The best philosophers were not academics, but had another job, so their philosophy was not corrupted by careerism.
A fan of my blog and YouTube channel recently professed, “After reading much of your blog and listening to all your videos on YouTube I am fascinated by your theory and convinced that you are absolutely right!” She then asked why Wikipedia makes no mention of my numerous discoveries. That is a very good question worthy of a reply.
The short answer is Wikipedia’s anonymous editors refuse to mention my original research because they maintain there are no reliable, published sources. On its face, such an objection is manifestly groundless. To publish means to make generally known and disseminate to the public. Clearly, my blog and YouTube Channel more than meet the threshold of that definition. Like Wikipedia, my findings are published virtually and made available to the world via the Internet. A global audience reads my blog which recently surpassed 150,000 page views. How could there be so many page views for something allegedly unpublished? One important reason for this rising tide of interest is the major search engines routinely rank my blog number one in the world. That is the case not only for Google searches of Elgar Enigma Theme and Elgar Enigma Solution, but also for comparable Bing, Yahoo, and Dogpile queries.
The real hang-up for Wikipedia’s editors is my research has not undergone any formal peer-review process prior to publication. There is little chance any of my findings will ever crop up in the pages of a recognized journal due to the overwhelmingly secular bias of academia. The results are far too Christian to excite the slightest sympathy of post-modern scholars steeped in a secular humanistic worldview. The scholars may retreat behind the walls of their ivory towers and pretend nothing has changed, but the reality is far different. The power and reach of the Internet make academia’s monopoly on research and discovery a relic, a thing of the past that no longer dominates or defines the debate. That debate has left them far behind in the digital dust of the Information Age.
Unlike all other purported solutions to Elgar’s Enigma Variations, my blog and YouTube Channel offer a readily accessible forum to share and evaluate my findings. Such a fortunate condition grants the academic community a golden opportunity to critically evaluate any and all aspects of my original research. Towards that end, I am publicly inviting that silent minority to speak now with the caveat they may only do so publicly. There will be no hiding behind the veil of anonymity. Tell us who you are, and you will be granted an open forum to comment about my solutions to Elgar’s enigmas. My conclusions will thrive or wilt under academia’s heated criticisms if only they would be willing to radiate them in the light of day. As Elgar's secret friend is famous for saying, there is no virtue in hiding your lamp under a basket. There, the proverbial gauntlet has been cast down. My experience has shown time and again that closed minds studiously avoid open forums. Perhaps the academics are merely following the proverb, “It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”
Wikipedia's insistence on citing only peer-reviewed sources is fatally undermined by one unavoidable fact: Prominent Elgar scholars agree the answer to the Enigma Variations is unknowable because the composer died without revealing the answer. Michael Kennedy writes, “People have ingeniously been trying to guess the tune ever since, a harmless but pointless recreation since the secret, if there was one, died with him.” J. P. E. Harper-Scott echoes this sentiment:
Although human nature guarantees that attempts to solve it will never end until the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail are on permanent display in the British Museum, they all somehow fail to convince. It is easy to carp, since the riddle cannot be answered now its perpetrator is dead, but the evidence supporting all of the ‘solutions’ is weak.
According to these respected authorities, all purported solutions to the Enigma Variations amount to nothing more than pure speculation. Even Julian Rushton contends, “The only solutions which it may be safe to rule out are those based on false chronology; yet even here we cannot be perfectly certain . . .” The experts agree the solution to Elgar’s Enigma Variations cannot be identified with any degree of certainty. If that is indeed the case, then how could this inexplicable matter be plausibly subjected to the peer-review process as Wikipedia’s editors demand? Such an undertaking would be as frivolous as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. According to some critics, the head of one of Wikipedia's editors would also suffice for just such a thought experiment.
Wikipedia’s embargo of my discoveries is not a fatal blow, but rather a badge of honor since its reputation as a reliable source is marred by controversy. While it continues to serve as an important online resource, Wikipedia exercises no express monopoly on reliable knowledge. Multiple sources should be consulted before formulating an informed opinion on any given subject. As long as that remains the case, my blog and YouTube Channel will continue to offer a counterweight to Wikipedia’s outdated article on Elgar’s Enigma Variations. In the final analysis, Wikipedia’s staid reliance on secondary sources ensures its continued dominance of second place (or worse) in the web rankings. Their anonymous editors should be asking why their work lags behind my own. If web rankings are any measure, then in the free marketplace of ideas my theory has already won the day if not the argument. To learn more about the secrets of the Enigma Variations, read my free eBook Elgar’s Enigmas Exposed. Please help support and expand my original research by becoming a sponsor on Patreon.
3 comments:
The following Elgar scholars have been personally invited to publicly comment on any and all aspects of my original research into Elgar's Enigma Variations:
1) Julian Rushton
2) Clive McClelland
3) Rachel Cowgill
4) Leon Botstein
5) Sophie Fuller
6) Matthew Riley
7) Charles Edward McGuire
8) Daniel M. Grimley
9) Byron Adams
10) J.P.E. Harper-Scott
11) David Cannadine
12) Nalani Ghuman
13) Patrick McCreless
14) Alain Frogley
15) Christopher Mark
16) Aidan J. Thompson
17) John Butt
18) Jenny Doctor
19) Robin Holloway
Before deciding not to dignify my work with a reply, they may wish to consider the following:
1) Google ranks my blog number one in the world for the search criteria 'Elgar enigma theme' and 'Elgar enigma solution'
2) Google ranks my blog second in the world for the search criteria 'Elgar Enigma Variations'
3) Similar rankings are produced by other search engines like Bing, Yahoo, and Dogpile
4) My blog has received in excess of 150,000 page views from a global audience
In this modern era dominated by an unprecedented explosion of information, people commonly begin their research online. When they look for answers to the Enigma Variations, Google and other search engines routinely steer them to my blog and YouTube Channel.
Why not publish my research in a peer-reviewed journal or book? A major drawback of such a traditional route is it does not afford the same freedom and flexibility to share my multidisciplinary research. How many journals or books permit convenient hyperlinks to other web pages or YouTube videos? Another problem is the peer-review process can and often becomes stifling, enforcing a bland homogeneity that discourages new lines of inquiry.
The academic community prides itself on its openness, tolerance, and the freedom those values permit for the attainment of new found knowledge. What could be more open than a blog and YouTube Channel that invite comments and the free exchange of ideas?
Are there any Elgar scholars willing to step forward and submit their assessment?
Google ranks this blog number one out of over 401,000 web pages for the search criteria 'Elgar Enigma Variations' and 'Elgar Enigma Theme.' Take that Wikipedia!
https://www.google.com/#q=elgar+enigma+variations&safe=active
Wikipedia’s relentlessly reluctant editors finally capitulated. After eight long years, they belatedly added “Ein feste Burg” to their list of contrapuntal solutions to the Enigma Variations. I suspect it will take at least another decade for academics to acknowledge the validity of my numerous discoveries. Having slowly surpassed the first stage of ridicule, Academia is still slogging its way through the second stage of opposition. They will eventually arrive at the third and final stage of acceptance, chalking up their consensus to the self evident nature of my discoveries. The minds of career academics shift as slowly as the continents.
Post a Comment