Love or Attachment

                         As we have been discussing boundary definitions in social identification, (as is central to "psychic reading,") we must come to this most volatile of all precipitating of factors. We are in fact defining the very entanglement of human destiny,  #4. "EVERYONE NEEDS LOVE."

                         You may find my writings confusing. Imagine how your clients feel. You may be able to read with precision. Your bullshit detector may be turned on high. But do you know love? Do you know how to distinguish love from attachment or know when they are the same thing? This is where knowing your own social barriers will keep you from confusing your clients. When you understand people, others often feel loved. When you can breeze your way through a checklist accounting for the indexing of copious information that may accurately reflect someones uniqueness, you are magical. And people will be enchanted. Yuck.

                         This is why I am using this odd narrative approach. I want you to feel the personal nature of this reading process first hand. I have few means of knowing whether my work is meeting it's target of, "Non-Falsifiability." Your engagement is the only feedback I accept. As a creative medium, your work will employ numerable tactics and strategies. Psychic Reading is a brain game. Do you have heart?

                        All my life, I have had that curse of blessings. The ability to understand others. Out of respect for people I've learned to avoid criticizing others whenever I can. There are more than enough diagnostic bombs in my tool box, that I should ever have to point at anyone. Those sharpest of tools I use only for delicate surgery, and mind you I have had to use most of them. I'm sorry if I may be getting a little off topic, (or maybe not.)

                        In one standard modern psychiatric model, love and attachment have come to be viewed as the same thing. Opposite to love, we would be seeing aggression as the will to independence. If we consider aggression is acquisition without permission this may be true. (Pay attention!) But by the confusing of love with attachment as the same thing, we risk negating a huge category of noble instincts that many aggressive thinkers would prefer to deny all together. What about; ALTRUISM, AGAPE', AHIMSA, DISPASSION, UNCONDITIONAL LOVE, NON-VIOLENT RESISTANCE.

                        Nor do I share most people's grime outlook about the separate (conflicting,) nature of human consciousness. Love can be a transcendent phenomena. I do not buy into the popular paranoia of an apocalypse. Life may be suffering but "love is the law." Especially when we can do it without attachment. Loving unconditionally will not protect you. Even entanglement is unavoidable. But a loving nature will free you from the lust for results. In some ways, we could compare attachment as the necessary prerequisite for hating someone you once loved. This is why forgiveness is for the forgivers, and why some people do not deserve to be forgiven. But we can forgive others without absolving them of their culpability. "DO YOU KNOW LOVE?" If not, look at your own social barriers, and be gentle with your self. You may be in a lot of pain and it is very obvious, I don't think anyone likes the stink of failure.

Enumerating Social Barriers

                         We will find that there are many types of barriers that define and limit the boundaries of our lives. These are often the results of various tradeoffs that are made during the course of life that have permanent consequences. They can be of the simple socially recursive variety that we have already explored such as gender, age, politics or religion. Or they can be much more personal and exclusive. Anything that defines you as different can act as a social barrier. Sorry it's true.

                          I think in this situation it would be best for me to start with an example of my own distinctiveness. I may be built like a small 57 year old tank of undeservedly good health, but I am a nerd. (Can't you tell?) Even if I wasn't walking around with books on math and physics people are able to tell I am very well educated and that I'm proud of it. I ran and hid in libraries when I wasn't able to hide in other ways. Even during psychiatric hospitalization, I was told that my choice of reading material was intended for use as a social barrier. This is obviously a rather vain choice of possible social barriers but in many ways it is no less effective than a drug addiction or chronic swearing. Thus it could be said that my choice of social barriers might in fact be even more antisocial than drugs or obscenity. {Woof!} It is not my choice to be arrogant, but I am that petty. Add the fact that I have tried to hide myself behind drug addiction and course behavior. I have come to the opinion that intelligence can be much worse than bad manners or debauchery if your intention is to be left alone and misunderstood. (Oops. Did I actually come right out and say that?)

                           I actually say to people, "I am a professional psychic," and I don't even believe in the "supernatural." (I prefer the term, SUPERNORMAL.) What is my major disfunction? Fortunately this isn't about me. We don't have the time to unravel all the reasons why being antisocial isn't always anti social. Drug rehab isn't lonely and some people have made successful careers out of shouting profanely for public display. There is a reason intelligence is measured in "Standard Deviations." I have lost far more friends from being spooky smart than I have because of escapism or acting out.

