basic classification of psions

romania2007 · 10-24-2009, 02:01 PM

i think there are three classes of psions -
1)talent - have abilities from birth
2)gifted - get abilities after some incident
3)skilled - self taught psions.often powerful due to amount of experience

Pavlov's Dog · 10-25-2009, 12:57 AM

I'm not really sure what's gained by this system, compared to the system we already use.

Lok · 10-25-2009, 02:25 AM

Isn't that the system we already have, just massively symplified?

voiddragon · 10-25-2009, 07:30 AM

Why not do a way with a classification system, anyway? The whole thing is stupid, in my opinion.

Redregon · 10-25-2009, 12:28 PM

well, if we did away with the classification systems, we'd have to redefine what each of us are...

yes, there are people that are "on" since birth, there are people that are "on" since adolescence (typically) and there are those that work at turning themselves "on" at any given moment.

besides, it's human nature to want to classify things. it gives things a comforting sense of order. however, it also gives people something to cling to to make their lives feel better... people crave labels. thing is, in trying to define and classify ourselves with labels, we're limiting ourselves into what our potential is or could be. labels are finite, people are not.

Lok · 10-25-2009, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redregon

well, if we did away with the classification systems, we'd have to redefine what each of us are...

yes, there are people that are "on" since birth, there are people that are "on" since adolescence (typically) and there are those that work at turning themselves "on" at any given moment.

besides, it's human nature to want to classify things. it gives things a comforting sense of order. however, it also gives people something to cling to to make their lives feel better... people crave labels. thing is, in trying to define and classify ourselves with labels, we're limiting ourselves into what our potential is or could be. labels are finite, people are not.

I really like that.

voiddragon · 10-25-2009, 06:39 PM

Never really got the label thing.

Pat McDonald · 10-27-2009, 03:13 PM

I've always tended towards the holistic (viewing reality as a set of systems) rather than the reductionist (viewing reality as a set of bits that can be easily classified/"pigeon holed" to make sense of what is going on around you.

The limitation of reductionism is that it depends what is written on the label of each pigeon hole, and how that label is interpreted. It's a natural process and is the basis for such enlightenments as the scientific method, technological improvement, and (especially) the concentration of applied power down in scale of size and upwards in terms of effect, usually misapplied for warfare, "national security", the protection of vested interests etc etc.

The holistic view is that you have a rough idea for how the system you are currently engaged with operates and how to achieve the possible and reject the impossible. The limitation is not just what the labels mean, but the understanding of each related process and (especially) producing enough energy to overcome the inertia of existing understanding. Everyone can after all only do our learn so much, and in an emergency we just don't have the time and other resources to using the best holistic method available.

Simple rejection of either method will lead to rejection of possible methods of problem solving producted by both, and a limitation in possible activities.

Never reducing burns up energy and resources.

Never using holisitic/systems modelling loses depth to existence and experience. It produces meaness of spirit, selfishness, and a lack of social cohesion.

Nervous · 10-28-2009, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redregon

well, if we did away with the classification systems, we'd have to redefine what each of us are...

yes, there are people that are "on" since birth, there are people that are "on" since adolescence (typically) and there are those that work at turning themselves "on" at any given moment.

besides, it's human nature to want to classify things. it gives things a comforting sense of order. however, it also gives people something to cling to to make their lives feel better... people crave labels. thing is, in trying to define and classify ourselves with labels, we're limiting ourselves into what our potential is or could be. labels are finite, people are not.

So basicaly, your saying, "We should have a classification system, to please our ego's, even though we don't need one."
I guess that's only dumb if you a person who puts logic before emotion...

