In 1939 Neville brooded on the Jacob and Esau story of Genesis 27 until an inner voice gave him its psychological meaning, and he then tested the method and found it worked.
Date (happened)
-
1939
stated · probable
Reasoning
Directly stated year; probable rather than certain because it is a decades-old recollection, though given as an unambiguous, unhedged date.
Told / reported
29 October 1965
estimated
Why
Lane L7 (#2354) re-derivation. Supersedes in substance, not in storage, the refuted-date told claim(s) on this event; those rows stand per append-only.
Reasoning
Re-derived, not walked down. The existing told claim(s) on this event took their date from a delivery claim on node 1216 that the corpus has since REFUTED, so the corpus was asserting that Neville told this on a day it separately says he did not lecture. That is a contradiction rather than an over-confidence, and lowering the confidence would have hidden it instead of resolving it. The refutation stands and the told claim is the wrong side of it. Node 1216 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1965-10-29 at `certain`. All claims on the node: 1965-10-29 certain; 1969-9-26 refuted; 1965-10-29 certain (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1969-09-26 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`). The telling is dated by its lecture, so with the refuted date removed from consideration the surviving claim is what the telling inherits, at that claim own confidence and no higher.
26 September 1969
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1216, 1969-9-26) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1965-10-29. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- Your Creative Power ¶6 (So, contemplating this back in 1939, I began to dwell upon it and something from the depths of my soul came in response to my inquiry, what does it mean?)