>>11108574Why write it off without proof?
Most people would probably just consider the probable vs. the improbable, and reach certain conclusions. Personally, I'll kick it up a notch and consider ritual bonding between members of a 'majority" group within a community with the conscious or subconscious intent to marginalize those who aren't the same.
Then there's other tests that an individual can consider... perhaps actions that they KNOW were private, yet seem to be in the minds of others. There's always a threshold for random chance to trigger events that suggest a conspiracy but I'd have to say that SOME people are enough above the curve on complexity to know very well what the collective unconscious and random chance is capable of vs. what a secret group is likely to try.
Here's my starting point for anyone who really wants to deconstruct their thoughts. Consider language and the gaps that it creates with symbols and grammar. Language is linear. Reality isn't.
Consider a simple slang like "I ain't no loser"
You've already created a phantom hole in the double negative that was stated. Roughly translated though, the phrase is more like "I" "to not be" "no" "loser". Either "I AM" or "I AM NOT" suits grammar, but existentially, there's no way for an individual to state "I AM NOT".
I'd roughly translate the Freudian slip as "I am not" (you can't see me) "No" (I will not obey/I command you to stop) "loser" (either an accusation where YOU are the loser, or a hint that "I' don't want to be a loser".
Personally, I attribute that particular pattern to an individual who is at a lower level of complexity than those who are comfortably self-aware in an "I" manner. ...and we're only translating for English speakers so this can go on for a while.
What if individuals, the media or someone else deliberately tries to trigger thought responses by word structure? What if they are secretly observing you and gaming your subconscious without your will to privacy?
