(Q - Belou: I deduce from this that it is only one person, she doubled as herself.)
(Q - Exalastro: Is what we call the find missing today?)
MB: I don't even know, because... how could I say? It's a good question. I should take stock of my way of... How do I perceive this? I would say that it is lacking, I believe that what is most lacking today is logic, but not mathematical logic. That's why I'm talking, I was talking earlier about feminine logic, I'm talking about common sense logic.
(Q - Exalastro: Ok, but that's what you reminded us a little in Micrit, that we had the tendency to focus too quickly on the consequences and not the cause currently.)
MB: Exactly, exactly. There is really today, there is a notion of common sense that I see transpiring in certain feminine reasoning because they are less... How could I say that? On the parameters that interest us, a feminine approach will be more, in quotes, more innocent, therefore more open. And I have messages or solutions that are proposed to me, where elements are mentioned, but in a very open way, where I say to myself, ah yes, we are not far away.
With guys, it's much more categorical, it's much more anchored on a very precise vision. There is more focus in the male mind on one thing and where we do not admit too many possible variations or nuances.
Feminine reasoning will sometimes be a little more nuanced and it's an opening to something where maybe we're not far away and I see that happening so I'll really say that today it's is a question of logic quite..., basic in the term of logic, that is not appropriate, I would say a pragmatic logic, of good quality, without a priori, without a preconceived idea. A logic that approaches, where we say, here I come, what do I see? What do I feel? What could be interesting?
A logic with a beautiful open mind, not a logic with preconceived ideas where we try to make what we see fit with something we have already thought about beforehand.
(Q - Exalastro: But as a result, we say that entity number 1, you said it, a few vocals ago already, you said that she played the role really well, so she understood the role to play.)
MB: Yeah, yeah…
(Q - Exalastro: Apparently, he is missing the discovery. So, there is an effect of, we have a role to play, perhaps potentially, if I make the parallel, it is the method, she would have understood the right method or she suggested it to you, but she didn't really understand it.)
MB: She proposed it, I think she proposed it with innocence.
(Q - Exalastro: So, she offers you a thunderous method. And there you make us understand that that is not enough, that this method will give us a result and it has not understood what to do with this result, right?)
MB: That is to say that entity number 1 manifested itself at a time when ideas were going in all directions, which is less the case today, a year has passed, so today, we are a little more focused on a certain type of logic, we have nevertheless tightened up the focus a little if I dare say, and I think that the entity at the time did not have this framework -there, and therefore mentioned one possibility among others, and it was the good possibility, that was it.
(Q - Exalastro: It's really strange, because if let's admit, when you said it, I said to myself, I'm going to go through what I sent to Michel, I'm surprised that this person has not done this work, and to say to himself what did I propose, and let's analyze each proposal, there is one which will perhaps mean something to him. But let's admit. , the method is apparently not enough, there is still the pirate's trick.)
MB: You have to think about a very pragmatic logic, I arrive, what do I see, what do I deduce from it, but in a really open way, without forbidding anything , without favoring anything, what do I deduce from this?
(Q - Exalastro: It's not a little bit..., the word is not ambiguous, but if you tell me that we have to be very open and not already think about the solution then that we haven't even yet understood what was happening, the cause, and that therefore, we still need a method Because this method, I imagine, will give a certain... Well, that's it. is something that we have already said, but in sifting, you are already going to take part of something whereas here, you tell us, well, where you have to be logical, we arrive at a place and there. , you have to open up the field of possibilities a little But the method should normally…)
. MB: The field of possibilities is not that vast. The field of possibilities means, I arrive somewhere, what do I do? What can I do ? What am I doing and what makes sense to do. Already there, it's not bad. Because in the solutions that I read, there are a certain number of them, I don't know how we could apply them in the field.
(Q - Exalastro: For me, I always feel like I'm applying something that didn't seem crazy to me.)
MB: There are plenty of them that aren’t funny. So, I have to tell you that in the solutions I receive, there are a lot of them which are not at all bizarre, which would be perfectly plausible, which could be the good solutions, it could have been. There are plenty that I get that would be compatible with a scavenger hunt solution. It's not just crazy stuff.
There are some that I consider extremely difficult to put into practice in the field, if not impossible. There are others, on the contrary, that could work very, very well. So it's not in the right place or it's not the right method or the right logic or the right parameters. But the reasoning, the ideas have become much more admissible and possible.
Before I intervened, I saw things and I said to myself, but how can we imagine such things? It's not even possible. Today, most of the solutions I receive are possible, compatible with what the solution of a comparable treasure hunt could be.
