I was born with a fair amount of handicapping traits, which made me aware pretty much from the very beginning that I was designed to be one of the many, not one of the few. For a time, after becoming convinced of the fact, I tried to establish if my own load of personal handicaps was ordinarily typical to those of the most. Thankfully it did not take me too long though to realise not only the futility but also the stupidity of rambling in such a roving pursuit, and with that first little piece of self-acquired wisdom in my life I have never since looked at my shortcoming traits with the same eyes and mind. On the contrary, with that little awareness there has, in time, come a quiet desire to learn how to tame--or at least learn to live with by accepting and accommodating them. Needless to say, dealing in earnestness with that kind of beasts is easier said than done, but to my genuine surprise and pleasure over the years I have learned that even in one's most debilitating handicap one can make a great deal of difference in one's personal degree of affliction, affection, or aversion. There is indeed, to my mind, only one deciding and definitive factor in the matter. (And one most obvious at that too, I could tell you.) In spite of all its simplicity and directness, though, the truth still remains that there are no more daunting handicaps in one's life than those one is born with. (Let those who do not believe me tell the world, in truthfulness, how they have tamed their own most debilitating fears, or urges, or indeed any other human traits of significance, which we see every day hampering every soul that is wandering in our present.)
There are not many people in the world who manage to make me truly ireful on a regular basis, but there are nonetheless a couple of them out there. One is a woman for whom I wrote the paragraph above. It is to her, and to her only, that I want to say a few words now, words which for too long I had left unuttered.
Deborah, you must know the following, for as you have proven numerous times before, you are an utterly flawed mind, soul, and spirit to assume with such a flagrancy the tone and attitude with which you come across to the world. First of all, you are not a thinker. That's why you never interested me. Secondly, your spirit is so damaged and your soul so poor in quality that you are incapable to even see, let alone contemplate, how much of a slave you still are to those handicapping traits that have been haunting you since your own beginning. Remember? It was to you that I said a few years ago: Read less, think more. Unfortunately, for you, you have done nothing about that, and that's why you are continuing to be a simple mind with an offensive spirit and a foul soul in search of some chimerical and grandiose fantasy. It saddened me to have to tell you this (you need help not admonition) but this is all I am willing to do, for alas I do not believe at all that you could at least be sufficiently strong to admit that you have behaved and acted in a most reprehensible manner after I had decided that I did not want to talk to you.
About three weeks ago I received the following message.
You have your own universe and your own god. Jeez, how narcissistic of you, well then, I guess I had better step it up.
*Most gods play dice but Fate plays chess, and you don't find out until too late that he's been using two queens all along.
Whatever happens, they say, it must have been Fate. Fate always wins.or so they claim.
A shadow fell across the table and the gods looked up.
"Are we playing displacement chess," she asked.
"Aye," said Fate
"Let the game begin," said the Lady.
There was always an argument about whether the newcomer was a goddess at all. She was generally referred to as the American Lady. She always wore a green dress. It was said to be her favorite color.
Fate looked across at his opponent.
"And your move?" he said.
She smiled. "I've already made it."
He looked down. "But I don't see your pieces on the board."
"They're not on the board yet," she said. :biggrin:
Print out the word *CHECKMATE *on piece of paper. Sit your prism on top of the word. Now, slowly move the position of your eye downward. Does your *CHECKMATE* vanish? Methinks so.
There was nothing new or unusual about this message from the American Lady. Indeed it was pretty much like all other messages I have received from her over the 5-6 years since this website's own beginning. With one notable exception though, as I had thought until today. About three months ago, just after I had concluded my 'debate' with Mr. Dutch, I received a different kind of message from her:
Hmm, a dash of the unexpected leaving me *temporally* stumped.
Going Dutch, I see. I know it wasn't polite to barge in when I wasn't invited. After all, chess is only a two-player strategy game, a private soirée.
Perhaps, it's time to start embracing my vulnerability to cognitive errors.
I was truly surprised to see her apparently acknowledging that my 'Greek' demonstration that red and blue are refracted in opposite directions was good enough to stump her (even if only "temporally"). After all, I thought, at least she appeared to possess more character and strength than all those hundreds of Doctors of Philosophy to whom I had sent my open letters on the subject.
