Thinking further on PL messaging and marketing. What they have done is create a new system and language without showing the correspondence to what went before. So to understand PL, you have to watch enough videos until you can create that linkage yourself. This is inefficient, and why most people will give up before getting anywhere.
At any rate, @
Lyra, can you point me towards the Cerebral Temples video? No amount of YouTube searching will bring that up.
Edit: Ah, I see, it's a channel not a video
Cerebrals Temple
Oh my there's a lot of videos there. Where can I go next? I'm looking for a, say, 1 hour video that is geared towards Zai'nyy.
Cerebrals temple only has 1 shortish upload, actually. You're looking at the feed from other channels to that channel's page, not its uploads.
Go to Mojo Reading Revealed and there's a Crash Course on Zai'nyy. It's not very in-depth in its cues but it gives samples. For in-depth cues you need the specific videos for Gears 1-5 (these I recommend you watch above/before all else) and the Xyy vs. Zyy etc. videos from Coach. This isn't actually
that much content, and it's enough for you to get a lot about/practice a lot of Reading. It's really not worth paying attention to the other theory videos until you do this.
Right now you're seeing Pod'Lair as syncretic. As a synthesis in the common sense. This is a misunderstanding.
Every part of the theory unfolds out from Reading and from the SS Index which can only be really understood via direct Reading.
Right now, because you're overlooking that, you're missing that:
-Pod'Lair's approach to the Powers is exact, real time and millisecond by millisecond. Unlike any other approach its words only signal something which can
very quickly be observed, individually conceived of and extrapolated from by any user of its instrument.
-This approach revealed such things as
modulation (previously absent from any theory-- see Quenck's
In The Grip for where things were at in this regard) direct observation of the interface of powers and riffs, direct observation of the interface of powers and memes, the mirroring and explicit explication of the process and possibilities of Reading through the 5 gear system, the epistemological model (the SS Index) which syncs with/is explained by engagement with the 5 gear system, inspiration alchemies, social alchemies, a way that
actually works to get people unmodulated and to be able to directly and minus-theoretical-approximation understand their own power usage in real time...
-The conception of Spirit Forms (not what you think it is) and how it encompasses Powers and other phenomenon in a far deeper epistemological context and massively empowers a person to follow their own unmined intelligence. (Btw, ideas about heroism also unfold from the way Spirit Forms, and the powers in particular, work. What they seek to do of their own accord, which is very different than what the currently prevalent evopsych etc. simplifications of how humans work, or any currently prevalent theory in the Philosophy of Cognitive Science, present).
-Habitual usage (MBTIers still ref. this, or only sense something beyond it in the crudest sense) not being a sign of actual preference.. with a way to see what
is and how that habitual preference is interfacing with it in terms of momentum/modulation/genius/idiocy.
-The list goes on, but above all it does
all of this, places
all of this on a solid foundation by an actual
empirical method where anybody can go and see what we're talking about in the most incredibly and infinitely explanatory detail, for themselves. No theory ever did this before. It was always memes and approximations with no effective method by which any individual could just go and look and understand for themselves. The results were terrible, people mostly didn't help themselves very much, the reading statistics of all supposed/published experts in that field are terrible, even after decades of training. All in all there was just a mass of confusion and no actual empirical discovery of the phenomenon in question. Thus no clear and explicit foundation for a realisation of implications.
-MBTI just fucks people up and doesn't work. It fails in terms of yield. This really doesn't. MBTI was not scientific, this is. This has produced thousands of accurate samples, a feat totally unprecedented. They all justify and are explained by the falsifiable theory with a consistency/coherency/precision which just doesn't stop the further you go. It, again, provides an
empirical basis that takes everything beyond the realm of useless conjecture. That is, it takes the phenomenon fringe/unfalsifiable/not-a-proper-theory Jungian/MBTI very failingly attempt to capture and
proves it.
Get that?
Proves it.
If you don't get the implications of that...*
Well, they're huge. And complaining about not having a quick way to skip the Reading process is really ridiculous. In terms of time in > yield out, this and the 5 gears system are the best available for understanding people and strengthening yourself. It's an instrument you need some training in, yes, but the materials required to begin that process for yourself (you can later link in theory if/as it interests you) are actually not that extensive. And, moreover, this is just how reality is, and nobody captured it before now. We've done more than enough on our part. We're not trying to change reality to make it easier or different than it is, or to sell better-- we're presenting what is.
Moreover, if you look at almost any of our supposedly 'arrogant' or 'rude' exchanges, almost every case involves the individual at issue refusing to use/put time into this instrument. We provide all the materials for free, give our time to do so, and Coach actually
discovered it. We're not being nasty here. We just ask that people criticisng us or seeking to speak authoritatively in relation to us actually verse themselves in the basic tool, the crux, the only relevant way of making sense of our art. We have no respect for those who come and spew random words without doing so and expect some kind of equal hearing or right to be treated as a serious critic.
Accusations of Syncretism are mostly people's attempt to get a handle on this and fit it into multiple different categories of familiarity so they know what it 'is'... prior to Reading enough. There is a lot of apparent complexity in our terms and metaphorical system, but for
practicing Readers these are an invaluable framework for getting to grips with the phenomenon at different gears. To dumb it down/simplify it into a format that made for a nice, clean textual presentation would be to pander to those who don't actually use the instrument, or seek to understand a thing on its own terms before passing judgement upon it (at the expense of Readers). The best textual presentation to be offered is...
Read.
That said, if you'd like more info on any of the above, or clarifications, I'd be happy to either provide a brief synopsis here or to point you to the relevant resources. I do recognise that we need to streamline our initial presentation to get across what's important and how this should all be engaged with, and we are working on that. It's a very big theory and we were mostly concerned with getting it out there at first. People assumed we were a 'cult' or whatever (as that term's used by vulgar people who don't appreciate Greece's beauty and who blindly recapitulate Christian propaganda) or had a primary marketing agenda, and so seemed to think we were all doing it wrong. Actually we just weren't thinking about that kind of irrelevancy. Were more concerned with how important this all was, and reacted as people would in such a situation if assailed by hordes of irrelevancy, insults, and accusations. We''re calibrating.
---
*To clarify: none of our Nai'xyy samples show Zyy articulation. Nobody shows the facial struture/movements/modulation for being both adaptive and directive. Nobody is momentum yang
and momentum yin gesturing. The eye cues for a power always mesh with the corresponding gesturing, 'leaning', and facial cues and patterns we posit. There is an incredibly precise and coherent set of features which
always cohere in the way in which the theory states they do, and the claims made about how they cohere are
falsifiable. Can be
challenged. Either
are or
are not out in the empirical world, with a relevant means of observation/judgement upon which is the case. A mostly latent and initially confusing faculty in most people, yes, but a means nonetheless.
David_Koresh
be careful when deciding which ideas are being projected...
