Institute of Parascience

Allen Walker (H.A.V.A 1997)

The state of the art in human logic is currently concerned with deconstruction and reconstruction. Therefore, the term "parascience" is a mutable one, but will have a given meaning, as being next to or close to science. The term is commonly used to describe activities with our discovered, and assumed variables in physics in comparison with a commonly known (to Ph.D and others) energy quotient. Its use as a term identifies activities which do not fall into the categories of commercial, medical, or other employed uses of the given variables in physics, and therefore there is no "profession" under the state that is recognised, or established and because of that no "legal" reference to its findings in common law (with the exception of the term "act of god"). Although anyone in possession of the "variables" described will see no difference between the activities of common practical use and those in the purely explorative context we call "parascience"

An historical reference to how "parascience" can become "science" can be seen in the deconstruction of mythological text into "psychology" by way of redefinition, a building of terms to describe observed phenomena and deduced, and, or assumed meaning to what we experience, and a 'remythologising' of it into a workable construct. The difficulties with respect to that particular enquiry, where the explorative is concerned, is in spite of the huge amount of effort, time and money poured into it over the years, it is apparently only commonly accepted as a possibility that our thoughts are ambient. The reasons for that pursuit have quite openly been given in reference to our past claims about "paradoxical" thinking and the problems it can cause because of its "ambience" It is an old perception delivered to us by way of being credited to early Greek philosophy. The claim being that because a person of a particular group stole from you - here is the "paradox" - all persons of that group are thieves. The claim is the "paradox" misconception, or "irrational thought" will somehow because of its ambience effect the behaviour of those in that group should they meet you, such that they will steal from you. The truth, or falsity of that claim is only provable to a person who is aware of their thoughts and feelings, and is taking note of the behaviour of any offending group should they meet them. There is no need of elaborate and expensive experiments to prove if the phenomena is true, or false in relation to any particular person. The value of the experiments in the subject which have been funded and published comes by way of a conditioned credulity to a title by "scientific lay" For example professor, or doctor, University of etc. The carrying out of those experiments and distribution by way of the publishing industry, and other media increases the attention span of those presented with it. The reading study of the writer on the subject of explorative science began in the mid 1970's. From doing as described I can affirm only to myself that the phenomena is true, but I do not attribute it to "paradox" if the behavioural response is negative, or positive. My conclusion attributes the effect to memory and our survival requirements where danger, or reward to ourselves is concerned. An awareness of the negative by someone in observation of the phenomena and a wish to warn of it a long time in the past is apparently responsible for the huge amount of effort put into proving it, and the continual misconceptions and arguments we read and hear about.

The breaking point where general acceptance of the true existence of a phenomena comes by way of repeated experience of it on a big enough scale. The event is taking place, partly by way of the efforts described in the "Ganzfield" and "Rosenthal" Rosenthan" experiments and others. The "scientific" understanding of the phenomena as far as being in possession of the associated variables is only within the grasp of a small minority because of the lack of effort made in obtaining them and education as to them in the vast majority of people. The fact that many are willing to give an opinion, but are not in possession of the variables of physics, or willing to supply them with their given opinions if they are, is evident in the material available to the "general public" or "scientific lay" We are at the present time, a long way from any common knowledge of those variables, or any common understanding of the importance of explorative science, whatever we choose to call it because of that.