Sure enough though that period of apparent rationale and reason in American Lady's life was not to last. A mere couple of weeks later she was back to her usual self, giving advice on subjects she did not understand, directing my attention to things of no consequence, citing from authors I had either never heard of, cared about, or read, questioning and criticising all the reasons that might be at the root of my apparently dubious, if not completely flawed, philosophical/sociological/psychological/ views, etc. etc. I can tell you that it has never been hard to figure out why she did all that, for subtlety was never a part of her intellectual arsenal. That I had dared to rise against the conventional paragon of human intellectual/scientific/academic evolution/achievement by reading pop books physics is as brash and nervy an act as any other of the human mostness, according to everyone who's a part of it. But there is something even more abhorrent to those people: that is that--God forbid--a person like that could be right! Now make no mistake about that--that hurts. Yeah, that truly hurts. Nonetheless, I have good reasons to believe that it is only a very small number of those who will ever feel that hurt. You know, those with vested interests. Or with unfulfilled dreams.
For a good couple of weeks I pondered how I should deal with the American Lady's message above (the one in red). Finally, a few days ago I replied thus:
OK my American Lady, so you wanna replace Mr. Dutch and play chess with me? No problem. There are only a couple of things you should consider before getting into it. One. I will treat you with the same fairness and in the same manner. Two. I will write every detail on my website, just like I did in all other cases. I'll give you two days from this moment on to reply to this message.
Then, a few hours later I got this:
No, I don't want to play anymore. I know my answer is right.
And that, let me tell you, that got me pissed. Really pissed. So pissed that I immediately put on my headphones and I started writing this page. Pissed. Really pissed.
It takes either a genuine thinker or a genuine fool to speak with a conviction and a tone like that in the red paragraphs above. I know that, for I have done it myself--most recently only a few short weeks ago. But, of course, solely by acting in such manner one cannot be judged to be either. Indeed, until a conclusive proof is laid on the table in the matter no one can validly pass on any label or judgement. I believe this with absolute truthfulness, and thus far in my life never I have acted any differently. After all it was I who said that there is a fine line between a prophet and a buffoon. I'm not sure however that the American Lady (who's been hovering for the last six or seven years around these pages), is consciously aware of the more important aspect of my prophet-buffoon dichotomy, even though I did mention it in the past. In a handful of words, that more important aspect of the matter is that in order to be given a chance at becoming a prophet one must consciously be prepared to risk the very real possibility of becoming instead a public buffoon. This risk is a non-negotiable price that must be paid by anyone who is driven, or lured, by a belief in any form of endeavour which is rooted in Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. I know that the American Lady is being driven solely by the relative security of singing strictly the conventional tunes of the contemporaneous society, which she's been long trying not so much to learn, but--believe it or not--to defend, against the raging delusions of that multitude of crackpots and cranks who've invaded the world of the learned. This is one half of the force that's been driving her, for God knows how long. The other half I believe is deeply rooted in her own personal load of handicapping flaws, which she's been carrying around with her for rather too many years now. There are compelling reasons that make me believe that, and which have not been exclusively extracted from my own experience either. And with this I shall say nothing more on this subject from now on.
It took time, sweat, and tears to finally understand the benefits of being one of the many. But today I know that with just about the same degree of certainty that I'm entitled to claim that I know anything else. There is one interesting little story related to that, which happened the other day between my eldest daughter and I. In one of our usual talks on some matter, my daughter Carla said, as a sort of concluding remark: "Dad, the reason you are winning all our arguments is because you are a good debater!" I smiled and replied: "My girl, I, for one, have reasons to believe that the reason for my 'winning all our arguments' is more connected with the fact that I am, usually, truthful and right. Don't you think that that could be a more plausible possibility?"