(Q - Exalastro: Is what we call the find missing today?)
MB: I don't even know, because... how could I say? It's a good question. I should take stock of my way of... How do I perceive this? I would say that it is lacking, I believe that what is most lacking today is logic, but not mathematical logic. That's why I'm talking, I was talking earlier about feminine logic, I'm talking about common sense logic.
(Q - Exalastro: Ok, but that's what you reminded us a little in Micrit, that we had the tendency to focus too quickly on the consequences and not the cause currently.)
MB: Exactly, exactly. There is really today, there is a notion of common sense that I see transpiring in certain feminine reasoning because they are less... How could I say that? On the parameters that interest us, a feminine approach will be more, in quotes, more innocent, therefore more open. And I have messages or solutions that are proposed to me, where elements are mentioned, but in a very open way, where I say to myself, ah yes, we are not far away.
With guys, it's much more categorical, it's much more anchored on a very precise vision. There is more focus in the male mind on one thing and where we do not admit too many possible variations or nuances.
Feminine reasoning will sometimes be a little more nuanced and it's an opening to something where maybe we're not far away and I see that happening so I'll really say that today it's is a question of logic quite..., basic in the term of logic, that is not appropriate, I would say a pragmatic logic, of good quality, without a priori, without a preconceived idea. A logic that approaches, where we say, here I come, what do I see? What do I feel? What could be interesting?
A logic with a beautiful open mind, not a logic with preconceived ideas where we try to make what we see fit with something we have already thought about beforehand.
(Q - Exalastro: But as a result, we say that entity number 1, you said it, a few vocals ago already, you said that she played the role really well, so she understood the role to play.)
MB: Yeah, yeah…
(Q - Exalastro: Apparently, he is missing the discovery. So, there is an effect of, we have a role to play, perhaps potentially, if I make the parallel, it is the method, she would have understood the right method or she suggested it to you, but she didn't really understand it.)
MB: She proposed it, I think she proposed it with innocence.
(Q - Exalastro: So, she offers you a thunderous method. And there you make us understand that that is not enough, that this method will give us a result and it has not understood what to do with this result, right?)
MB: That is to say that entity number 1 manifested itself at a time when ideas were going in all directions, which is less the case today, a year has passed, so today, we are a little more focused on a certain type of logic, we have nevertheless tightened up the focus a little if I dare say, and I think that the entity at the time did not have this framework -there, and therefore mentioned one possibility among others, and it was the good possibility, that was it.
(Q - Exalastro: It's really strange, because if let's admit, when you said it, I said to myself, I'm going to go through what I sent to Michel, I'm surprised that this person has not done this work, and to say to himself what did I propose, and let's analyze each proposal, there is one which will perhaps mean something to him. But let's admit. , the method is apparently not enough, there is still the pirate's trick.)
MB: You have to think about a very pragmatic logic, I arrive, what do I see, what do I deduce from it, but in a really open way, without forbidding anything , without favoring anything, what do I deduce from this?
(Q - Exalastro: It's not a little bit..., the word is not ambiguous, but if you tell me that we have to be very open and not already think about the solution then that we haven't even yet understood what was happening, the cause, and that therefore, we still need a method Because this method, I imagine, will give a certain... Well, that's it. is something that we have already said, but in sifting, you are already going to take part of something whereas here, you tell us, well, where you have to be logical, we arrive at a place and there. , you have to open up the field of possibilities a little But the method should normally…)
. MB: The field of possibilities is not that vast. The field of possibilities means, I arrive somewhere, what do I do? What can I do ? What am I doing and what makes sense to do. Already there, it's not bad. Because in the solutions that I read, there are a certain number of them, I don't know how we could apply them in the field.
(Q - Exalastro: For me, I always feel like I'm applying something that didn't seem crazy to me.)
MB: There are plenty of them that aren’t funny. So, I have to tell you that in the solutions I receive, there are a lot of them which are not at all bizarre, which would be perfectly plausible, which could be the good solutions, it could have been. There are plenty that I get that would be compatible with a scavenger hunt solution. It's not just crazy stuff.
There are some that I consider extremely difficult to put into practice in the field, if not impossible. There are others, on the contrary, that could work very, very well. So it's not in the right place or it's not the right method or the right logic or the right parameters. But the reasoning, the ideas have become much more admissible and possible.
Before I intervened, I saw things and I said to myself, but how can we imagine such things? It's not even possible. Today, most of the solutions I receive are possible, compatible with what the solution of a comparable treasure hunt could be.