The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Sept 5, 2006 15:54:53 GMT -5
YOu get the same thing that happens when you put an Indonesian Physicist in the room with an English, American, and Russian Physicisits. They start arguing in physics and sooner or later they actually sit down with the math and hash things out a little. Go home, and one of them wins the Nobel Prize in Physics ten years down the line because they followed up on one of the tangents that came up in the argument.
What you're proposing is essentially a socialistic society. Different ideas are not a bad thing. But there are several comunities out there who are NOT legitimate, even if they are large. Who's going to decide? There's no real codified standard to judge them by. In the above physics example: The Physicists are all constrained by the laws of physics and the mathematical quantifications there of. To argue that an established LAW is wrong it must be demonstraited clearly and precisely in such a way that other people can DUPLICATE. This requires a notation that EVERYONE understands. You have stated you want that level of codification. That requires that someone start somewhere. You obviously weren't there for the LAST time we had this discussion or don't remember it. We have to overcome several barriers, including terminology. Frankly it's easier to standardize a site the size of Psionline than a site the size of UPC. When push comes to shove. Someone has to start somewhere, and trying to start with EVERYONE at once rarely to never works and usually explodes in your face.
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
|
Post by yokusa on Sept 5, 2006 16:22:46 GMT -5
And again, I understand. So what I'm trying to say is why don't we stop saying psionics may eventually get there and do something instead? Yes, it will be a long process and assuredly it doesn't happen overnight. But I've been on this site for I think a little over three years and I haven't seen substantial progress in that province. Progress, yeah. But not substantial progress.
Again, what I'm proposing may not be the easiest thing to organize or to go through with, but even just having the more advanced members of this site just go into the chatroom and discuss these various subjects would get us a little further and bring us all to a better basis. Even if it ends in a blow out, we'll know how to deal with it next time. I know I'd be interested in meeting a bunch of advanced members in the chat to discuss some controversial topics.
One last time so we're on the same page. I know it may not be the most logical thing to propose, but it's worth several tries.
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Sept 5, 2006 22:33:50 GMT -5
This is the first time you've mentioned doing ANYTHING localized. It's always been "OOO! Get EVERYONE in the online psionic community together." Which exploded last time. Define "Substantial Progress." Are you trying to tell me you want psionics to achieve the same status as say physics in 2 years? It too CENTURIES to get physics to where it is. It took at least three centuries to get geology to where it currently is. And frankly we ARE doing something or have you not watched how things have been changing on this site and in general? The topics have gotten more in depth and sensible. THIS site seems to be developing a standard at least. These are massive steps for what you're claiming your goal is. What you're talking is several life times of work. AFTER Psionics comes out of the relm of superstition for the general populace. More if it becomes concrete commonly known FACT in any kind of abrupt manner. (If it doesn't it will probably be life times before it becomes accepted, but that acceptance will be more gradual, less painful, and less likely to spark nasty things like Inquisitions, Witch Hunts, and other such painful, fatal unpleasantries.)
No, it's not the most logical thing to propose. No, it's not worth several more tries until we have more groundwork to build on OURSELVES. You're trying to build the Taj Mahal without laying any kind of foundation. First we need to lay our own foundations, be able to talk with people intellegently, logically, and sensibly about psionics. We need to be able to say "This has worked in X setting. Let's try it in Y setting." One step at a time or you're going to build a house of cards and one tiny flaw will collapse it. Do you honestly expect this to be a "Oh let's do this now! Of course you're right!" Thing? It's not that simple, kid. It really isn't.
You want to talk to more advanced psions than yourself? Fine definitely start a chat room, but don't start and try to tell THEM that they need to sit down and consolidate everything. Look at my posts. I'm trying to find out where we currently ARE at in a more concrete manner, trying to find out what really is KNOWN and really is in common, dispite the differences in styles and language and technique. Is it scientifically valid? Not for proving a hypothesis... but for formulating one, for getting STARTED it is. We're barely at the point, historically, where we can consider debating this, as laymen, in a scientific manner. That is a major acomplishment.