No one can win "all arguments" by being just a good debater. No one. Debates are far from being exclusively a matter of skill and wits. Debates, especially those unfolding in public, can hardly be ever decided by one's 'peripheral abilities'. For a number of reasons, which I shall leave unspoken for now. There are only two factors that are playing the decisive role in a debate: understanding and wisdom. (There is also a third, but that one comes with a huge caveat in its wake: one's genuine love for the truth. Moreover, that is a factor that can be decisive not only in one's victory. You know what I mean?) The simple fact is that my most reliable asset/ability/guide in any debate is my God-given gift of being able to see and understand what is coming from across the table. It is for those reasons therefore that I'm never really hampered by the prospects of any intellectual confrontation. As I said on the previous page, I know when I know and I know when I don't. I'm also equally aware whether I understand or not, and that plays a major role in my approach to an intellectual challenge. A perfect example of all those facts is my attitude in having to face an argument based heavily on complex mathematics. As I have said before, my knowledge of mathematics carries a significant handicap with it at all times. I am, by and large, ignorant about the best chunk of maths, as a whole. But that is a truth that bears very little significance in any debate I either had in the past or shall have in the future. The prospect of having to face a mathematical argument, of whatever kind, doesn't ever scare me. The reason for that is simple and comprehensible. Most maths I simply don't know. Nonetheless, I've no doubt that the crucial bulk of any mathematical analysis I can not only understand, if it is explained and presented to me in a manner that I am always ready to describe in a rational and logical way, but also to be able to dissect and assess with neither fear nor any obfuscatory perversity. Yes, I know that I am able to understand anything that has a rational, logical underlay. More than that, I also know that I can follow and scrutinise any argumentation in either a mathematician's line of reasoning, or in one that forms the base of some formal procedure or protocol. OK. Having said all that I am ready now to present you with the picture of how I perceive the conventional show of image displacement in prismatic experiments.
I have grown well aware that the modern physicist has become a true master at measuring, monitoring, dissecting, extracting and gathering precise, accurate and massive amounts of data from just about any object out there, regardless of how incomprehensibly minute, or gigantic, or fast moving, or long-living, they are. I also believe that, by and large, all that data has been carefully thought with, by many and different peoples and institutions from all over the world. Indeed, I have no problem at all with Caesar's achievements and accomplishments, and indeed I have never indulged any thoughts of not giving him everything that is rightfully his. Yes, I have always known all those things and thus I have never had any problem accepting and believing pretty much all of his offerings of that particular kind. But--and this is a very big but--I have also long been aware that in most other matters (especially in those of the theoretical and philosophical kind) the offers of the modern physicist have been significantly less valuable for his aspirations and dreams. It is thus why there are things which my mind cannot just simply adopt, comply with, or even pretend to believe without a strong, credible, objective and demonstrable evidence. And when it comes to the topic of our current discussion, the offers of our conventional establishment have all fallen ridiculously short of my mind's expectations and scrutiny. Let me show you now how short they have all been. Let's take a look once again at what the conventional lot has been offering us, for much too long to really matter at this time.
Now, in regard to the explanation depicted in the picture on the left my mind says this. "If this is all what you lot have to offer you should not even dare to suggest that the reason for the image displacement in a prism is that which you have had the nerve to offer for sale! In fact you shouldn't even dare to ask me next 'But why?', for the reason against that offer is as clear as daylight (and as straightforward as a jab in a big and ugly Cossack nose). For reference take a good look at the pictures below and then do your own versions of similar experiments to see Why indeed! Need I repeat what the pics are showing?! Take a prism, draw a line on one side, turn it around and then look at it from any damn angle you want. For, guess what? Regardless of the line of your sight you will still see the image of the line displaced towards the apex! What more evidence do you think is needed to show that you're not a prophet of the prismatic affairs, but that you're just a basic and unfunny type of buffoon on the verge of becoming extinct?!"
"Hear me out now in regards to your second depiction, which is even worse than the first! Take a good look at it, before anything else, and then try to fill me in with the missing details, which all of a sudden are not relevant or needed in a professional physicist's explanation! Tell me first, for example, how far is that line from the prism? Tell me next how many diopters your prism has, and what is its exact index of refraction? Enlighten me then by showing me where the observer's eye should be, in order to see the displaced image of the line? Next, tell me how many diopters does a prism need in order to displace the image of a line by 2-3 cm, say, when the line is drawn directly on one of the prism's faces (meaning at virtually 0 distance from the prism)? Finally, take another good look at your creation, and then I will show you something I have never heard you talking about. Take your time. I'll be waiting for you."
"There are so many things wrong in the cacophonous-dyslectic conventional 'understanding' of the prismatic phenomena that I am 'almost' embarrassed to have them shown. (Truth is that I was genuinely embarrassed to talk about all of them in the past. In time however I have learned, from none other than you all, as a whole, to discard that like a smelly, old, dirty, useless sock. Hence that "almost", which I'd thrown in purely as a sign of my contempt and disgust with your continuing to remain seated, pompous and shamelessly undeterred, on the throne that by right you should have abdicated a long time back in the past. What a farce is the world still subjected to by your horde of parasitic nullness!)"