                          If I want to find knowledgable readers to participate in this exceptional literary experiment, I must go on the web and appeal to scholars in other countries. People who share my interests are few and far between. Are we talking about real social barriers? Yes, I think we have done it. I could only hope that this process of categorically counting all the enumerable possible human distinctions is as rewarding for you as it has been costly for me. We are literally talking about the calculus of variation. How many possible variations are we talking about?

                          I would choose that you should not have to alienate yourself, but if so, so be it. "What was a once wall has now become a window. "What was once a door has become a bridge. To where, I do not know."

Time Frames

                         As we get closer to the actual analytic of consultation, we will be seeing the correlations between seemingly unrelated models. By analogy, we can compare the audio (figurative narrative) portions of your performances to film. Snapshots, shutter speed, moving focal lengths and playing time. These are simply metaphors for the technical skills which can greatly advance your gaming ability. Take panning through a series of indicators. I see your hands or hand writing from across a table. I see them folding and rolling around in patterns of waves that extend across your palms or paper.

                         Or maybe you have had a scripted personal history, vignettes of omens revealed by oracles or bad life experiences. Life too can be a cinematic proposition. Framing, timing and editing are critical. Your respect for others time makes it impossible for you to want to drone on about things neither interesting or necessary. You are a narrative artist. But don't let that intimidate you. You have seen and done more just by watching for the unexplored, than you will ever be able to explain. Most never look for these unknown "Voids of Content" that surround and frame our lives. These are the negative spaces that can breathe unexpected opportunity into our otherwise very predictable lives.

                        These metaphors are apt. Because of linkage, the examination portion of your readings are rendered your "Portrayal" as is unique to each person. Imagery in this situation is being rendered by you verbally. Just like a screenplay, you can see that the pace of your reading process can be greatly accelerated if you watch your clients change of focus carefully. When we "communicate," we are bringing to light and framing the unfamiliar, otherwise we would be babbling. What you reveal for your clients should be a process of discovery, For them, as well it can and should be for you. To look to see where no one has searched before, again, do not expect validation. Just do the work to the best of your ability, reading the signs as you see them. You will never be always right. Just be truthful about what you are seeing and leave it at that. Otherwise, you might want to give the money back and send your clients elsewhere. You don't have to always be right. You want to be honest. This diagnostic process is still coming to light today. It's as if we are watching a movie about the future coming true before we even leave the theatre.

                         I won't be getting into the curvature of shared "Space-Time" yet. This only happens when it is relevant to the dissemination of information on a large scale. ("Gravity?") The nature of human need can often greatly exacerbate this accelerating transfer of new information to receptive mediums. Receptive mediums in this case includes you, me, your clients, your relationships, even the audiences of people today or in the future, whom you may never meet. You may in fact end up communicating to people even after you have died. Many of the most important changes in popular opinion bias have happened quickly, even when the full impact may take a very long time. {Spiritual Isostacy is the balance between gravity and light.} Yes in essence it is true that when you read for some one, any one, everyone, you too are being read. As your audience, as other receptive mediums, others can witness and evaluate your communications even after you are gone. This is why timing is central to reading accuracy. In performance, timing is everything. [Where is my key light? I'm ready for my close up.]

                     

                       

Social Valences

                        I've had to throw out a couple of core concepts that I didn't preview in the first few pages of the book.

                        Social Recursion: The process of self definition by mutual exclusion, A.K.A "I am a straight submissive dominant hetero male bottom conservative Christian, searching for the polar opposite of me." {Not my profile / Just an illustration for what is the actual norm for most men. Surprise!} "I'm looking for a dominant submissive atheist/pagan liberal lesbian top." "Objective: marriage, (incompatible)." "I am this, then therefore you must be that." "I am then therefore not able to be all those other things for you, that I want you to be for me." "Will you complete me?"

                        Social recursion is fraught with self defined silly boundary definitions of unexpressed expectations and egotism. Most men, (in fact most people) are very hung up on fantasy expectations of dominance. "Men may initiate sex, (Especially if we are normal submissive dominant hetero bottoms,) but sex therefore is the woman's prerogative. As it is for us straight guys, top or bottom, we must be prepared to stop for the submissive or female at any time, we must defer to the person who is sexually most vulnerable. Ironically, most people want to believe that men never feel sexually vulnerable, (nonsense.) Social recursive phenomena are used to rationalize some very strange popular prejudices.