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
|
Post by yokusa on Sept 6, 2006 15:03:55 GMT -5
First off. I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. Do not call me kid. If you'll see in my profile, I happen to be out of the child age. I'm also expecting the same respect I give you in my posts, saying as it's a forum rule to respect the other members. Simmer down. It's just a conversation and no, it doesn't matter how long the conversation lasts. Last time I checked, I said nothing about wanting psionics to achieve the status of physics in two years. Don't put words into my mouth. Again, it's a respect issue I think. So you can pretty much exclude the first half of your first paragraph. Quote: And frankly we ARE doing something or have you not watched how things have been changing on this site and in general? The topics have gotten more in depth and sensible. THIS site seems to be developing a standard at least. These are massive steps for what you're claiming your goal is.I have watched and the only thing I've seen happen is us coming up with some terms or some different techniques. Woopdeedoo. Quote: What you're talking is several life times of work. AFTER Psionics comes out of the relm of superstition for the general populace. More if it becomes concrete commonly known FACT in any kind of abrupt manner. (If it doesn't it will probably be life times before it becomes accepted, but that acceptance will be more gradual, less painful, and less likely to spark nasty things like Inquisitions, Witch Hunts, and other such painful, fatal unpleasantries.)Oh spare me the dramatics. I can stand how dramatic you are about your empathy, but this is a little much. Yes DA, our research will most certainly spark Witch Hunts. Be as reasonable as you ask me to be. And perhaps check out a timeline of how psionics has developed if you can find one. These lifetimes of work that you're presenting as fact have been represented in the past century. And no I'm not saying psionics was invented 100 years ago. I'm just recommending you look up the progress that's come since this past 100 years. Quote: No, it's not the most logical thing to propose. No, it's not worth several more tries until we have more groundwork to build on OURSELVES. You're trying to build the Taj Mahal without laying any kind of foundation. First we need to lay our own foundations, be able to talk with people intellegently, logically, and sensibly about psionics. We need to be able to say "This has worked in X setting. Let's try it in Y setting." One step at a time or you're going to build a house of cards and one tiny flaw will collapse it. Do you honestly expect this to be a "Oh let's do this now! Of course you're right!" Thing? It's not that simple, kid. It really isn't.
I don't believe I said that it was our job to completely finish getting psionics out to the whole world and force feeding it to our modern Einsteins. I don't beliee I said that I wanted to show the world psionics. I believe that what I proposed was that the advanced members of our community chat about "laying better foundation over controversial subjects" for your Taj Mahal we know as psionics. That's what I'm freaking talking about. Okay, in your opinion it's not worth several tries. Quote: You want to talk to more advanced psions than yourself? Fine definitely start a chat room, but don't start and try to tell THEM that they need to sit down and consolidate everything. Look at my posts. I'm trying to find out where we currently ARE at in a more concrete manner, trying to find out what really is KNOWN and really is in common, dispite the differences in styles and language and technique. Is it scientifically valid? Not for proving a hypothesis... but for formulating one, for getting STARTED it is. We're barely at the point, historically, where we can consider debating this, as laymen, in a scientific manner. That is a major acomplishment.
Okay, again we're talking about that "putting words into my mouth thing". I said advanced psions. That phrase alone. Nothing added. And as for you trying to formulate a hypothesis, well good luck with the 35 people that are currently on this site, some of them who join and don't even respond. With the attitude you have towards psionics and towards other people on this site, you're never going to get anywhere. All you do around here when someone doesn't agree with you is talk crap to them and tell them that they know nothing. You can't forcefeed your ideas and not expect at least one person to question it. So stop being childish kid, and try being respectful to everyone and not just the ones who have more authority or more seniority. Things would go a lot smoother around here if that didn't happen. Hey, I have precog and I predict this post will bring me to at least -3 karma.
|
|
lunin
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by lunin on Sept 6, 2006 20:40:21 GMT -5
Not meaning to break the current discussion, I just wanted to put in my two cents on the original question. I think when classifying anything, it's a matter of separating things within a group from each other so they can be more easily described. Therefor how a mirror shield is classified differently from a ball would be different than how a mirror shield is classified from another shield, say a bubble or repelling. That is one of the main hindrances with psionics is that in order to explain it, it is difficult to put down what the differences are. Usually I classify them with a number of adjetives about the feel of it or the making of it, sometimes an analogy that its 'like' something, and what the use is. As I oftentimes am experimenting and don't know any 'official' name for whatever I was doing, I have to use this method when speaking with other psions (though I often am told afterwords by said psions the name of what I was doing, though not always)
I'm not sure if that counts as a straightforward classification, and its fairly flexible, but it has worked for me. Afterwords whatever is most uniquely noticeable and relatable (be it description, analogy, or use) makes a good quick classification (smooth, rough, reflective, solid, dense, refracting, absorbing ...etc) or temporary name.