"Now, in your second depiction, above on the right, there is a wedge-shaped prism--of undisclosed size, substance, quality, strength--which has been placed with its tilted face towards the image that is supposed to be under observation and scrutiny, and with its vertical side facing the would-be observer. Right? Right. Next I shall drop below two pictures whose primary role is to provide you with a real illustration of an experiment you ought to replicate on your own. Here they come now, take a good look at them."
"Hear these details now. On the tilted face of a 45° prism draw a line horizontally across the half-way mark, just like I had done in the picture on the left. Next, turn the prism around and look carefully at the vertical face of the prism, which is now right in front of your nose. Think next how you will attempt to incorporate what has just become an observational fact into your conventional prismatic credo when you will be required to provide an official explanation for it. Get it? I'll give you a few moments now, to see how sharp an observer--and supposed thinker--you are. Good luck."
Back to work. Good to see you again. Have you figured out what is happening in the experiment illustrated above? And if you have managed to do that, have you also found a conventional explanation for it too? Personally, I have serious doubts about all of the above, and that's why I shall do it myself in a moment. Until then I just hope that you hold no harder grudges than the usual ones. After all, truthfully, you not only deserve everything you get--you have also asked for it with the typical arrogance and foolishness that sometimes are inherently acquired by the small minds, who are prone to fall prey, more often than not, to the incessant temptations lured by the kinds of demons and plagues that are always hounding about in a continuous search for new hosts or hostages. (There is nothing unusual about that, in any event, and therefore everything should be soundly considered fair game, from either perspective or camp.)
A wrong is never singular. A wrong is like a rotten apple; it rots every healthy apple it touches. Newton's theory of light and colours is wrong. Newton's theory of light and colours is like a basket full of rotten apples. Interestingly, in the beginning there may have only been one bad apple in the Newtonian basket. Indeed this could very well be true, if you think carefully about it. Nonetheless, one single bad apple is all that is needed in the rotting phenomena. But by now, 350 years later, you can bet that most of the Newtonian optical apples are rotten to the core. It matters not if those responsible for their preservation can or cannot see, let alone admit, that they have lost that crop. In the end the only thing that matters is that all those apples that have rotted in the meantime will never have any chance of contributing to the Game of Existence, for they will never be able to produce any seeds for procreation. And let me ask now those who ought to know better than anybody for the answer to the following question: What happens to an entity that bears no fruit? It dies out. Unquestionably. Irrevocably. In the end it is all just a mere matter of time.
Let me show now to those who have seen not one bad apple in the Newtonian basket, a few that have been lying putrid right under their noses. Let those I nominated take another look at the pictures below. First, let them pay special attention to the orientation of the prism in the conventional illustration, shown in the middle. Observe how the wedge prism is oriented with its tilted side at the back, and thus with its straight side facing the observer. Let them next recap mentally what the conventional theory says about the so-called image displacement in prisms. Let me then next describe what is depicted in my two pictures that are guarding the conventional illustration on each side.
I took a 45° prism and on its 'hypotenuse' face I drew a line at exactly half way. This is shown in the picture above on the left. Next I simply turned my prism around, in order to orient it relative to me, the observer, just as it is illustrated in the conventional picture in the middle. This is shown in my picture above on the right. When I did that, however, one thing became instantly obvious: The image of the line I had drawn was not displaced at all, in any direction! In view of this undeniable fact, a number of questions must be answered by any conventional proponent.
1. Why isn't there any image displacement observed in this case?
Next question, in case you are driven to a desperate resort at invoking the difference that exists between my prism and the one illustrated:
2. Did you know that in a 45° prism there is no image displacement observed, in at least some cases?
3. Next, if you did know, why isn't clearly and comprehensively specified that there are conclusive exceptions to the main conventional rule regarding image displacement?
Even if you can answer credibly all three questions above, a fourth question is still in demand of a clear answer. That fourth question is in fact identical to the first: Why isn't there any image displacement in that case?
Can any conventionalist answer these questions? Let him speak out then. Until such moment shall materialise, though, no one should be allowed to even remotely suggest that I could not be correct in dismissing the conventional hypothesis about the image displacement in prismatic experiments that continues to be taught in the conventional schools. Period.