                        Socially recursive boundary definitions can be General, (infinitely reiterated, "Susan is smarter than me, but I am smarter than Bob who is smarter than Jennifer.") or Primitive, (as in the case of a one time absolute un redefined boundary, A.K.A. "Me Tarzan, you Jane.")

                        The Primitively Recursive one time compact boundary distinctions of your basic polarities are taken for granted and are generally assumed:
                        Boy / Girl
                        Young /Old
                        Strong / Weak
                        Top / Bottom
And so on.

                       The Generally Recursive social boundary definitions often come in the form of a "Family Tree.
                       I have two parents.
                       I have four grandparents.                      {Boundaries squared}
                       I have eight great grandparents.
And so on.
                       I have one spouse.                
                       I have two children.                              {Boundaries compounded factorially}
                       I have six neighbors.
                       I have twenty-four spheres of social contact that have there own independent boundary conditions.
And so on.

                       In examining Social Valences we will be concerned primarily with the Primitive Social Recursion Boundary Definitions. This is simply because that at the core of all self defined social distinctions even things like chains of command or even meritocracy can be reduced from there orders of succession and analyzed comparatively as polarities. All Groups and Group Dynamics can be viewed as a series of Dyads. Individual is compared to the group, the group is compared to the individual. And person to compared person within the group. This may seem like just so much public relations. It is. The self is always the most primary point of departure when we are identifying social boundaries.

                       Social Valences are most interesting when we come to "Opposites Attraction." The joys of living in a dynamic universe. Although opposites is relative, we must deal with the valences of others. Between any 2 people, one of them is always going to be more rational and the other one more passionate. Those values can change when those same two people are with someone else. Polarity is the key to understanding the asymmetry of Social Recursion and these charge valences of attraction. This is in no way limited to just sex or gender. It's just that gender is this first most primary of Primitive Recursions.

Exercises in Illustration

This Mandala demonstrates the combined influences of two artists working with a shared canvas. I have a friend who is a chemical engineer. He say he doesn't want a relationship that is like an ionic bond. He wants a covalent bond.

Social Algebra

                         Understanding the subtle interplay between people, "Social Algebra" is a way of accounting for interactive emotional resources. In math we have the concept of the conjugate, it is the complementary joining opposite. As compact boundary definitions, conjugates can be used to define the joint emotional interplay. The exercise is one of optimization. We have emotional limits to how much emotional energy one can expend before returning diminishing rewards.

                         I'm going to use a word problem. Starting from the point of view of just one person we can make equations for gauging the expenditure of emotional resources:
   
                         Mom needs to pick up the kids from Soccer practice, she also has a yoga class that starts about the same time. There is an arcade near the yoga class that the twins love, but it's in a bad neighborhood. Mom could drive home, dump the pissed off kids, and be late for her yoga class. Or she could risk being stressed out during yoga worrying about her adventurous twins. How does mom decide?

                         Unlike grade school math, there may be no ideal solutions. There are only ideal boundary definitions. Were the twins able to suppress there desire to emotionally blackmail mom, Mom would be late to class but she wouldn't worry. The problem gets more interesting when you involve the twins input into this kind of equation. Do the twins have empathy for their mom?

                         We are modeling not only for boundaries defined by a "PRIMITIVE RECURSION" of, "I am the mother, you are the children (No means no!)" But in social algebra we are also accounting for the limited emotional resources of both mom and the twins. I'm not in the job of solving peoples personal problems for them but this example shows the challenges of making stressful decisions that effect others.

                         Simple problem, no good solutions. Usually preference and habit determine the outcome of our choices. But we can always try new solutions to this very normal type of social algebra.
                         Now let's look at a much more difficult but equally elegant problem. We can say, I am your reader. You are my complex conjugate, (audience/plural). I can't supervise you to make sure you stay safe. I'm deliberately turning this information loose into the world without knowing what is going to happen. I use no requested traffic sources. You are as alone in this as I am, although there is going to be a lot more of you than there are of me. The lines of influence are clear. Either I give you what you want or you stop reading. I have almost no knowledge of you other than your country of origin, browser and operating system. You can disengage at any time. I will always be here, as long as the blog stays posted. (How do I keep our twins happy? And avoid stressing out.) I dread that if some of you discover how efficiently simple the "Johnson Method" really is, some of my readers will be going out into the world of psychic reading with an untested arsenal of high powered armaments. I may be putting you at an incredible risk handling tools that are much better designed for systems analysis than parlor games.