|
|
|
Post by wolfdancer on Sept 6, 2006 21:04:12 GMT -5
AS YOU CAN PROBABLY FIGURE OUT: regular text = Yokusa’s post or a quote he used from DA; Bold = my response.First off. I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. Where did she say you were asking her anything? I missed that. (delete or rephrase missed line. Sarcasm not entirely evident) Do not call me kid. If you'll see in my profile, I happen to be out of the child age. Well, I’m not sure I believe your profile, but we can get into that discussion elsewhere. I do not feel like this is the appropriate place to discuss the validity of profile data and how it has changed over the years. I'm also expecting the same respect I give you in my posts, saying as it's a forum rule to respect the other members. You are receiving an appropriate amount of respect. I have seen nothing completely disrespectful or flaming in any of DA’s posts. Simmer down. It's just a conversation and no, it doesn't matter how long the conversation lasts. It is a conversation. It may last as long as necessary however it should be progressive. If you haven’t noticed, people with brilliant minds often have very passionate opinions about stuff. Trust me, I’m in a household with several. Oi! When we get into a discussion we are often passionate about the fact that we are right—frequently it results in research and the proving of who was actually right (followed of course by consensus from those dissenting and apologies if appropriate). Last time I checked, I said nothing about wanting psionics to achieve the status of physics in two years. You seemed to imply it. She was stating how she had read what you wrote. It was not said as a quote or to indicate any type of quoting of your actual words. Don't put words into my mouth. Again, it's a respect issue I think. Not sure I see how. So you can pretty much exclude the first half of your first paragraph. No. You can not. You may respond with “What I was trying to say was….” and explain how what you said indicated that. I would be interested in seeing that kind of response more than an ignore something on basis of false info. If we did that we would have to disregard a lot of what you’ve said as well. I have watched and the only thing I've seen happen is us coming up with some terms or some different techniques. Woopdeedoo. You haven’t watched closely enough then. This site and community has come a long way since I joined. “Some terms or some different techniques” is a lot. I have also watched the progression among people I know over the last ten years or so. Progress is being made rather rapidly if you open your eyes to the world around you and remember the world when you were 7 (that should be about the same time frame). Quote: What you're talking is several life times of work. AFTER Psionics comes out of the relm of superstition for the general populace. More if it becomes concrete commonly known FACT in any kind of abrupt manner. (If it doesn't it will probably be life times before it becomes accepted, but that acceptance will be more gradual, less painful, and less likely to spark nasty things like Inquisitions, Witch Hunts, and other such painful, fatal unpleasantries.) Oh spare me the dramatics. I can stand how dramatic you are about your empathy, but this is a little much. Yes DA, our research will most certainly spark Witch Hunts. Actually it could. Historically speaking. Don’t try to tell me “we know better now and are more intelligent” because we aren’t really. History often repeats itself just because we refuse to see that we are repeating history. We put a new face and name on it, but at the core it is the same. Psychiatrists vs. preachers. It’s all the same. You tell me that Conservative Christians in the South are going to accept this and not try to form a witch hunt? The *Klan* still exists, as do Neo-Nazi’s and many other similar groups. This is *nods* an unreal and overly dramatic proposition. Be as reasonable as you ask me to be. She seems to be. And perhaps check out a timeline of how psionics has developed if you can find one. These lifetimes of work that you're presenting as fact have been represented in the past century. And no I'm not saying psionics was invented 100 years ago. I'm just recommending you look up the progress that's come since this past 100 years. I thought you weren’t happy with the progress being made. You’ve confused me. She is not saying it hasn’t taken several lifetimes to get to where we are, just that it will take several more to reach where we would like to be. I don't believe I said that it was our job to completely finish getting psionics out to the whole world and force feeding it to our modern Einsteins. I don't beliee I said that I wanted to show the world psionics. I believe that what I proposed was that the advanced members of our community chat about "laying better foundation over controversial subjects" for your Taj Mahal we know as psionics. That's what I'm freaking talking about. Okay, in your opinion it's not worth several tries. *shakes head* If you would like to try coordinating that: go for it. It is going to take a miracle to pull that off within the next twenty years. I’d give it forty. Quote: You want to talk to more advanced psions than yourself? Fine definitely start a chat room, but don't start and try to tell THEM that they need to sit down and consolidate everything. Look at my posts. I'm trying to find out where we currently ARE at in a more concrete manner, trying to find out what really is KNOWN and really is in common, dispite the differences in styles and language and technique. Is it scientifically valid? Not for proving a hypothesis... but for formulating one, for getting STARTED it is. We're barely at the point, historically, where we can consider debating this, as laymen, in a scientific manner. That is a major acomplishment. Okay, again we're talking about that "putting words into my mouth thing". I said advanced psions. That phrase alone. Nothing added. Actually you added a lot to that. You were talking about getting the advanced members of this site to get together and chat about this stuff. To be truthful a lot of us do. We may not advertise the chat sessions. In fact most aren’t really planned in advance. We see others online who are of our level and we get to talking. We ask each other’s opinions, test hypotheses, offer advice. It’s a lot of fun. It is also not all done online and in conversations that can be logged and posted somewhere. Some of it is done on the phone and other times over dinner at a pizza place or sitting around the house discussing issues with friends. And as for you trying to formulate a hypothesis, well good luck with the 35 people that are currently on this site, some of them who join and don't even respond. *rolls eyes* Being negative about it doesn’t serve any purpose. She is formulating a hypothesis. People have tried to do this on observation of perhaps 5 other psions. Therefore she’s got a better basis than others who’ve created whole websites touting their theories.
