As I examine the Wikipedia, it's very limited documents on palmistry, and especially it's talk page, I'm especially impressed by the call for a "consensus." There is also an absence of accounts for the variability of the different traditional schools of interpretation. As well the conspicuous "Void of Content" is a proof of the gap between practice and philosophy, dooming the dialog to mutual disagreement. No real attempt has been made to analyze the "Opinion Biases." The notion of "Pseudoscience" is flagged, promoting the usual propaganda about "Cold Reading," when the prospect of educated (informed?) guessing is blamed for the untrustworthy analysis of "psychics." WOW! I must confess that I have also always sympathized with these objections to palmistry. But my intention to embrace a "Complementarity" is because, I WANT INFORMATION. Not simplistic generalizations, pro or con. {The expected utility of the proposed quantum computing will be able to handle the larger scale calculations of facial recognition software and all the other Nth order multi variate statistics. Will our minds be able to keep up with these very reasonable requests for information?
I've made a few basic assertions, like the four basic propositions of "The Para Psychological Methods."(#1. A PERSON"S GUESS IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN ODDS WOULD ALLOW, April 23rd, 2013) Which though deceptively simplistic, these may prove to be the only way I can prove by statistical analysis, the falsifiability of the pre-eminent concept of "pseudo-science." (The concept of "pseudoscience" does not rise above it's own deductive criteria of "non-falsifiability." The concept proof of "pseudoscience" is in itself, "pseudoscientific" in this most arbitrary way. It proves itself wrong by it's own absolute over generalization.)
The dialog on the subject of "Opinion Bias," has for too long been dominated by the abuse of "Subtext." This is most often carried out through the subterfuge of an elite spiritually abusive few, controlling the dialog by deciding what is allowed to be said. This is how arguments are polarized by partisan religion, and pretentiously dogmatic belligerent science. We are often silenced by mockery. Cloistered with baseless viral statements, memes and party lines. Our healthy survival instincts can understandably end up being used against us, negating our will to communicate. We have all become shy introverts. Of those of us with the intelligence to form personal opinions, we are marginalized. For instance, I find myself wondering if I haven't lost all of the Russian readers to the weight of politically expedient popular biases. The web has been criminalized in many countries. It may simply not be possible for me to reach those thousand plus readers who may never be able to come back to reading this blog. It may be too late and there isn't much I can do.
But as this book is ultimately designed to be re-drafted into a book form, hopefully, if and when the book may prove that "The True Hoax," (May 23rd, 2013) is actually substantiated, the book will still become accessible. As I have suggested, I am going to continue to alternate the documentation of pertinent information with these occasional narratives. This may make my own subtext more approachable.
With your advancement into "Eye Training," "Ear Training" and "Voice Training," (and hopefully "Touch Training," if and when we get the time for this most basic of diagnostic resource,) you yourself will be able to more clearly identify "SUBTEXT." I had originally planned to use the notion of subtext as a way to describe unspoken, often unintentional behavior which precludes and substitutes for communication. To Go Where Words Dare Not Enter (July 14th, 2013) & DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY (June 28th, 2013) Good luck and best wishes. If you have been able to read between the lines, I'm trying to say much that I prefer to leave to you, the readers to figure out in your own good time. You may have already noted my "Subtext."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Is there anybody out there?