That was the first putrid apple (responsible only for the subject of image displacement, of course) that has been lying unnoticed in the conventional basket, right under physicists' nose. But even on that very specific case, that is certainly not the only Newtonian apple that has rotten away over time. There is another one that has suffered the same ignominious fate. Moreover, this second bad apple, which is concerned with our current topic, has even deeper implications than the first. And that's not all either. I have good reasons to expect an even more cacophonous-dyslexic conventional 'justification' from physicists, when they will finally be openly brought under scrutiny by the world, and the truth.
To show you this particular bad apple I will drop below three visual depictions, which I will do again here, even though I had already shown them in the previous page. If your leanings are conventional, for whatever reasons, I urge you to think carefully before deciding to argue on its behalf. (Please take my urging seriously, for this is a subject which by its very nature is aptly able to expose foolishness--regardless if it has an academic's, or just a commoner's background.) Look carefully at the three images below, and as you do that consider everything you'd been taught in the context of the following, conventional, framework.
According to the conventional dogma regarding prismatic experiments there are a number of things that are essential in a physicist's explanations about what is observed in all types of prismatic experimentation. (Essential as those things are, I must add at this point, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind by now that all those things are also equally speculatory, ambiguous, and hazy.) For example, perhaps the first of those essential things is the so-called ray of light. Think about that very important conventional tool. The second thing of essential importance to the conventional physicist is the concept of the line of sight. Then, the third must be the intimate connection between the two. This third essentiality arises because in all so-called subjective observations, according to the conventional dogma every ray of light is directly connected with every line of sight. And then there is a fourth essential thing for the conventional argument. Now, this fourth essential conventional thing seems to be, quite unnecessarily so according to my mind, rather much too subtle for the conventional mind to grasp. Let me tell you what I'm referring to, exactly. The conventional physicist, who deep down is as much a fundamentalist as any other out there, has failed to notice that some Newtonian arguments, which seem to be warranted in the so-called objective prismatic observations, are shown to become completely erroneous when they are employed in subjective observations. A perfect example of this fact came to the surface in my 'debate' with Mr. Dutch. Indeed you have seen with your own eyes how easily Mr. Dutch became a total fool when he tried to prove that the colour green is refracted by the prism in all observational cases. The simple truth, as you know it, is that even if green appears to be unquestionably refracted by the prism in objective experiments, there is equally unquestionable a fact that in subjective experiments the colour green (as well as yellow, for that matter) is not refracted at all by the prism. And this, my friends, is unquestionably not a mean fact. This is a fact that needs to be carefully considered and implemented. For instance, this fact has to be appropriately considered and applied when the conventional defender of Newton's theory begins connecting what happens before the prism, with what it is observed by the eye after the prism. Now, this, make no mistake about it, has proved to be too subtle an issue for the conventional brain. At least so far.
With all that in mind I will now explain the significance of the pictures above. The conventional illustration on the left is self-explanatory. In regard to the picture in the middle I did the same thing as in my previous experiment. With one obvious difference though. This time I drew the line on one of the square faces of the prism. Finally, the picture on the right is a visual record of what is seen when the observer's eye (line of sight) is lined up with the line along which the so-called ray of light is travelling from one side of the experiment to the other. In view of all these facts, then, can any conventionalist explain to me on what bases I should believe all other 'explanations' that are relying on nothing else but the same chain of arguments? Think about that. Carefully.
And now it's time to discuss the experiment that was the subject of that message at the beginning of this page. The experiment in question is quite simple enough to be described in a single line: Print out the word *CHECKMATE *on piece of paper. Sit your prism on top of the word. Now, slowly move the position of your eye downward. Does your *CHECKMATE* vanish? Methinks so.
I conducted that experiment, I thought about it (not for long, for it is quite simple, and straightforward), and I have made some pictures of it. I started by drawing a line on a piece of paper (almost as I was instructed) and then I placed my prism on it. (See picture below on the left.) Following that I slowly moved the position of my eye downward, fully as instructed, upon which I observed that my line at some point totally vanished. Just like the American Lady had said. (See picture below right.) Then I thought about it, I immediately understood the line of reasoning that one might make use of, in an attempt at 'proving' that image displacement does indeed happen as it is conventionally believed, and then I smiled. I smiled because I saw a way of establishing conclusively if this particular demonstration was in fact in line with the conventional belief, or not. (To be completely truthful, I had smiled because I saw more than that. I saw, in fact, that the vanishing act of the line had nothing to do with what the conventional follower would like to convince the world with. And since we've gotten here, would you like to try your hand at attempting to find the same, or perhaps a similar, or maybe even a completely different way of establishing where the truth lies in this matter? If you do I believe it's best to stop here and proceed to conduct your own experiment before reading any further. Good luck.)