                         Ahh. Social Algebra. I have to decide how to approach you as a consumer of data content. The factors for analysis are relatively easy, [Games Theory, Transactional Analysis, NeuroLinguistics]. As far as the utility of these said modules is concerned, I don't know what is going to happen, but let's look at what the answer probably is. Who ever you are, if your reading this you are probably way smart. You may have already read for someone while admitting to personal naivete'. I made sure to play to your strengths. You may have already witnessed the freedom that comes from abandoning the standard pretenses.

                         First factor for my "Propositional Assertion" is that I must trust my work. {A PERSON'S GUESS IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN ODDS WOULD ALLOW.}

                         Second, consider the possibility of my readers shared curiosity, case in point. I know somethings I would like to share with the world that as yet is still completely undefined. Ideally, this should be knowledge of the subjective that everyone is going to want to know. {EVERYONE HAS BLIND SPOTS AND EVERYONE'S BLIND SPOTS ARE DIFFERENT.} Your appetite for learning is a hunger, eat, you are skinny. My writing is very bland but the feelings I use are very good. Please. Enjoy. Invite your friends. Your hunger for knowledge, just like my saturation with the subject of psychic reading, are biases. (Polarity can just be as simple as "have or have not." Share. Bias doesn't have to be a bad thing, not ever. If you are hungry to learn, learn.) It is important that the information is measured carefully, so as not to shock people unnecessarily.

                        Thirdly, {SOME PEOPLE ARE VERY DIFFERENT VERY DIFFERENTLY.} If you are reading this, you are the ones who should be getting paid, not me. You are so unique, {outlier} I hope you are getting this.

                        And lastly, {EVERYONE NEEDS LOVE.} None of this is terribly original, but the synthesis is decades overdue. I hope my work speaks for my love and concern for all of you. As is the case for all readers, I must forgo the short term validation of knowing whether you will love me back, and maybe I may never know. It's better that I do the work without concern for reward.

                        As is the case with all instinctual awareness, the dynamic of bias is much greater than feeling out peoples personal problems. We have a much larger dimension to social algebra. I expect that my models of dynamic boundaries will be used for conflict resolution, as well as many other sensitive diplomatic issues.

                       I believe that unconsciously, we all weigh these factors of interpersonal variability when we choose to make expressions in light of any arguments we are contrasting. How can I make these linguistic propositions any the more rational?


                       

The Bridge of Time

                         Sorry to drone on, if you are a new reader please give yourself a little time to catch up. We will be now entering: The Bridge of Time.

                         Life is an exercise. I am your dance instructor. We are running through series of drills know for their precision. By allowing yourself to read highly technical data about a very esoteric subject, you are stepping out of your comfort zone. This is also what happens to people when you read for them. As you are reading for someone they will probably be shifting perspectives simply as a symptom of reflection. Having someone tell you unique things about yourself is usually an experience reserved for close friends, interviews or flirtation.Your pleasant rapport is going to be a little disorienting for people. Even your friends will notice your increased confidence of expression. You are learning to "READ" people. Presence is everything. (This is why I advocate the practice of voice training. Read ANYTHING out loud.)

                         Consider your clients needs. Let them ask the questions. The techniques you are learning aren't like anything they have ever seen before. The information you are reading from is just the front end of your assertions. You are in essence performing "SATSANG, (Hindu; personal time with a master)" it is a face to face consultation with a teacher. Your personal style is what makes this a real memorable experience. Don't hesitate to preview doing as much of the homework as you can, this kind of information will help to keep you talking when you are being interrogated. You should never run out of front end material. Behind the consultation process is a kind of time machine. Time may slow to a crawl or it can race so fast the client remembers none of it. You may have to go back, back into the past or you may need to jump into the distant future. You may also need to help decompress your clients reading before they stumble back out on to the street. Have basic details derived from standard books on your medium of choice. This will help make things more memorable. But don't be surprised if and when you see people staring blankly at you waiting for you to tell them what to do. Sometimes an hour is just to long. If your clients just aren't getting it, it isn't always your fault. You may want to discourage some people from patronizing you. If you have to explain yourself, this is often a good indication that the bridge of time is broken down. Don't waste your time, direct these clients elsewhere. It isn't anyones fault. It's just good business to encourage people to exercise the right of refusal. Don't let people use their money as a weapon. Your time is priceless.

                          "What was a wall, has become a window. What was once a door has now become a bridge beyond time and space."