previous generations would have had trouble distinguishing from the ostensibly paranormal,

Yeah, that’s basically what I’m saying, but I am in fact pushing past that into ACTUAL paranormal subject matter as well!

In my own defense though, I’m not actually making an “argument” by any means - at least not in this particular post. I’m really just exploring keywords and concepts which to me seem loosely related [see also: associative search]. The angle I’m taking has more to do with the perceptual experience as opposed to actual factual truth: “spooky action at a distance”, stuff like that! Hope that clears it up and apologies for any misunderstanding!

What do I repudiate? Let’s see. “Scrying.” “Remote viewing.” Anything at all described as being “paranormal” or “extrasensory.”

If your argument is that the technology now exists, at least in principle, to support certain “sufficiently advanced” experiences previous generations would have had trouble distinguishing from the ostensibly paranormal, I can’t necessarily disagree with that.

If, on the other hand, your argument is in any way that scrying and remote viewing are real phenomena or are otherwise worthy of a moment’s consideration, I’d want to make it very clear to anyone coming across this page that this has nothing to do with the things I write and speak about, and that your use of that image in no way implies my advocacy of such a belief.

I’m sorry if this sounds humorless or pompous, but I can’t stress enough just how destructive I find these ideas, and how distressed I’d be if anyone thought of me as an advocate of them.