Yet Bees fly,
.....don't they?
According to our modern/current understanding (of whatever science branch is involved) everything we now know about aerodynamics and our physical world suggests that Bees should not have the ability to fly, but they continue to do so.
It's one of a few known, well established and agreed anomalies.
No one asks bees, (because it would be silly to do so)
"So... er... how come you can fly?"
Or, perhaps more importantly, can convince a bee that it can't do what it clearly does.
Yet, if we could discuss this with bees, the potential is that they'd actually lose the ability to fly - were they given the scientific facts.
It's certainly true to say that if you're told something often enough, that purports to be true/fact, you're more likely to believe it, ergo, it becomes true. Especially if that source is considered a credible and trustworthy authority on the specific subject.
This is preamble for Claircognisance.
Scientifically -> Improbable.
Yet,
Some have this ability.
How do I know?
Well... I haven't been involved in scientific testing because I haven't been provided with a certificate of proof? What has happened has involved people asking me, in incredulous tones,
"How did you know?" or stating, "You couldn't Possibly know that."
What can I say in response that's likely to be accepted?
"I'm a good guesser!",
or
"Er, I dunno."
Well, actually, I've used both responses in a great number of situations, because it's Simpler!
I'm not saying or claiming I know everything, at least, I'm human and I have limitations. Some people can't write legibly, look at your prescriptions if you're not sure about that. Yet others are exceptionally talented and can not only write but draw and paint.
There's a huge range of ability within those abilities.
For example,
I joined an Art Course at my local college last January (I attended once only).
In the first 10 minutes we were asked to draw a small sketch of the model standing on the podium in the centre of the students encircling.
I hadn't attended any art class (or drawn a live model) since leaving school some 30 years previously. The tutor exclaimed over my drawing, "Not only is that GOOD, you can Actually Recognise the Model!" he said.
Prior to this he'd suggested that, during the model's break, I (along with two other students attending for the first time that night) should look around at the work of the other students in the class. He'd added that most of these had attended classes for years and, we were told ..., "..World Class".
As these other students came to look at my work, I felt embarrassed and decided to look around. I was also curious to see what differences there were in technique/ability so that I could more readily appreciate how much mine lacked in skills and what I might consider encompassing in future.
Much to my surprise (and some difficulty), I found that in virtually every instance, my sketches greatly exceeded, in the ability, those around me.
I never attended another class, simply because that one occasion had served it's purpose for me. I felt that the next step, and challenge to meet, for me, was painting with oils.
The reason for this example is simply to demonstrate that whilst we are mostly able to do the same things. Hold a pencil and make marks on paper with it for instance. Not everyone is capable of producing something recognisable or artistic as a result.
So, how does this relate to Claircognisance or any form of clairvoyance?
First of all, it does not profit me in any way to admit it.
That being said, I'm taking a brave step in so doing.
The weight of psychological and scientific evidence suggests that, because I'm different, I have a 'disorder'.
When strictly speaking, in all real terms,
I'm Just Different.
In plainest speak, I have amplified cognitive skills and sensory perception.
I'm a high level critical thinker with advanced informational processing with various demonstrable strategical analytical skills which (naturally) incorporates elevated emotional responses as a consequence.
I'm also evidently intelligently articulate, logical thinking and scientifically grounded.
I was diagnosed with Auditory Processing 'Disorder'. Disorder being the favoured term of clinicians faced with something different that they feel they need to label.
According to the British Department of Health, it is NOT a disability.
It appears as a loss of hearing in specific situations.
If I were at a restaurant and talking to a companion, whilst they're replying, for instance, I may be trying hard to hear them over the background of noise (because I can't stop hearing it - unlike everyone else who 'filters it out' or has selective deafness). So I may actually be listening to a conversation several tables away, without electing to do so. Something about their conversation may have prompted me to pay attention - unusual intonation suggestive of some commentary of further interest.
I have naturally developed a range of coping strategies to overcome this. People speaking directly to me expect immediate and related responses. So, I have learnt to lip read, I utilise natural sign language, casually ask for comments to be repeated or paraphrase them for clarification and as a means to counter check, whilst recording (via my short term memory).
I have a greater appreciation for and extensive vocabulary. I use this to (not only express myself) but to critically assess what is said to me and as a consequence, interpret underlying (unconscious) inclusions by syntax and familiarity.
In other words, by being familiar with another persons linguistic skills and ordinary speech patterns, I can casually interrogate obvious (to me) peculiarities in sentence construction.
That is to say, if they use a word or group of words that are unusual or inappropriate given their established pattern of speech (or written word) and the context, I can respond to unusual inclusions and recognise the unconscious associations.
I don't assume.
I use various means to clarify and question both the conscious and unconscious by employing specific strategies for confirmation. I'll do this immediately and actively, monitoring all responses by replaying the initial comment at the same time as it's repeated to check for alterations in modulation, intonation, inclusion, exclusion, motivation, recognition, and note all modifications in response in articulation, body language, the accompanying (natural) sign language (or conscious repression), and associated plausible implications (and inherent suggested possibility).
At the same time, all of this is being processed and committed to long term memory.
