|
extracted from the book 'Penetration'
The Preeminent
Penetration Modality
Whatever may or may not be said regarding telepathy, two very clear
and unambiguous statements can be made about it.
-
First, it CAN be said that IF telepathy exists, then it would be of
such overreaching and extraordinary importance that all Earth-side institutions would have to be “reorganized"
in the face of it.
-
Second, if a wide enough overview is accumulated about telepathy,
and about how it is generally treated by Earth-siders, it is one
human faculty that has a most excellent chance of being summarily
shot down before it has a chance to open and wink its all-seeing
eye.
The most visible explanation for this is that telepathy penetrates
MINDS - and so its development is definitely cast into troubled
waters where any format or element of mental secrecy might be
involved.
It must be more or less admitted that most Earth-side human
activities cannot really get any where unless they are mounted upon
this or that format of motivational secrecy or hidden agendas.
Using this situation as a simple rule of thumb, one can then easy
grasp the extent and nature of the anti-telepathic antipathies that
can be generated and exerted from the top of societal pyramids down
into the populations beneath them.
I have no hesitation in stating the above, because a full part of it
is a fallout based on real experiences of mine. As but one
significant example, for fifteen years I was involved in secret
developmental Psi work at the prestigious
Stanford Research
Institute. The work (in developing remote viewing) was largely
funded by the U.S. intelligence agencies.
Because of this, many Washington types and many noted scientists
visited SRI. Very many of them met only with my colleagues, and
refused to meet little Moi, so much so that they would not even take
lunch with me.
The reason: “Jesús, he can read my mind! I can’t let him get
anywhere near me.”
This quote is NOT paraphrased.
One of the amusing aspects of this is that IF telepathy is what it
is, then one not need to be in the proximity of a telepath in order
to have their mind penetrated.
Another amusing aspect is that the funding agencies did sponsor the
secret developmental work in
remote viewing - somewhat on the
grounds that it penetrates things, not minds.
This is to say that remote viewing pertains to penetration of
“physicals,” not to penetration of “mentals.”
In any event, the principal reason why ALL formats of Psi research
are marginalized, treated to energetic diminishment, or suppressed
altogether is that those formats do include potentials too near the
hated and unwanted telepathic faculties.
So, the whole barn of psychic research must be burnt down as quickly
as possible, making sure that the telepathic horses don’t escape.
There is one notable exception to this, and one utilized for creative
cover-up purposes. This exception involves the discovery of
approaches to telepathy most noted either for the fact that they DO
NOT work, or because they serve to disorient and defeat approaches
that MIGHT work.
Thus, the concept that telepathy is a mind-to-mind thing involving a
sender and a receiver has been given extraordinary publicity - and
has in fact become the principal Earth-side cultural model for it.
Intellectual phase-locking into this non-productive model is so
intense and so widespread that Earth-siders literally cannot think of
telepathy in any other way.
With the exception of some few experiments in the former Soviet
Union, and in the Peoples Republic of China, the sender-receiver
model has not yielded anything more than slightly above-chance
results.
Even if the slightly above chance statistics are jerked around a
little, none of them approach anything like telepathy plus.
And yet the sender-receiver model of telepathy has been clung to for
a little over a hundred years.
As my own information package about telepathy increased, it was
logical enough to first assume that since telepathy could be seen as
a threat to all sorts of Earth-side secrecy factors, those same
secrecy factors would not, with any sense of humor, look upon the
development of truly effective penetrative types of telepathy.
This probability still remains paramount, and clearly has an
Earth-side basis that can easily be established as such.
But if one approaches the concept that extraterrestrial
intelligences might indeed be in possession of telepathy plus, then
the Earth-side picture, that seems so certain all by itself, can
easily take on some larger and astonishing dimensions.
Earth-siders can think that if
Space-side entities exist, then they
are possessed of intelligence, and the same Earth-siders can indeed
assume that alien intelligence to be, as often stated, “superior” to
human intelligence.
After all, the Space-side entities can build craft exceeding the
limits of Earth-side scientific knowledge. And so not only their
technology, but their “minds” as well MUST be superior.
Even so, the only mind-models Earth-siders have for "mind" are their
own rather limited versions of what mind consists of - and from this
Earth-side model has been sanitized all factors that
Earth-siders
themselves don’t want to consider or put up with.
