> So while I think that eating food which has been dropped on the floor is not necessarily harmful, I'm not too thrilled that the perceptual "breakthough" has been promoted by a commercial which, at core, is illogical.

I suspect (hope!) most people understand that the theory behind the five second rule is illogical. The people I've seen *use* the five second rule to justify eating something freshly dropped are intelligent and invoke the rule for humorous rather than serious purposes. But that's what makes the whole thing all the more fascinating to me. It *is* a joke that is illogical, the people that use it *know* it's a joke that's illogical -- they're not being duped -- and yet still it is conceivable that it is something that would seem to change people's attitudes simply by being an idea that now has a name.

> Is there a *name* for the concept of publicly recognizing a new paradigm which previously had no name?

Hehehehe. If we give it one now, the secret will be out.

> Words and phrases have power to alter the consciousness for good and for evil. IDEAS can be realized and described in other words; but PERCEPTIONS are transmogrifed by catch-all phrases which will stick in the forefront of thought.

That's a good way to put it, and I like your examples.

> I'm not sure that Sam's post was so much about the "Five Second Rule" as a discussion on structural semiotic analysis :-)

Exactly.

> Wolf ");- does not want to have KILLED Sam's Five Second discussion thread with this tedious academic assay, so POST something, dagnabit!" spirit

This is just the kind of reply I was hoping to elicit. Thank you.

S "eagerly awaits more" am