Note: this site describes itself as concerned with the subject of parascience. The site also advertises itself as being concerned with sharing knowledge. Concerning the word knowledge. The larger volumes of the complete works of the philosophers I paged through at Portsmouth University only gave one piece of mathematical information concerning it. It was an angle a little over 17 degrees to three places. If the reader of this is Ph.D philosophy it is a pre condition of that certification that it knows the actual angle. The University books only gave the angle to three places. Not only should you be in possession of the actual angle, you should also be in possession of the algorithm it applies to and what it has to do with science, our minds/brain. That means the full architecture of the human brain. Otherwise you will not be taken seriously by those of us who are. I was not taught that algorithm, I worked it out by my self, because it was absent from the literature available to me. I would have been quite happy to share that information with people interested enough to look at a site like this. Those who know me are aware I am exponent of enquiries like the "Rosenthan" experiment. I have done something similar my self and found the same reaction to it that particular researcher did. I am about as popular with psychiatrist as those who carried out the "Rosenthan" experiment. My own efforts in that field have not been published, but the paper is in private circulation. Anyone from an academic background is going to know from reading my contribution I was describing the contents of the DSM as a mythological construct. As far as the academic establishment are concerned that is what it is, and it always will be. The enquiry I undertook related to an article I read in the late nineteen seventies called the "Rosenthal"  experiment. It was the same kind of experiment. This is an experiment where you select a group of experts on something then you deceive them about something they are experts in to make look and feel stupid. You only need to enter the words Rosenthan, or Rosenthal into your search engine to find those experiments. It is part of general psychological practice. It has the intention of changing people's behaviour so they don't behave the same way in the future. Such experiments have always resulted in hostility. It is a natural consequence of deceit and humiliation, but in the cases I know of they have always been carried out with a moral intent that is there to protect the members of society the subjects come in contact with.

I am a supporter of such experiments, especially where psychiatrist are concerned. I wrote a paper based on this case study. In the late nineteen seventies I was invited out for a drink at a local social club by my Brother. I went there with him and two of his friends. The atmosphere was congenial. I sat down at a table with one of my brother's friends. He started a conversation with the person opposite him. What was apparent in their conversation was my brother's friend was trying to have a sensible conversation, but the response he was getting from the respondent was a "put down" which then progressed to blatantly poking fun at him. I watched my brother's friend become agitated and shout at the man. The man looked confused and said I cant handle this any more and was looking at someone behind us. My Brother came and spoke to us and explained we were leaving the club. As we were leaving my brother and his other friend were telling him to calm down. Neither of them were present at the conversation. I did not understand what the relationship between them was. I did not know them very well. I had only met them a few times. Felt the attitude my brother and his other friend were taking towards him was unjust under the circumstances and said something in his defence. He had gone quiet. I explained to my brother that the person he was speaking to was continually poking fun at him while he was peaking to him. My brother's friend looked surprised and said, thanks for that. I had no idea what was going on. When I questioned my Brother about it later, he told me his friend was "schizophrenic"

Like all scientific lay, I was under the impression a concrete reality was being described to me and there was actually an illness called schizophrenia.

In 1993 I met my brother's friend again. I was in the kitchen of his house with his girlfriend, and the same friend he was with at the club. His friend had got drunk during the day and asked the girlfriend an intimate question about her body. The girlfriend was deaf in her right ear and did not hear him. The "schizophrenic" man and the writer did. The "schizophrenic" man was angry about the comment made to his girlfriend and told his friend not to start or he would hit him. His friend looked frightened, he repeated what he had said to his girlfriend as if there was no reason for him to be offended by it. I still didn't know what was going on between them. The man's girlfriend told him to shut up and take his pills. They had all grown up together and went to the same school and they are all uneducated "working class" The man the "schizophrenic" was speaking to at the club in the nineteen seventies was his older brother. Both of them seemed oblivious to what they were saying and the effect it was having.

Shortly afterwards I went to visit the man and stayed at his home with him. During our conversations I found out how he came by his diagnosis. Here is the case scenario. He went to a Chinese restaurant with his girlfriend on his eighteenth birthday. He ordered a three course meal. When his salad was given to him he found a slug under a piece of lettuce. He called one of the staff to the table, showed it the slug and told it he was not paying for it. The member of staff insisted he pay for it. This conversation came about when the writer was describing a job he had done near to the man's home where he had to tell the proprietors of the Chinese restaurant next door to the site he was about to remove the chimney pots from the building joining theirs, and tried to advise them not to go near that part of the site while it was being done. It was at the back of their building. The owners of the restaurant next to the site had no idea what I was saying to them and I had to draw them a picture. They still didn't understand and came outside to watch as I took them down. It was the exact opposite of what I had told them to do. Apparently the "schizophrenic" man was experiencing the same problem. He was still a teenager and his adjustment to wider society was still taking place. He lost his temper and broke the chairs over the table (frustration aggression arc) The staff called the police and told them a man had refused to pay for a meal and was smashing the chairs. Some large squaddies arrived and met the man and his girlfriend out side of the restaurant. Because of his girlfriend's deafness she tended to shout. She was also angry about the insistence they pay for an unfit meal. She was shouting at the squaddies. One of the squaddies lost his temper and told her to shut. He also called her a slut (his girlfriend also has a violent temper and uses profanity a lot when angry) The squaddie was then punched by the offended boyfriend and the force knocked him across the road and he hit the central barrier. He was arrested and fined for assault. He was referred for a psychiatric assessment because of his behaviour. This part sounded dubious. He should have been prosecuted for criminal damage and actual bodily harm since the punch was injurious. Looking into the legal system this would have involved a public court. The names of the police personnel, the restaurant, and the accused could be printed in the news papers. If that had happened the behaviour of the squaddie and the restaurant would have been publicly heard, as well as that of the man and his girlfriend. It would have been embarrassing for the police who were in control of the administration.