10-24-2009, 02:01 PM	#1
romania2007 Newbie Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: India Posts: 5 Rep Power: 0	basic classification of psions i think there are three classes of psions - 1)talent - have abilities from birth 2)gifted - get abilities after some incident 3)skilled - self taught psions.often powerful due to amount of experience

10-25-2009, 12:57 AM	#2
Pavlov's Dog Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: North 44 degrees 47' 54.132", West 91 degrees 30' 21.334" Posts: 1,192 Rep Power: 6	I'm not really sure what's gained by this system, compared to the system we already use. __________________ There are only three kinds of people in the world: the people who think I'm crazy, the people who think I'm insane, and the people who haven't met me yet. Location coordinates not updated during minor breaks, major temporal shifts only. Potentially no longer actively monitoring forums. Email contact only.

10-25-2009, 02:25 AM	#3
Lok Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Nevada Posts: 35 Rep Power: 0	classification Isn't that the system we already have, just massively symplified? __________________ Lok

10-25-2009, 07:30 AM	#4
voiddragon Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: McDonough, GA Posts: 231 Rep Power: 0	Why not do a way with a classification system, anyway? The whole thing is stupid, in my opinion. __________________ Web Master of Psion's Lair That's good for my ego, ha ha, me and my ego And he go everywhere we go My ego is my imaginary friend He was with me when I was only imagining I had dreams of the league, one day I'd play Kobe or walk up to Puff and he would really know me. Couldn't let the dream killers kill my self-esteem. Or use the arrogance as the steam that power my dreams and my ego

10-25-2009, 12:28 PM	#5
Redregon on a journey. Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 814 Rep Power: 0	well, if we did away with the classification systems, we'd have to redefine what each of us are... yes, there are people that are "on" since birth, there are people that are "on" since adolescence (typically) and there are those that work at turning themselves "on" at any given moment. besides, it's human nature to want to classify things. it gives things a comforting sense of order. however, it also gives people something to cling to to make their lives feel better... people crave labels. thing is, in trying to define and classify ourselves with labels, we're limiting ourselves into what our potential is or could be. labels are finite, people are not. __________________ "If you live with your head in the future you won't cherish what you have today and that's the greatest loss of all." -Lonely Planet Boy Namaste

10-25-2009, 06:39 PM	#7
voiddragon Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: McDonough, GA Posts: 231 Rep Power: 0	Never really got the label thing. __________________ Web Master of Psion's Lair That's good for my ego, ha ha, me and my ego And he go everywhere we go My ego is my imaginary friend He was with me when I was only imagining I had dreams of the league, one day I'd play Kobe or walk up to Puff and he would really know me. Couldn't let the dream killers kill my self-esteem. Or use the arrogance as the steam that power my dreams and my ego

10-27-2009, 03:13 PM	#8
Pat McDonald Very, very pale grey Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nottingham, UK Posts: 181 Rep Power: 0	I've always tended towards the holistic (viewing reality as a set of systems) rather than the reductionist (viewing reality as a set of bits that can be easily classified/"pigeon holed" to make sense of what is going on around you. The limitation of reductionism is that it depends what is written on the label of each pigeon hole, and how that label is interpreted. It's a natural process and is the basis for such enlightenments as the scientific method, technological improvement, and (especially) the concentration of applied power down in scale of size and upwards in terms of effect, usually misapplied for warfare, "national security", the protection of vested interests etc etc. The holistic view is that you have a rough idea for how the system you are currently engaged with operates and how to achieve the possible and reject the impossible. The limitation is not just what the labels mean, but the understanding of each related process and (especially) producing enough energy to overcome the inertia of existing understanding. Everyone can after all only do our learn so much, and in an emergency we just don't have the time and other resources to using the best holistic method available. Simple rejection of either method will lead to rejection of possible methods of problem solving producted by both, and a limitation in possible activities. Never reducing burns up energy and resources. Never using holisitic/systems modelling loses depth to existence and experience. It produces meaness of spirit, selfishness, and a lack of social cohesion. __________________ Beware virii that hide in signatures. Nasty, nasty hackers out there. Usually they appear in Personal Messages, not on a forum. You think I don't know. Well, maybe you're wrong. Maybe I'm wrong. But assuming you are always right always puts you in the wrong. Because assume just makes an ass of u and me.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode