​
Opening the books...
The word pseudoscience often comes with a warning label — dismissed, discredited, or waved away as unworthy of serious thought. But what if that’s exactly why it matters?
Not everything of value fits neatly inside the framework of repeatable experiments and peer reviews. Pseudoscience isn't the absence of truth — it's a different kind of truth.
Redefining pseudoscience helps us affirm the worth of intuitive truths and ancient practices that science has yet to fully comprehend or embrace.
A New Truth Worth Hearing
I work at the intersection of what’s felt, what’s known, and what’s often dismissed.
While traditional science seeks proof through repetition, pseudoscience is built on something just as vital — lived experience, intuition, ancestral memory, and unseen energies that shape our inner and outer worlds.
As an Empathic Listener, I don’t just hold sacred space — I tune in. I listen between the lines, beneath the surface, and beyond the measurable.
Because not everything that heals can be replicated in a lab. And not everything that matters needs a microscope to be considered "real."
Pseudoscience is not the absence of science.
Rather, it is another form of "science" — one led by soul: undeniably resonant and radically present.
​I use the term innerstanding to describe a soul-level knowing — wisdom that rises from within, shaped by lived experience, intuition, observation, and inner resonance. It's the truth we feel in our bones before we can explain it — a personal, embodied awareness that doesn’t require validation or approval. It’s unshaken by debate because it isn’t built from belief — it’s born of direct experience.
​
By contrast, understanding, in the literal sense, is to “stand under” — to position oneself beneath an idea, system, or authority, often without challenge. It implies a hierarchy where the individual is secondary to the information they are being told. Understanding is what we’re taught; innerstanding is what we come to know for ourselves. One is acquired from the outside-in, the other emerges from the inside-out.
​
For example: a person might understand a theory of nutrition based on external studies or guidelines. But they innerstand what nourishes them by listening to their own body, observing its signals, and responding in alignment. Another may understand trauma through reading or academic research, but they innerstand its impact when they’ve felt it, named it, moved through it, and witnessed its transformation within themselves.
​
I use both words intentionally. Understanding has a place when speaking the language of consensus or relaying collective thought. But innerstanding is what I honor in my role as an Empathic Listener — where truth is not something to be handed to someone, but uncovered from within them. It is a return to self-trust and a refusal to stand beneath anything we haven't chosen with conscious awareness.
Innerstanding VS Understanding​