Thus, Earth-siders project THEIR minds as conceptualized upon all
potential extraterrestrial entities. In this sense, the intellectual phase-locking regarding mind is
planet wide, with the final situation being that the further one
moves upward in Earth-side power structures the more constricted that
phase-locking becomes.
Thus, there is some pungent and meaningful kind of hidden story
here. But whatever it is, it clearly begins with the fact that
Earth-side science, philosophy, religion, sociology and psychology DO
NOT sponsor research
into what can collectively be called Psi -
while those same noble institutions are rather noted for condemning
it.
The modern Space Age facilities need not bother with the existence
of extraterrestrial minds because those same facilities insist that
nothing of the kind exists - near Earth, anyway.
Most surprisingly, one might think that Ufologists would consider
mental processes of extraterrestrials, since they are so
energetically involved with extraterrestrial equipment and
technology.
None of the above will touch the topic of Psi with a ten-foot pole,
and all of the above protest any feasible, positive necessity for
acting any other way - although some psychologists studying
abduction phenomena have begun to notice the telepathic factor.
At least two observations can be made relevant to the above.
-
First, one might consider that the
Earth-side retreat from Psi is
something akin to protesting too much.
-
Second, if I were an ET with highly developed Psi skills (and which
might have led in the first place to the evolution of superior
technology), I wouldn’t particularly want Earth-siders to develop Psi
faculties.
And if telepathy was an element in, say, consciousness universal,
I'd soon figure out how to telepathically impregnate Earth-side human
consciousness with intellectual phase-locking that was detrimental
to positive telepathic plus development.
The reason might be very obvious. After all, what
ET would want Earth-side telepaths penetrating Space-side affairs, especially,
perhaps on the Moon so near to them?
Thus, in this, at least, Space-siders and Earth-siders might have
something in common - the Telepathy War, won hands down so far by
the Space-siders.
The Earth-Side Concept of Telepathy
In the previous chapter, I pointed up that the modern concept of
telepathy has not produced much in the way of evidence for telepathy
much above some very low threshold activity.
In other words, human telepathic faculties are known to exist.
But,
with the exception of spontaneous examples of telepathy, it does not
function in a high-stage way.
There could be any number of reasons for this. But one reason is
that the concept is at odds with what telepathy really consists of.
Because that concept is assumed to be so correct, it is never
questioned - resulting in failure to move beyond it.
This is the same as saying that the concept is so wide-spread that
strong intellectual phase-locking of the concept has taken place.
During modern scientific times, the standard images of telepathy
usually picture two heads or brains facing each other.
The two heads
or brains are meant to represent two MINDS. But since no one seems
to have figured out how to render a mind into a pictorial image, an
image of a head or brain stands in for one.
Between the two heads or brains are usually placed something like
squiggly lines.
The squiggles are meant to be suggestive of vibrations or waves
telepathically traveling from one mind to the other mind. Sometimes
one of the two heads is indicated as “sender,” the other as
“receiver.”
Since telepathy is identified with thoughts, the
squiggly lines are meant to represent them.
The modern idea fundamentally holds that telepathy is MIND-TO-MIND,
and that the brain, or at least the head, is assumed to be the Seat
of the mind or the mind itself. This fundamental idea seems entirely
logical.
However, the above only represents the chief THEORETICAL model of
telepathy as envisioned by some early psychical researchers about a
hundred years ago.
But because of its apparent logic, the theory was assumed to be the
truth of telepathy.
Since the theory seemed so logical, the mind-to-mind concept quickly
underwent wide-spread intellectual phase-locking to the degree
that it soon obtained the planetary-wide status of unquestioned and
unchallenged consensus reality.
Whether things are true or not, consensus reality usually casts them
into cement. Thereafter, it is very difficult to tamper with a
consensus reality - especially one that has “gone planetary" so to
speak.
But if the modern concept of telepathy is somewhat dispassionately
examined, then, as we will shortly see, the first and major problem
encountered relates to where and to what the mind is - and to IF it
is.
Beyond that, we can see that the modern concept of telepathy has
hardly any long-term historical tradition which would establish it
as a natural constituent of our species.
So one has to rummage around in early history in a kind of
archaeological dig in order to discover what there was in the way of
antecedents to telepathy.
The ancient Romans identified two major terms which apparently
referred to two different kinds of thought processes.
We continue to
use them two today, but in quite different ways.
-
The Latin INTELLECTUS referred to the processes of thinking while in
the awake state. The thinking was based on the physical senses, but
included the senses of emotional feeling, the will, and
decision-making based on perceived evidence.
-
The Latin INTUITOS was taken to refer to anything that did not fit
into the parameters of INTELLECTUS, but which anyway influenced
persons AND what happened or was to happen to them.
It was considered that INTUITUS was greater than individuals, but
that individuals had a kind of intuitive thought processing
capability. Some had more of this INTUITUS than others, and so
INTUITUS was a Roman extension of the great traditions in antiquity
regarding shamans, oracles and seers.
This great tradition was world-wide, and far antedated even the
ancient Romans and Greeks. In this very ancient tradition, it is
quite probable that what we now specify as clairvoyance, intuition
and telepathy were all housed within the same concept and not
identified separately.
The usefulness of INTUITUS was that it provided information to
users, and they didn’t much care how it was gotten, only that it
was.
We have only to add our contemporary idea of mentally processing
information to the concepts of INTELLECTUS and INTUITUS, and we come
up with a rather clear picture of the past.
But like the ancients, we would have to specify different mental
processes for different kinds of information.
We do this by indicating that there is a difference between:
(1) information derived from
immediately objective sources
(2) information
subjectively derived from sources that are not immediately
objective
The only real difference between the ancient and the modern ideas of
intellect and intuition is that we today think of them as THINGS
-while the ancients considered them as information-acquisition
processes or functions.
But there is one more quite subtle difference. When we think of
intellect and intuition as things, we will then try to use our
things as tools to acquire information. In this sense, we first
position the tool ahead of the information it is supposed to deal
with.
Since we think of intellect and intuition as things, we suppose that
the ancients did likewise.
But the evidence is quite strong that they first positioned the
information to be acquired by whatever means, and didn’t really
conceptualize thing-like tools needed to acquire it.
This subtle tradition still goes on, albeit outside of modern
science and psychology.
Many highly functioning people want
information - and they still don’t particularly care how they get it
as long as they do get it.
We well understand that between intellect and intuition quite
different thought processes are involved.
However, since in our modern times we don’t know what intuitive
thought processing consists of, we attempt to utilize intellectual
thought processing to achieve intuitive results.
The results achieved by this mismatching are not much better than
chance expectation.
It was not until the sixteenth century that the concept of
clairvoyance made its appearance in France.
This commenced the
distinction of separate INTUITUS factors.
In French, the term was first utilized in the contexts of keen
insight, clearness of insight, insight into things beyond the range
of ordinary perception. These French definitions are approximate to
the early Roman idea of INTUITUS.
The emphasis, of course, was on INSIGHT.
The route of the French CLAIRVOYANCE into English is not clear, but
it seems it was not adapted into English usage until about 1847.
When it did appear in English, it carried a slightly different
definition: a supposed faculty of some persons consisting in the
mental perception of objects at a distance or concealed from sight.
Unless the difference is pointed up, it probably won’t be noticed.
There is a strategic difference between the concept of insight and
the concept of perceiving objects at a distance or concealed from
sight.
Within the context of this book, the definitions of INSIGHT are
somewhat amusing:
The use, in English, of the term CLAIRVOYANCE served to detach it
from insight, and then to establish a special category limited to
the “seeing" THINGS.
The emphasis thus shifted toward a specialty interest only as
regards mental mechanisms via which clairvoyance might function.
With the English concept of clairvoyance thus established as seeing
THINGS (not seeing insight, as it were) it then becomes obvious
that a companion category having to do with penetrating minds was
necessary.
After all, human experiencing IS involved with things AND
mental activities.
This special category already existed when the English concept of
clairvoyance came into existence.
The category was called THOUGHT-READING, and had a history
going back for some centuries. The history was rather wobbly,
though,
since thought-reading had been used as a form of entertainment, and
was thus heavily occupied by frauds.
The only concept of real thought-reading that has survived down unto today is expressed as someone “reading" someone
else's “beads”
- thereby gaining insight, etc.
In any event, the parameters of what might constitute
thought-reading were vague - and also carried the disadvantage of
being related to the idea that thought-reading could be “picked up”
in group kinds of ways.
S
uch spreading about could, by some unknown subliminal means, result
in infectious hysteria of what was latter termed “mob psychology."
What was wanted in order to break away from thought-reading was a
concept that specifically identified “direct action of one mind on
another, independent of the ordinary senses.” No such restrictions
could be applied to thought-reading because of its somewhat
notorious group-link characteristics.
