Psychometry

More
5 years 2 months ago #332490 by Rosalyn J
Replied by Rosalyn J on topic Psychometry
Kyrin,

It has been 20 pages, so I'll just refer to the opening post.

(This thread may be in the wrong place; it may be moved to the correct plce if neede.)

Does anyone have any Psychometric experience? It seems to be included in many of the basic powers of a Jedi's toolbelt, and have been curious about adding it to my practice.

I came across Buchanan's "Manual" ( archive.org/details/manualofpsychome00buchrich/page/n5 )and it has not been as helpful as I thought, so I am reaching out here.

MTFBWY,
-Jacob


It seems like you have decided what the topic will be as you have written above, but I am sure I am not the only one that finds that to be rather disrespectful

Pax Per Ministerium
[img



The following user(s) said Thank You: Avalon, Carlos.Martinez3, Kobos

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
5 years 2 months ago - 5 years 2 months ago #332491 by
Replied by on topic Psychometry
I am simply stating what the subject matter of this thread conversation has evolved to be. Not sure why that is offensive to anyone that would otherwise be open to the evolution of free expression of ideas.

It's pretty obvious that barger got butthurt because his echo chamber was breached and he abandoned this topic, so I see no reason not to allow the natural conversation to evolve as it has without intervention from council trying to enforce some esoteric idea of what they think it should be. I see that as the very nazilike controls we have been talking about in false beliefs.

So are we actually allowed to discuss ideas here as they evolve or not?
Last edit: 5 years 2 months ago by .

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
5 years 2 months ago #332492 by Manu
Replied by Manu on topic Psychometry
Many of truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view -Obiwan Kenobi

I think it is important to point out that all experience is tainted by our subjective view, which makes finding the “bedrock of reality” for ALL things extremely unlikely.

Of course, we should be grounded in probable reality (i.e. a conscensus based on common experience verified by third parties and easily duplicated). But where do you draw the line? Certainly, the visionary is applauded as such because he challenge probable reality and brought forth into the world something that was neither probable nor common. “Faith” is indisputably essential in forming positive habits, in taking risks (investing), in growing in general.

On the other hand, it is important to use faith as a way to push through improbability, not as a way to make it comfort to escape acknowledging it exists.

Thus, I would suggest that anyone pursuing psychometry ask themselves “why”. You have to acknowledge the improbability of ever discovering anything, and when you hit that wall, your why should be more important than “just curious”, otherwise you will find you wasted a ton of time.

The pessimist complains about the wind;
The optimist expects it to change;
The realist adjusts the sails.
- William Arthur Ward
The following user(s) said Thank You: Avalon, Kobos

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
5 years 2 months ago #332493 by Zenchi
Replied by Zenchi on topic Psychometry

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I am simply stating what the subject matter of this thread conversation has evolved to be. Not sure why that is offensive to anyone that would otherwise be open to the evolution of free expression of ideas.

It's pretty obvious that barger got butthurt because his echo chamber was breached and he abandoned this topic, so I see no reason not to allow the natural conversation to evolve as it has without intervention from council trying to enforce some esoteric idea of what they think it should be. I see that as the very nazilike controls we have been talking about in false beliefs.

So are we actually allowed to discuss ideas here as they evolve or not?


Only you haven't just been "discussing ideas" but rather changing the focus from ideas to people, and stooping so low as to throw in derogatory remarks while you do it....

My Word is my Honor, and my Honor is my Life ~ Sturm Brightblade
Passion, yet Serenity
Knighted Apprentice Arisaig
TM- RyuJin
The following user(s) said Thank You: Avalon

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
5 years 2 months ago #332494 by
Replied by on topic Psychometry
Me? I'm really have no idea why you would say such a disparaging thing. Maybe it is the kettle calling the pot black. I have offered encouragement and the hand of help here. All you need to is take it up zenchi.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
5 years 2 months ago - 5 years 2 months ago #332496 by
Replied by on topic Psychometry

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

JLSpinner wrote: Well firstly, I do not have to explain the difference between someone believing someone is less human based on skin color and someone who believes they can sense feelings from objects, or why I would tolerate one and not the other. This is a poorly designed strawman. There is no relationship between believers of the esoteric and racism, debate the topic at hand instead of running off for the extremes and outliers. You quoted me stating that some fantasies are dangerous. Secondly please explain, with evidence, how a follower of pyschometry causes misogyny, bigotry, AND violence?


No actually you do have to explain the difference. Nazis have an ideology that is obviously damaging as I described in my last post, but so does psychometry. It is just a bit more subtle. Have you ever watched psychics on tv that have caused intense and undue suffering in the name of these psuedo scientific quackeries? Sylvia brown telling the parents of a missing child that the child is dead only to have the child be found a year later. This sort of predator of emotional extortion for money is unforgivable in the realm of causing undue suffering.

So you are wrong spinner, there is a direct correlation and for you to dismiss your biased belief as permissive and yet will condemn nazis is a a character trait in you I find disgusting.


Kyrin, you have always stood firm that those making the claims carry the burden of proof. You asked me a question that I admitted that I was guessing an answer because it is subjective. You agreed it’s subjective. However, you have claimed that “dependence on belief or faith that cannot be mapped to reality causes projection, misogyny, bigotry, and violence.” This was just before you equated Psychometry to racism. So let’s take a moment here. You claimed these things and yet, I am still responsible for the burden of proof? I don’t think so. You brought racism in as a strawman. You want these beliefs to be seen as something shameful and bad. So you tied it into racism, with no evidence that they are even correlated. Then you have something that is actually bad to argue against and you tried to get out of providing proof. That’s odd because you also said “Yes I can actually prove everything I believe, Knight. I don’t believe things I can’t back up.” So again, I don’t have to touch that. You have to prove those claims.
You also said that you would think any Jedi would want to “eradicate” these thoughts because Psychometry is the same as racism if not for the reason to find the struggle for freedom in discovering our own self purpose outside the need for external validation. I’d be really interested to know which part of our doctrine tells us to “eradicate” thoughts we don’t agree with. I thought our goal was syncretism. Also does it make sense to force others, using outside influence, with the claim you are helping them against outside influence?
I understand that you are a skeptic, and that is awesome. But let me ask a question from your quote about about belief or faith that cannot be mapped to reality. What faith can be mapped to reality?

In regards to Pyschic scams, your point isn't valid. Just because there are unethical people using the esoteric doesn't prove the esoteric is bad. Just like the fact that some cops are corrupt doesn't mean that all cops are bad. This becomes an argument over subjective ethics and morals. Pyschometry is not ethical or unethical, people are.
Last edit: 5 years 2 months ago by .

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
5 years 2 months ago - 5 years 2 months ago #332501 by Adder
Replied by Adder on topic Psychometry

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: @adder, oh was that a conditional statement??!! Because I failed to see any conditions in it. To try and now map your statement to this thread is just backpedaling. You made no such reference and you offered a metaphor that is meaningless in this threads context.


It's right there in the first half of the sentence being; " In the absence of effective tools to strike oil" - to the statement; "keep digging with ones hands" (to strike oil).... and the on-topic nature was in regard to the preceding posts talking about whether to bother with doing something in the absence of scientific measures. You could choose to argue what I meant by 'effective', in which pretty much anything rigid would be more effective then ones hands.... but that is missing the forest for the trees. So your direction of "develop better tools or find a different source of fuel" sort of is a meander into your own world just a little bit :side:

So given a proper reading of my statement, perhaps consider try answering those questions I asked you again (since the 'scientific method' is not an answer when the scientific method is not applicable)... or not.

Knight ~ introverted extropian, mechatronic neurothealogizing, technogaian buddhist. Likes integration, visualization, elucidation and transformation.
Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med ~ Dis
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu
Last edit: 5 years 2 months ago by Adder.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
5 years 2 months ago #332503 by Gisteron
Replied by Gisteron on topic Psychometry

JamesSand wrote:

It is neither necessary nor helpful to generate a framework of objective morals first just to be able to argue what we shall do about things subjective values of which we are in overwhelming agreement about already.


Some would argue it's not particularly necessary or helpful to harange [sic] people with meeting a standard of argument or proof or "mapping to reality" to suit your own particular reality either, but here we are.

