nice to me, I might put effort into trying to explain what I have done, but overwhelmingly academia has treated me and the rest of society very badly over these last decades. I do not owe them anything. Quite the reverse, it is society that has been supporting them whilst they attack us and not them supporting us.

Do I scrutinise my own work enough?  Am I adhering to the rules and standards I set out when I started? Is it possible to adhere to these rules? Progress sometimes means breaking the rules, but then recognising the rules have been broken and not pretending it is as good as it would be if I could have kept to the rules. Which is an admission, I suspect I am breaking my own rules in order to make progress. But, I must not be too critical as that will result in a lack of any progress. It will be as good as it is. My standards must be high enough to do the best I can, without being so high I cannot do anything.