Wikipedia has very limited documentation on palmistry. I'm especially impressed by it's call for a "consensus." There is an absence of accounting for the variability of different traditional schools of interpretation. The "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 "Opinion Biases." The notion of "Pseudoscience" is often flagged, promoting the usual propaganda about "Cold Reading." The prospect of uneducated (misinformed?) guessing is blamed for the untrustworthy analysis of data by "psychics." WOW! I must confess that I have always sympathized with these types objections to palmistry. But my intention is to embrace a "Complementarity" because, I WANT INFORMATION. Not simplistic generalizations, pro or con. (Chinese Medical Diagnostics use a Dialectical Analytic for the Statistics of large scale Variability.) {The expected utility of the proposed quantum computing will be able to handle the larger scale calculations of facial recognition software and all of these 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 propositions of "The Para Psychological Method."(#1. A PERSON"S GUESS IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN ODDS WOULD ALLOW, April 23rd, 2013) Which though deceptively simplistic, may prove to be the only way I can prove 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 is, "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 this abuse of censorship, "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 politically 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 are being used against us, negating our will to communicate. We 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 hard copy. Hopefully if and when, the book may prove "The True Hoax," (May 23rd, 2013). My book may still become accessible. 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 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 Biases, Evasions and "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 for yourself, in your own good time. You may have already noted my bias and "Subtext."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Is there anybody out there?