So, the image of the line I had drawn does indeed vanish in the manner described by the American Lady. Does that make her correct, though, in what it basically is, to this point at least, nothing more than just an assumption? Methinks no. And I believed right from the beginning that I could prove that. Let me show you now how I thought I could do that. Instead of drawing a line horizontally to the prism's orientation I decided to draw a line running vertically to it. (See the picture below left.) The only thing I had to do after that was, I believed, to conduct the same observation as before, but this time on my vertical line. Upon which I can tell you that my new, vertical line, vanished in the same manner, and more importantly, at the same spatial point where the horizontal line had vanished. (See the picture below on the right.)
There are a few things well worth elaborating on, since we are here. To those who have understood where I am coming from, and where I am heading toward on this issue, my choice of a vertical (or a perpendicular, for some) line may appear a little puzzling. There are some valid reasons for that. With those I want to share a short story, which is of a certain relevance I believe. You see, the experiment that produced the pictures above I had conducted about ten days ago. At the time I not only thought that what I did was sufficiently explanatory, to a thinker. The fact is that, upon further consideration, I also thought that by doing no more than that I restricted my investigation into the matter to the bare minimum that was required for a definitive conclusion. I sincerely hope that you know what I mean, for otherwise I'd truly have to engage now in a rather too long an explanation for my liking at this very early hour of the day. In any event, I have no doubt that to those of you I had mentioned a simple glance at the next couple of pictures, which I'll drop below in a moment, shall suffice to cover for that personal irksomeness on my part. So, here we go then. (The only thing I should make clear from the outset is that the red lines in the pictures I added today, digitally.)
That's all I will say on this topic, for now. (One final advice remains worthy of mentioning. Conduct the experiment in all the versions above, before attempting to extract some decisive conclusion just from what we have discussed here.)
And now to the final topic of this page. Unfortunately I will have to renege on the promise I had made on my previous page (about beginning to defend my understanding against the Goethean one). This page has already become too long, so I'll have to leave that subject for my next page.
My scepticism about the conventional explanation for the image displacement in prismatic experiments has its strongest roots in one observational fact I have never seen discussed in the conventional literature. (Nonetheless, if that fact has been, in fact, analysed from the conventional perspective, it is unacceptable to my mind that it has not become by now the most important issue in the subject of image displacement.) The observational fact that I'm referring to is after all the first and foremost display of image displacement in any/all prismatic observation/s. I wonder if there is anyone out there who's been aware of its existence before this moment, when I am showing a real visual confirmation of its existence.
The pictures above are those of a 45° prism oriented with its inclined face toward the observer, and the displacement fact I've been referring to, in particular, is the image of the line demarcated by the two arrows. The reason I added "in particular" to the previous phrase is that the arrow-marked line in the pictures is not the whole image that appears to have been displaced (for whatever reason, which is yet to be proved). That marked line is in fact only one component of the entire 'ground floor' of the prism, which has all been displaced for the observer (once again, for whatever reason). See the two pictures below, in addition to those above, for a comparatively enhanced clarity.
There is a personally interesting story connected to what we have discussed so far on the topic, which took place quite recently. Even though I had been aware for a long time about what I declared earlier the first and foremost display of image displacement, until a short while ago I made no attempt to appraise quantitatively what I had seen for years to occur in one's so-called subjective types of prismatic observation. After all I have truthfully said for years that I am a Greek not merely by default, but by volitionary design. By choice. This does not automatically imply that until recently I had made no attempt of any kind to get a numerical picture of the image display. That would be perceived as a causeless stupidity by any thoughtful human, and especially so by one of my personal liking. And I can also tell you furthermore that the Greekness nature, which I admire and look for in my human intercommunications, wouldn't had allowed to let me travel through life unchallenged. And then there is still one final thing I must tell you about all this. I have been living for a long time with a full awareness that I am under a close, intimate scrutiny by my personal Greekness virtually at all times. Some of you may remember that I have even talked in some early page about how I tried to deduct the reasons behind image display by conducting a rough quantitative observation...........
You know what I mean?/.