The man was diagnosed as suffering from visual and auditory hallucinations combined with a persecution complex. He was prescribed an adrenaline suppressant and a tranquilliser. I went to the psychiatric facility with him to collect his prescription. From the point of diagnosis he was never sure if anyone being rude to him was an auditory hallucination. I understood why the confusion. If that was a comedy sketch it would be very funny, but it was real, and the psychiatrist had done nothing to sort the problem out. he was just left in that condition for years.

Telling some one with a violent temper they are hearing hallucinations when someone insults them is a temporary solution to stopping the injurious violence, and licence for the fraud with the credulity of the uneducated was obviously tolerated in the same way a religious fraud is.

Leaving them in that state is not within the code of practice. A properly qualified psychiatrist knows it is using a mythological construct. I does not actually believe there is an illness called schizophrenia. The object of the exercise is to get the subject to believe it. People may be asking why, if not one mental illness has ever been validated by the academic establishment, they are being described as such. The "parascience" aspect of our enquiry  may have offered some explanations as to the dynamics of that case scenario. If an experiment is going to be carried out on the principles of its findings you cannot tell your peer group, family, or anyone what you are doing because you are dealing with a claim that your thoughts are ambient. (OT: " because of our thoughts of knowledge of good and evil the snake will bite at our heels") You will introduce a "confounding variable" that could be interpreted as those you are in contact with taking the same attitude with you as counterparts of your peer group. You have to indulge the claims.

The concrete observations in relationships in general is our usual oblivion to what we are saying, how we sound, and what effect we are having those we are in close relationships with. That man's brother and his other older brother were probably speaking to him like that since infancy, without the realisation of the response still taking place in adulthood. I have recorded conversations like that covertly and then covertly recorded the person deny what it had said and done when confronted with it. If that man had been doing that to his brothers and played it back to them they may have realised what they were doing. Even if the recordings are taking place with their knowledge the phenomena will still show itself. Police have been caught out in the same way with cctv footage being compared against their statements. In the case I have of it the video evidence has apparently evaporated and request for a copy of it have been ignored.

Clearly to any one with training in the subject of psychology is going to attribute the "schizophrenic" man's behaviour to his conditioning and ascertain what it is that makes him respond violently. In every case I saw, and was told of by his peers it was always the same thing. That being an insult. His condition can be related to keeping a dog in a cage (home) and continually poking it with a stick until it becomes vicious. It was the responsibility of those in employ concerned with it to find out what the cause was and correct it. It is a simple and cheap thing to leave a sound recorder on in the social environment he lived in.

I do not know what the particular interest is of those in control of this website are, but like all the others, the information given on them as far as science is concerned is set at child level. The moral reasons for doing so are obvious. I personally distribute the algorithms on a private basis. I have yet to see one of my peer group take it up. The inability to carry out mathematical deduction and an imperative to do so is not there. Laziness in many just leaves us waiting around for some one to give us the answers without any effort being taken to find them ourselves. The respondent to the above essay on constructs and parascience gave a set of statistics as an identifer and the essay was deleted. I will try and forget what they relate to, if anything. The algorithms are also forwarded to two very big lodges.