Hi everybody. I'm just going to talk a little bit about a topic that I thought I was somewhat interested in approximately 10 years ago.
First off, although I really do not know the exact definition of "the psychic", I can understand that the phrase "the psychic" is very broad. It generally would, apparently anyway refer to a great or vast number of things. "The psychic" can be interpreted to mean possibly that there is no such thing as psychic, but "the psychic" is not "psychic" persay, but only genuinely a persay of what the word psychic would mean. This is the way I am interpreting it.
The psychic is the psychologicial, as well as the philosophical, as well all would tend to gather. Philosophical because what is psychic is interpreted internally, or at least in the sense of philosophical interpretation (deep huh?). But psychologicially, the psychic would be interesting because there are supposed psychics, first. It is not likely that the 99.9% of psychics are genuine, but psychic discourse via behaviors is also thought to be a major play in what is called "the minds eye." I am not talking about that at all, persay, and will not do so. But there is a great deal of information for the fields of philosophy at least, where it may be in error due to simple psychic understandings. And there is a great deal of information in the field of psychology, where it was common to interpret the minds eye. This is a dramatic shortening of the common terms.
There is a branch of thought that I was at a younger stage very interested in, called psychosophy. I cannot gather its definition at this moment, but just percieve it is a combonition of both fields, philosophy and psychology.
The minds eye cannot tell us what mistakes there are in general thinking, or philosophy. The psychic can tell us that there is already an error as far as goes perhaps materialist thought. If we presume to arrange our thinking so that we arrive upon some general ideas of understanding, so far in the least man has not accomplished this task. In point of truth he would be considered "prior ape" (kind of like a priori). Because he has not yet based upon his thinking any significant truths. When this task is presumed as easy as asking a perspective about or related to the minds eye, or the psychic, one decides man has generally failed.
But it would be best to conclude, perhaps, that the field of philosophy is very new, and has not accomplished much if anything yet. And, too, that the psychic plays a greater role in thought than it has been previously concluded to. But it would not be a part of the psychic that allows us to percieve greater truths, only to allow us to understand that without general thought nothing would be accomplished. Without putting any basis behind our thought we lose grasp of the only thought we have.
It is therefore true, that the psychic plays a much higher role in thought than anybody has percieved is possible. Uhmm.... Discuss?
First off, although I really do not know the exact definition of "the psychic", I can understand that the phrase "the psychic" is very broad. It generally would, apparently anyway refer to a great or vast number of things. "The psychic" can be interpreted to mean possibly that there is no such thing as psychic, but "the psychic" is not "psychic" persay, but only genuinely a persay of what the word psychic would mean. This is the way I am interpreting it.
The psychic is the psychologicial, as well as the philosophical, as well all would tend to gather. Philosophical because what is psychic is interpreted internally, or at least in the sense of philosophical interpretation (deep huh?). But psychologicially, the psychic would be interesting because there are supposed psychics, first. It is not likely that the 99.9% of psychics are genuine, but psychic discourse via behaviors is also thought to be a major play in what is called "the minds eye." I am not talking about that at all, persay, and will not do so. But there is a great deal of information for the fields of philosophy at least, where it may be in error due to simple psychic understandings. And there is a great deal of information in the field of psychology, where it was common to interpret the minds eye. This is a dramatic shortening of the common terms.
There is a branch of thought that I was at a younger stage very interested in, called psychosophy. I cannot gather its definition at this moment, but just percieve it is a combonition of both fields, philosophy and psychology.
The minds eye cannot tell us what mistakes there are in general thinking, or philosophy. The psychic can tell us that there is already an error as far as goes perhaps materialist thought. If we presume to arrange our thinking so that we arrive upon some general ideas of understanding, so far in the least man has not accomplished this task. In point of truth he would be considered "prior ape" (kind of like a priori). Because he has not yet based upon his thinking any significant truths. When this task is presumed as easy as asking a perspective about or related to the minds eye, or the psychic, one decides man has generally failed.
But it would be best to conclude, perhaps, that the field of philosophy is very new, and has not accomplished much if anything yet. And, too, that the psychic plays a greater role in thought than it has been previously concluded to. But it would not be a part of the psychic that allows us to percieve greater truths, only to allow us to understand that without general thought nothing would be accomplished. Without putting any basis behind our thought we lose grasp of the only thought we have.
It is therefore true, that the psychic plays a much higher role in thought than anybody has percieved is possible. Uhmm.... Discuss?
J&U 
#$@(#_- 
!
![[Image: dc52deee8e6b07186c04ff66a45fd204.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i585.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss295%2Faaliyahqin%2Fcat%2Fdc52deee8e6b07186c04ff66a45fd204.jpg)