Hypothesis: noun 1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts. 2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument 3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition. 4. a mere assumption or guess.
Everyone has to start somewhere with ‘any’ kind of hypothesis, because it’s just that. It doesn’t ‘have’ evidence to begin with. It’s something someone has noticed and thinks ‘might’ be something that can be quantified, or a rule applied to. The hypothesis is what you try to prove, not something for which irrefutable evidence is supplied ahead of time. This is basic scientific method. Hypotheses have to come first, whether they turn out to be right or not. Otherwise, it would be rather difficult to get anywhere in researching new territory in regards to most subjects.
Stepping away from science a moment, in sociology the method is similar. You notice a trend, and you check various groups (be they divided by age, race, gender, social status etc… or all of the above) and see if the trend follows through, and /where/ it does and does not apply. If your base group of subjects is what you have to work with, you start there. QUALITY is as critical as quantity. Even an incomplete base is better than nothing and not every study done (be it sociological or scientific) starts with some kind of solid foundation. A small number of good samples is better than a large number of faulty or potentially contaminated ones that can’t be used in the early stages of research without skewing the results. With the attitude you have towards psionics and towards other people on this site, you're never going to get anywhere. Funny, I thought she’d covered quite a lot of ground. You don’t apparently know her attitude about psionics as well as you think you do or rather don’t understand the practicality and background from which it was developed. All you do around here when someone doesn't agree with you is talk crap to them and tell them that they know nothing. I have not seen her tell people they know /nothing/, just that they are incorrect or uninformed about some aspect of what they have presented to the forum. So far I have not seen her say anything erroneous in regards to science and research. She has presented many well researched opinions and challenges to people. She is trying to present fact and get to the core of the idea. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. She is generally respectful to others on the site and her responses are within accepted limits. Not only that, I believe her posts are more heavily moderated than anyone else’s on this site because of the role she plays. Several times her posts have been reviewed by a staff member before posting and in addition there have been times she has been requested to edit a post or delete it after it had been posted. You may not see it, but it happens. You can't forcefeed your ideas and not expect at least one person to question it. Actually, she has stated many times that she does expect to be questioned and by more than one person. Besides, presenting ideas that are informative and helpful to a discussion that are important or may not have been considered, is not /force feeding/ an idea. No one has been forced to believe or agree with anything said in these forums. No one is expected to take anything /without/ question. They are, however, required to /consider/ its validity before choosing whether or not to agree. So stop being childish kid, and try being respectful to everyone and not just the ones who have more authority or more seniority. Things would go a lot smoother around here if that didn't happen. I think that is the most childish, immature, and hypocritical thing anyone has ever posted on this site that wasn’t in 133t speak. Thank you for showing us what it looks like. We will make sure not to follow your example.
~Wolfd@ncer
P.S. Warning you have broken rules number 1 and 6a since being on this site. Please correct the matter. This is your requisite warning. Further action may be taken at another time.
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Sept 7, 2006 0:21:16 GMT -5
Lunin: You make a good point.
A question for you: You said you have discussed these constructs with others. If you have had them scan said constructs how has their analysis compared with yours? Not so much the 'official' name, but more were the descriptors similar. You had a 'rough' shield and they said it was 'gritty' or 'like sand paper' as an example.
My observations are tentatively leaning me towards 3 major classification factors (in no particular order): Purpose, Structure, and Type. Does this agree with your observations? If not, what have you noticed the trends to be?
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
lunin
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by lunin on Sept 15, 2006 6:10:44 GMT -5
Sorry about the late post. Heavy class schedule is keeping me rather busy and I didn't get around to re-checking this particular post till now.
I would say those three are fairly accurate if you include feel and action in structure. One fairly good example of that particular aspect would be when I was working on a new (to me) high concentration shield where it would be a rather loose field that I would shift when I felt a construct enter it so that it was diverted off course (I was trying to make a good one to avoid constructs without having them actually hit anything) When the other person was sending constructs toward me (mostly psi balls) he said something to the effect that it was weird because it didn't feel like he was hitting anything, except things would get jerked to the side occasionally. I could feel the things entering the field and it felt kind of like shifting air to move foam things or shifting water to move a piece of debris.
This one is a good example of the dynamic classification problems I was talking about as if you call it a loose shield, many would associate it with a marshmallow style shield (which I suppose it is mildly similar to) You could also call it a shifting shield though that also brings to mind something else like a shield that moves around the body. The purpose is deflection, except that brings to mind a reflective shield or something solid being hit. Calling it an air/water/current shield brings to mind elements rather than psionics and could give the wrong impression to those still new to psionics. I'm afraid I just realized this is a not so good example as I didn't come up with a quick name or classification for it, just a short description of 'its like this... except more this'
I think the three will work in many situations, provided Structure accounts for actions and feel. If a construct is built for the same purpose as another construct, they might be classified differently on how they go about those tasks.
Also, just curious on that last one, Type. What exactly does that pertain to? Just broad ones like Shield, Psiball, Other Constructs...etc?
Sorry if I mostly come up with problems, I know its always easier to point out flaws than ways to fix them, but I think that these issues need to be at least accounted slightly for so that we don't get too many anomalies in the classifications.
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Sept 17, 2006 18:21:27 GMT -5
I don't mind at all. This is what discussion is for!
Structure is How the construct is made: ie is it many tiny strands of psi? Is it woven? is it built from little psionic tinker toys? What does a scan say it is 'built like'.
Purpose: What is it suposed to DO?
Type: Is it a shield, a psiball, a virus, a divine psionic widgit? (Ok so the last one wasn't entirely serious.)
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
lunin
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by lunin on Sept 18, 2006 0:39:36 GMT -5
*Immediately gets to work on the psionic widget*
Ok so using that system, the shield I spoke of would be a 'loose redirecting shield'? That seems to work out alright. If it is brought down to those three currently, it then becomes a task to get some general guidelines on what is used for what, ie: one persons definition of a woven might be that it has a cloth-like texture or that it has a bunch of strands (which may just be running like separate bands)
Perhaps a list of terms with general descriptions could start to be formulated with people being able to add possible revisions for things not covered by words in it yet. Then those revisions could be checked by some other psions to make sure it isn't already on the list or that the term doesn't conflict with another one and put in. That way, if someone wanted to say something they've done, they can just figure out those three things, and how they pertain to the list (of course if one doesn't fit the list, submitting a detailed description and some possible terms). That would also make it so not every possible combination has to be tried and given a term, and its entirely possible to find a combination nobody's used before and still have it classified.
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Sept 18, 2006 7:09:53 GMT -5
I'm not sure that 'loose' fits 'structure'. Are you talking about the internal workings of the shield being 'loose'? How is your diversionary shield constructed?
Perhaps we should add a catagory: Method as well as purpose.
For the sake of /this/ discussion (not neccissarily carrying beyond this example) let us use the format Purpose, Method, Structure, Type. So Structure? I'm just going to call that 'field. Deflecting Variable Field Shield.
Note: Deflecting and reflecting are different things. Reflection is to deflect along a reciprocal path. Deflection is to simply divert, so deflection is the proper and clear term.
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
lunin
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by lunin on Sept 19, 2006 3:32:31 GMT -5
Yeah, thats kinda what I meant by the need for a list of words with short definitions so everyones on the same page term-wise. As for the terms I used, I just meant loose as it was very fluid and not dense, and I used the term 'redirecting' because Deflection brings to mind a more sudden snapping of a change in direction while this was kind of nudging stuff out of the way(though I see where it could also fall under deflection), just turning it enough to miss, without effecting it enough to have to deal with impact. Never really considered reflection as that implies not only an impact, but a sharp change in direction.
But I think that 4 point system does add a bit more clarification between some differences. A question then becomes, would the same word be allowed to be used in two categories? Ie: say a construct's purpose for whatever reason is to make any nearby psiball orbit it? Another construct may have the trait where what it is designed to do, it achieves through causing nearby psiballs to orbit it. I know this example is a bit of a stretch and it's more of an issue for some of the other fields but I think that the point is there, could the same descriptor/term be used in different categories given a specific order for the terms is held, or would it be too confusing?
