The other difference between the two blogs is that this prefatory Post 1 is much shorter. Details concerning the perceived justification for blogging the theory, the broad posting policy adopted and the pre-blogging history of the topic have been omitted here and may be found in Post 1 of the original blog. All the remaining posts in the present introductory Outline are the same in both blogs.
The main messages of both versions of the blog are these. Evidence clearly compatible with the theory has been found in a large range of subjects including molecular biology, comparative and human morphology, clinical neuropsychology, philosophy, logic, mathematics, physics, cultural studies, politics, ideology, philology, computation and history. Evidence clearly incompatible with the theory has yet to be found by this writer. Despite this encouraging degree of apparent compatibility, the theory has many implications which are at first sight counter-intuitive and thus heretical. The most central of these is that if future research continues to support the theory, in due course our traditional and much-cherished one-truth (one correct perspective) thinking conventions will arguably need to be replaced by two-truth (two correct perspectives) thinking conventions. This central heresy leads to others, including the apparent 'unmasking' of the dualistic, circular, self-referential and incomplete nature of knowledge in subjects such as those listed in the header panel. Such contradictions to prevailing paradigms appear to be Suitable Heresies for our modern age, because they represent scientific challenges to truth concepts at the heart of the aspiring authority of science itself. In view of all this, the author suggests that we have now reached the stage where the theory is highly arguable, even though of course it is much too early to claim that it has been 'proved'.
You are invited to join the debate.