In 1939 Neville browsed daily in a little bookshop on 49th Street in New York whose two elderly proprietresses put a large picture of him in the window; standing behind two women looking at it, he overheard one call him 'the mad mystic on 47th Street' and mock his teaching that consciousness is God and imagining creates reality.
Date (happened)
-
before 23 July 1968
bound
Why
No quantified interval is given for 'in those days', so no sharper date than this bound is supportable from the packet.
Reasoning
The overheard-women anecdote is something Neville recounts about the past ('in those days'), so it precedes the telling. The telling day is settled at 1968-07-23, certain, by the L7 re-derivation after the original 1968-10-15 told claim was found to rest on a refuted delivery claim. This replaces the evidentially empty 1900-1999 circa/certain span with a real bound. || v1.1 type repair: written as `estimated` by run v1.1/l4/c0y, retyped `bound` — a `before` claim is an outer limit, which the lane brief and 97% of the corpus type as `bound`.
before 23 July 1968
bound
Source
bound from the telling lecture nid 1050 (1968-07-23)
Reasoning
The event is told in the past tense in nid 1050, delivered 1968-07-23 (that claim's confidence: certain, preferred), so it had happened by that date. This is the same premise phase4 L6a and L4.5 rest on, stated at the precision the evidence actually supports rather than as a fabricated year. It replaces nothing: the 1900 placeholder row remains, lowered, as the record of what phase3b did. `bound` is never `preferred`, so this does not change what the event displays.
c. 1939
estimated · probable
Why
M7 dating pass (529; 525's readers, packet 021)
Reasoning
Passage 528782 anecdote (49th Street, picture and books in the window, 'the mad mystic') matches event 16004 in the chronology, dated 1939 at 49th Street, New York City. 'In those days' fits the early New York lecture years.
-
c. 1900
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l1.4/sentinel1900: year 1900 here is not a date. `corpus v1 / phase3b` emitted it as a placeholder for "unknown, sometime before the telling" whenever the speaker used a vague temporal phrase — this row's own source note is the phrase. The same sentinel was identified and converged on in run v1.1/l0.5/retype/w1-conv. It carried confidence `certain`, which no evidence supported. Lowered to `doubtful`; an honest `before 1968-07-23` bound is appended alongside from the telling lecture (nid 1050). Nothing deleted, no year invented. || v1.1/l1.4/sentinel1900-refute: REFUTED. This event involves Neville himself and he was born 1905-02-19 (event 950 delta 9, `certain` + `preferred`), so 1900 is not merely unsupported — it is impossible. The event now displays no date, which is the honest state: the `before` bound appended by v1.1/l1.4/sentinel1900 remains and is what is actually known. Row kept, not deleted.
Told / reported
7 October 1966
estimated · probable
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 1252 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 1252 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1966-10-7 at `probable`. All claims on the node: 1967-1-18 refuted; 1966-10-7 probable (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1967-01-18 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`) | delta 1: 1967-01-18 at `probable` (run `v1.1/l4/ceiling/c2`). 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.
23 July 1968
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 1050 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 1050 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1968-7-23 at `certain`. All claims on the node: 1958-11-3 refuted; 1968-7-23 certain; 1968-10-15 refuted; 1968-7-23 certain (preferred); 1968-7-23 certain. Superseded here: delta 0: 1968-10-15 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.
5 June 1970
stated · doubtful
18 January 1967
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1252, 1967-1-18) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1966-10-7. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
18 January 1967
stated · refuted
Why
Corrects the confidence of the told claim written by run `corpus v1 / phase3b` at delta 0 on this event; that claim is left standing per append-only. Ceiling rule #2132.
Reasoning
Confidence only; the date is not re-adjudicated and is left exactly as written. This claim is derived from the delivery claims of node 1252 and asserts `certain`, but the strongest claim that node carries is `probable`, so there is nothing for `certain` to inherit from. nid 1252 delivery claims: 1967-1-18 possible; 1966-10-7 probable. Walked back to `probable`, the ceiling. Whether the DATE is right is a separate question this row does not touch; if the evidence turns out to support more confidence, it will have to come from a source other than this node. || v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1252, 1967-1-18) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1966-10-7. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
15 October 1968
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1050, 1968-10-15) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1968-7-23. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- Free or Slave ¶5 (Well, in New York City, in 1939, on 49th Street there was a little bookshop and I would go there daily and browse around and spend hours. I loved the two little ladies who ran it…they were well advanced in years.)
- The Power and the Wisdom ¶57 (On 49th Street in New York City I came upon two ladies. One lady was showing her out-of-town friend all of New York City, and a big picture of mine was in a window with my books, and one said, “Do you know who he is?” and she said, “No.” “Well, he is the…)
- Untitled lecture ¶7 (“Well, he is the mad mystic of Thirty-Eighth Street. You must go and hear him. He’s as mad as a hatter,” she said. She didn’t know I was standing right next to her.)