Yes, someone who wants to make assertions about the nature of external reality or non-fictional phenomena therein may not necessarily find it important that what they say of the reality we share has anything to do with it. It is out of pure generosity that some of us have any patience at all entertaining opinions that are so thoroughly grounded in unreason. Much like if someone doesn't care about their own or their fellow people's well-being we have no good grounds to ask their opinion for moral discussions, so too do we have every reason to dismiss anyone speaking of reality without concern that they are being to any extent at all accurate about it. This doesn't mean either of them are "wrong" in any objective sense, but if someone doesn't care about logic, or well-being, or what is real in an external sense, then what ever positions the come to hold about reason, morality, or the external world, respectively, could hardly have been arrived at by argument, concern, or evidence, respectively, and so we can neither sway them by appealing to any of that, nor would they bring forth anything any of the rest of us could actually learn from.
So, even if there is someone among us who is this utterly and entirely unreasonable (I for one wouldn't dare make such an insulting presumption about this place), in light of their unreasonableness, what is a fair amount of time to be wasting on their opinions, in your view?


We've reached what is "obvious" to you by "overwhelming agreement". That mental place is different for everyone.

I didn't say it was obvious, only that it was uncontroversial and thus unworthy of being debated, since noone we care for the opinions of actually disagrees about it. If we start on common ground, we don't first need to dig it all up and lay it down again only to be building from where we could have been building up from all along. You say that mental place is different for everyone, but it really isn't, because we're all people stuck in almost the same world together, struggling through mostly the same sort of fundamental human problems, aside from further superficial details. We can be reasonably confident that we already have plenty of common ground and we can reinforce what ever patch we assume to have in common by mistake. If you didn't care about how we treat ideas and people, you wouldn't be here to genuinely discuss anything like it. That you are being sincere is, granted, an assumption that one would have made to get to the point more quickly. If that assumption is false, however, and needs correction, and if you are indeed arguing from no position you genuinely hold, then I shall apologize for being so presumptuous and disengage, because that for one is something I have neither a means nor an interest of patching up.

Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
5 years 2 months ago #332506 by JamesSand
Replied by JamesSand on topic Psychometry

what is a fair amount of time to be wasting on their opinions, in your view?


You can waste your time however you like buddy.

You'll impress family and friends more with handmade macrame gifts on birthdays than tales of internet argument victories, but again, your time, waste it however you like.

I didn't say it was obvious, only that it was uncontroversial and thus unworthy of being debated, since noone we care for the opinions of actually disagrees about it. If we start on common ground, we don't first need to dig it all up and lay it down again only to be building from where we could have been building up from all along. You say that mental place is different for everyone, but it really isn't, because we're all people stuck in almost the same world together, struggling through mostly the same sort of fundamental human problems, aside from further superficial details.


lots of words there, I can't spell all of them. I hope you have a nice keyboard.

Way I see it, we have some people who want to discuss psychometry, and some people who are saying it is so obviously not even wrong it's not worth discussing (however many pages of discussion to the contrary) - Seems to me the uncontroversial matter is that some folk are in different places on what is or isn't worth discussing.


In any case, I was mostly responding to positions Kyrin had taken, which I felt were pretty hollow undermining attempts, wrapped in tinfoil armor of "but science!" to control a conversation, demean any position not their own, and contribute as little or less to the general discussion as a mosquito in an outhouse.

Being a skeptic is fine, once you've established your own skepticism, you don't really need to be an pest until everyone agrees with you (unless Jiddajuddujedism or whatever is practiced by the various members here has taken more ideas from the Jehovah's Witness MO than I expected)


I'm not taking a Pro-Data or a Pro-Woo position here, I'm trying for "Stop being assholes and trying to be the smartest sausage meat in the packet"
The following user(s) said Thank You: Manu, Carlos.Martinez3, Kobos

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
5 years 2 months ago #332523 by
Replied by on topic Psychometry
I think open discussion is good but let’s keep the name calling out of it, even if it is just generalized branding. Thank you.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: ZerokevlarVerheilenChaotishRabeRiniTavi