To fulfill the idea of direct action of one mind on another, the
concept of THOUGHT-TRANSFERENCE appeared in England between 1876 and
1881.
However, this concept was short-lived, because it remained somewhat
cluttered with a confusion revolving around the idea that some kind
of trance-like rapport was involved regarding the transference of
thoughts and emotions. The transfer of emotions was still quite
close
to group responsiveness via some kind of entrainment.
All of these problems were gotten around (or so it was thought) with
the coining, in about 1882, of the term TELEPATHY by the psychical
researcher, F.W.H. Myers.
One of the most cogent summaries of telepathy is found in the 1920
Encyclopedia of the Occult compiled by Lewis Spence.
Therein we read that,
"The idea of intercommunication between brain
and brain, by other means than that of the ordinary sense-channels,
is a theory deserving of the most careful consideration.”
Compacted this way for research purposes, “The idea" sounds
absolutely great, doesn’t it?
Well, as already mentioned, “The idea” represents the chief horror
of all horrors - in that very few humans relish the idea of having
their brains penetrated in this way at all.
As Lewis Spence (among other of his contemporaries) noted in 1920,
inter-communication by means other than that of the ordinary sense-channel is something deserving of careful consideration.
But this implies that there would have to be a desire to commence
the consideration in the first place. After all, one has to
establish the need or willingness to consider something before one can
go ahead and “carefully" consider it.
Since the idea of telepathy is somewhat in conflict with preserving
the idea of secretive power, the road of telepathy begun in 1882 was
to find itself filled with major social blockages.
In any event, Myers established a rather precise definition for the
new term:
“a coincidence between two person’s thoughts which
requires a causal explanation.”
The “causal explanation" was theorized as being like radio
broadcasting “waves” which were sent and duplicated by receivers
known as radios.
TELEPATHY replaced the earlier term, THOUGHT TRANSFERENCE, largely
because the latter did not avail itself of the radio-wave hypothesis
as THE causal explanation.
Thereafter, the image of telepathy I've
outlined at the head of this chapter has held complete sway.
However, and as established, since telepathy cannot really exist
without its major substance - thoughts - the telepathy situation
still revolves around thoughts and their direct transfer from one
brain to another.
We now encounter the first of the major stumbling blocks.
Everyone
realizes that a thought contains information. And so here we are in
the vicinity of a quite good analogy - a bottle of wine. Thoughts
are the wine. But what does the bottle consist of?
THOUGHT is one of those terms that have many definitions - too many
to bring any clarity to the issue.
THOUGHT: the action or process of thinking; serious consideration;
recollection; reasoning power; the power to imagine; something that
is thought; the individual act or process of thinking; intention;
plan; the intellectual product of organized views and principles of
a period, place, group, or individual; characterized by careful
reasoned thinking.
As an addendum to the above definitions of
THOUGHT, some, but not
all, dictionaries also attach the term MINDFUL, the principle
definition of which is “inclined to be aware.”
So, one can read all of the eleven definitions of THOUGHT - and
observe that thought-activity of any or all of them COULD proceed
without any professed inclination to be aware of anything.
In the event of this, however, only the most gross cases might
become noticeable. They would be dubbed as MINDLEES - that term
referring to “inattentive, destitute of awareness, mind, or
consciousness.”
All of the above might seem like extraneous excursions into words.
But actually, one might well wonder if someone would telepathically
pick up someone else’s mindless thoughts - such as utilizing rather
mindless and dull cards of symbols and color shapes to test for
telepathy.
As it was back in the nineteenth century, most of these definitions
for THOUGHT, and the confusions they carried, were easily available.
And so Why-O-Why that term was seized upon at all as relative to
telepathy is virtually inexplicable.
A vastly more cogent term would have been INFORMATION TRANSFERENCE.
As to TELEPATHY, this was a neologism put together from two terms:
TELE meaning across; and EMPATHY traditionally referring NOT to
thought, but to,
“the capacity for participating in another’s
feelings or ideas as a result of becoming infused with them.”
INFUSE is taken to mean to pour in, to introduce into, to insinuate,
inspire, and to animate.
If the reader has found all of the above to be more than a little
confusing, well, don’t worry.
The concept of telepathy makes perfectly logical sense - IF it is
discussed WITHOUT including its attendant difficulties.
If the attendant difficulties are mentioned, then various cognitive
problems begin to arise - largely because the assumed logic of the
telepathy model DOES NOT consider the “bottle” that contains the
wine (thoughts).
|