I think a trial term/descriptor list should be made for the 4 categories so we can test some different constructs n' such against it, so we can see how it stands up to some experimentation. One line short descriptions would have to be given with each term so the users would be able to see what best matches or if they should submit another word and description to a list category.
Anyway, what do you think?
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Sept 19, 2006 8:00:53 GMT -5
Repeat terms: I’m not sure. The writer in me says “No that’s redundant”. The scientist in me says “Yes, that’s clarity.” I say we play it by ear for the moment and see what actually happens and how it actually works. Given that a great many of the reflecting/diverting style shields will have closely related purpose and method, perhaps we should go for words that have slightly different connotations to make things a little more specific? The purpose may be deflection and the method diversion, or the purpose may be blocking but it does so through absorption. Is this making any sense? I like the idea of hashing out some terms that do fit the categories and trying to describe common constructs with them, it sounds over all reasonable, and probably the best way to test out how efficient this new system is or is not going to be. If you see anything I suggest that doesn’t quite make sense. Working Format: Purpose, Method, Structure, Type Purpose: Blocking, Reflecting, Deflecting, Absorbing, Shredding (better term for something that removes programming from an incoming construct), Diverting? (would this be redundant with deflecting? I’m thinking yes, but opinions?), cushioning Method: Variable, Blocking, Reflecting, Deflecting, Absorbing, Shredding, diverting, cushioning Structure: Woven, Solid, Shifting, Field, wrapped, fractured, reinforced Type: Psiball, Shield, Field, Widget (aka: insert other construct types here.) On a complete tangent, I did discover that there are formal dictionaries out there that the parapsychology community seems to be using, at least to talk to the nonparapsychology community. The Rhine institute has a list of terms on their website, and while I don’t agree with all of their usage, it’s a good place to send new people for basic, formal terminology definitions. They us PK over TK which I’m not sure I like but eh. My Historical geology professor STILL rants about Pelecypoda becoming Bivalvia, and that changed years ago. so I don’t have to like it for it to be useful. Note. These terms don’t seem to get into the detail that we discuss on this site. They seem to be basic definitions of what abilities are specifically in reference to what the parapsychology community has researched. I’m still working on downloading articles, but 1993-now is a LOT of articles to download! ~The Devil’s Advocate Note: Modified to fix a few internal grammatical and structural errors. also if any of you have ideas to toss in on this go for it!
|
|
lunin
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by lunin on Sept 23, 2006 3:56:14 GMT -5
I keep trying to think of a way to do this from within a post here but it feels like it wouldn't be nice and editable or public that way. I think 4 columns with the terms and short definitions would be the best way to set it up for reference. Sorry for the short post, don't have long right at the moment, but we should after getting the 'chart' in an easy to understand format, have a separate post in this section for everyone to try matching things to it/find things that don't fit. After enough data is collected (with the original post's chart being updated as necessary or revealed through posts) A second chart could be done up with a cleaner version of all the fixes that were done on it(such as clarity on some terms or something of that sort).
|
|
|
Post by ryakoth on Sept 24, 2006 20:02:07 GMT -5
ok my answer is the same as my answer to any catagorization question, whatever you want to be the perimeter is the perimeter, there is no godly decree giving meaning to how you decide to slice things into smaller catagories, and if you dont need it to make thinking easier dont catagorize at all, with psionics its a non catagory thing, because since no matter what catagories and slots you devide things into there are exceptions, but for this thread I'll put things into catagories, because i have nothing better to do right now
so catagories defined by purpose are for me:
shields (things meant entirely to traffic other energy that may be hostile or annoying away from you)
messages (energy packets with specific information meant to be read by another person)
attacks (those things you throw at people with the intent to hurt disable or manipulate them/ their constructs)
energy constructs{i know everything is an energy construct but i couldnt better name it} (energy you make simply to be there and under your control, no real purpose outside of practice)
charged energy constructs{again and i know these can also be any other catagory, but this is catagorization from a purpsoe and control POV} (like the above only with a certain charge not meant as a message attack or shield, such as an emotional charge)
catalysts (constructs meant to help other constructs or you in a certain psionic attempt){more blurred lines}
PK constructs (constructs meant to move physical things with [sofar as our knowledge goes] non physical energy){again this can also be any of the above just with a small twist and more energy}
|
|