Edwardo Crum's Official Blogging Page

I just looked it up on Google... no hits for the word "previsionism".  Therefore, let the record show that I, Edwardo Crum, on the 25th of October, 2012 coined the term.  Below you will find the my official reference information, so that you may cite appropriately anytime you use the term.

Revisionists have sought to manipulate historical accounts to fit their ideological beliefs.  Pilgrims were bigots, Jefferson was a pimp, "we didn't land on Plymouth Rock...  the rock was landed on us!", Columbus discovered America, etc.  Unfortunately this approach to revising history leaves much to be desired.  First and foremost, quite a few people actually have been taught something completely different.  Sure, people who actually view Pilgrims favorably are typically old and remember the days before cell phones, yet they still present a counter-view to history which Revisionists find unsettling.  The logical conclusion, and an approach which is currently being tested, is the previsionist history method.  While the prefix "pre" and the word "history" seem at odds with each other, let me explain how amazingly perfect this concept is:  So often history unfolds in a way that doesn't support the narrative agreed upon behind closed doors, where profoundly intelligent people have tirelessly planned out a perfect course for our lives.  Hiccups in history are just like hiccups in real life; they're best is they never happened.  The Previsionist is a step ahead of the history game; he knows that events must unfold in a way that promotes the common good.  While the Previsionist is obviously good for our future, alas it has become apparent that we need significant improvements to technology, since obviously our current resources are inadequate.  While the Previsionists could see the angry mob protesting because of a YouTube video, the video cameras, drones, heck- all the resources of the CIA couldn't see the throng of people gathered in the streets. 

Of course the truly suave Previsionist would say, "who said anything about an angry mob?"


*When using the following terms:  "Previsionism", "Previsionist", "Prevision", please be sure to say the following (or else you will be grossly plagiarizing a fellow blogger):  "...to use the term coined by Edwardo Crum, on the 25th of October, 2012 whilst he was minding his own business sipping some coffee..."  Below you will find an example of how to properly use this citation in a sentence.

**  Let us say that you are standing on the front porch after Bible study and you're complaining about how unfair it is that some Spanish dweeb got the credit for something that Leif Erikson did hundreds of years prior...  "I can't believe that those good-for-nothing, to use the term coined by Edwaro Crum, on the 25th of October, 2012 whilst he was minding his own business sipping some coffee, revisionists gave all the credit to Columbus for what Erikson did hundreds of years before!"

I was reading someone else's blog a short while ago and I was struck with how one-sided it was. We live in a society overrun by one-sided thought; my favorite of these ideologies is the one that elevates balance to a position which trumps all else.  The contradiction may not be immediately apparent, but if one holds balance as their ultimate goal, then logically truth must take a back seat.  Seeking balance is in its own right one-sided.

Getting back to someone else's blog.  As I read, two questions entered my mind; is what I am reading too one-sided?  Or, have I been influenced by society to dislike one-sidedness so much that even a hint of it turns me off?  I like to think that I can think for myself (which should be a subject of another posting), and I conclude that my discerning mind can tell the difference between a reasonable amount of one-sided and when there's too much.  Sometimes on someone else's blog the one-sided seems to be for one-sided's sake.

Obviously there is a time and place for being one-sided.  For example, your nervous system commands your hand away from the candle flame before a painful burn can occur.  There's no discussion of differing points of view, no mulling over various options... Get away! is one-sided.  Similarly there was the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, no rational person would suggest that there is any side other than that which was ultimately successful.

As I read someone else's blog, that little voice in the back of my mind (also a subject for another posting) calmly, yet ardently it tells me that what I am reading is too one-sided.  It's difficult to explain, but the author makes one point, good, then follows it up with another, fine, and then a statement is made which triggers me, hold on a minute.  It's not that there's any inconsistency, there are no logical errors, just too much something...  What is it?  It's a one-sided thought process which has gone outside the bounds of reason.  Now "what's so great about reason?" you might ask.  I suggest that reason is the sum of adding thought and truth.  One-sidedness is connected to thought, which is fine as long as truth remains in the equation.  Once personal opinion or emotion is substituted for truth, reason flies out the window.  I think that the little voice in my head was alerting me of a shift from truth to opinion.  One-sided truth is still truth, whereas you know what they say about opinions...  This holds true for all opinions, one-sided and otherwise.

Of course the dilemma is that those who are one-sided either are ignorant to the fact, or worse they actually take pride in their one-sidedness.  As evidenced by the comments posted on someone else's blog people seem to really enjoy one-sidedness, perhaps it is a breath of fresh air in a society so concerned with balance and "fairness".   But too much of anything can be bad for you, especially if you have allergies or aren't wearing the right clothes.  You might be wondering if I'm writing about a specific blog, and if so why don't I have the guts balls to be more specific in my criticism?  Let me be extremely sincere for a moment; as I write it becomes all too clear that I am a fallible human specimen, incapable of conclusively attaining truth.  Over on his blog Peter examines films, basically giving either a thumbs-up or down.  He occupies a realm of opinion with confidence and gusto.  I on the other hand have ventured into the scary world of the real.  I risk being completely wrong, calling out someone else's blog for a crime which they may not have committed.  Maybe the voice in the back of my mind is wrong.

Click here if you want to see what happens when Peter watches too many J.J. Abrams and Woody Allen movies. Actually, all you get to see right now is some lame poster (one out of three to be exact. How many people will find all three posters before the movie's release date on March 3, 2012?) Be warned, if you click, there's no going back.