The following is a preface to a series of essays eluding to the existence of reverse-causal, or just-effective reality.  The Unnamed principle actually does have a name; nothing conceptually cryptic about it, just weird to pronounce.  The name is a string of letters that Kabbalistically equates to the western Scientific Method; unlike the Method, however, it is based in the abstract or 'backwards' construct of subconscious dream activity.  Sound complicated?  Not really...Lewis Carroll explored it rather fantastically with Alice In Wonderland.  The point is essentially to deconstruct widely-accepted but highly questionable deployed fantasies.

I do not believe in conventional wisdom. Probability does not affect actual causality; just because something may have worked a thousand times does not in any way guarantee the so-called likelihood that it will work one-thousand-and-one. This is a false, however alluring, assumption. An entire branch of science is dedicated to an impracticable theory, in turn devoted to predilection as erratically ambivalent as a sudden shift in the currents of weather. Sociology, another verbose lazy-eyed study of faddism, is based on the same; neither method is prophetic or at all deterministic. They are both proletarian means of regurgitating consequential prior data, accounting neither for quantum-based hadronic interaction, nor statistically prevalent anomalies in proactivity...what we think of as life.

What I think more appropriate is a vital application of creative utilitarian enterprise. Trial-and-error, in laymen’s terms or to my mind, appeal-appraisal, is most potentially sagacious when exploring probabilistic variation. To treat a subject as proverbial is to invite a lack of perspicacity in self-directing its future; if the object is merely to observe and report, instead of proposing trends dynamically, then by all means...predict blandly away. However, to appropriate the substantive hand of fate is to apply it intuitively...not with rules, but neither with dearth of bias or appurtenant information.

Think of how a child thinks. From a developing standpoint, everything is subjective; nothing denotes preexistent compilations of data or defers, at the very beginning, to more mature attributions. If compartmental assignments or other adult dictations are mistaken or misunderstood, the obtuse thing is not foremost seen as the self but rather as the objective. A child’s brain is acutely attuned to development and therefore constructs realism as most fit to its own. Whether its constructs are ‘correct’ is not really even relevant; the fact is that these define a child’s dyadic imperatives to an infinite degree, and that those build a real, possibly fixed, personality that imposes on a vulnerable or variable actuality.

Probability is impeccably computational; interaction is not. While genetics and romance and entrepreneurship are akin to indigenous human chemistry, they are not quite the same. Justifiable as arithmetic philosophies, laws, and other ideal monuments may be, they are not often followed as precisely as warranted. This applies to ideas of behavior as naturally; whether emotive or demonstrative, active facets of living are not subject to probability. Rather, it is such theory that is subject to living.

Disregarding conventional collections of crudely substantiated knickknack nonsense is perhaps the most ironically assured way to go. Statistically offertory assemblage is only good for embracing the past and implicating knowable outcomes for the future; it cannot actually intend or effect or more specifically, alter what it perceives. Even as a frank contribution to scrutiny, probability’s empirical hoards are yet suspect. In my personal view, apprehension and desire have best informed my maneuvers...moral doubts and ambiguities not withstanding the inner torrents of better heuristic judgment.