by Ingo Swann
8 August 2005
This essay is a slightly adjusted version of a Situational Paper
prepared by this author at the request of two representatives of
"interested parties," the identities of which, as well as the
contents of the Paper, were not to be disclosed.
This author does not at all favor such
mumbo-jumbo affairs cloaked in mystery if they come out of thin air.
But the initial go-between came through a dear friend of highest
integrity and knowledge who referred, rather obliquely, to a sort of
behind-the-scenes venture capital group interested in funding
advanced directions in what was more or less referred to as
As it eventually turned out, to this author's surprise, and for
reasons quite obscure, the unidentified group nonetheless urged open
presentation of the Paper in this Website.
The central issue involved has to do with increasing interest in
potential ways and means of superpower training. As will be
discussed in the text ahead, one doesn't need to be a rocket
scientist to assume that this interest has undergone stimulation
because of the recent discovery (during the 1990s) of "empathic
mirror neurons" in the premotor cortex of the brain via which the
"motives and intentions of others" can be detected.
Detecting the motives and intentions of others is also one of the
formal definitions of that super sensitivity categorized as
"telepathy," and the discovery of mirror neurons implies that
empathic telepathy does exist, does have a physical explanation,
even if only in "raw" potential.
The discovery furthermore means that searches for ways and means of
developing the raw potential via applied training-enhancement
methods will (if not already) seriously be undertaken by any number
of "behind-the-scenes interested parties."
Situation Papers are often requested to help recognize missing
elements of a missing bigger picture.
This author has been requested to provide an in-depth Situation
Paper concerning potential training of human superpowers such as
those commonly referred to in the modern West as
PSI or ESP
faculties and which appellations include clairvoyance, telepathy,
precognition, etc., and more lately collectively referred to as
The request does not principally ask for intimate discussion of the
superpowers themselves, but rather for a consideration of them from
the EXPERIENTIAL viewpoint within the human species in general.
What this "experiential viewpoint" might consist of needs
clarification here at the beginning.
For about 150 years now (roughly demarking the Late Modern Age circa
1920-1990), positive and negative interests in the superpowers have
usually been built upon viewpoints more or less in keeping with
various attitudes, opinions, ideas and concepts consistent with
"old" philosophic-scientific theories and doctrines; and viewpoints
that characterized various social groupings and their vested
This complicated mélange fomented a Situation in which it hardly
mattered what people actually experienced of their super
sensitivities. What mattered was how such experiencing fitted in
with this or that mélange of "old" concepts.
Within this not insignificant modernist mélange, the probability
that super sensitivities might have some kind of innate status in
our species was avoided and became, as it were, a nebulous
ring-pass-not kind of thing that hardly anyone officially dared look
at much less challenge.
Innateness of a given phenomenon or activity in our species is first
established by finding out how "universal" or "generic" it is
throughout, or how often it actively manifests within the sum of
Thus, when some form of human activity is found occurring everywhere
(i.e., including or covering all or a whole collectively or
distributively more or less without limit or exception), it can be
surmised that it is inherently, generically, and innately existing - at least potentially so.
However, when the probable innateness of super sensitivities is
avoided and shunted aside altogether, then data reflecting the sum
of human super sensitivity experiencing is NOT likely to undergo
anything resembling organized itemization - and certainly not in any
societal-relevant philosophic or scientific contexts.
Since this cast-in-cement Situation has been ongoing for so long in
modernist contexts reflecting powerful resistance to super
sensitivities, it could easily be predicted that it would be
projected, largely unchanged, into the decades ahead.
Suddenly, however, at about just after the turn of the millennium,
one finds a sort of Embryonic Situation growing within the cement of
the long ongoing one, one that carries a particular characteristic
that needs to be emphasized.
To help distinguish between the "old" and emerging "new" approaches,
one might find increasing interest in extending research of the
super sensitivities based on traditional "old" psychical or
parapsychological concepts and models.
But this is not the case at all with the emerging Situation, for the
new interest is on seriously organized TRAINING of super sensitivity
potentials - i.e., an interest that had hardly ever seen the light
of day before in broad societal contexts.
Simply put, this aspect boldly jumps across mere super sensitivity
research into a pursuit of applied super sensitivity activity - simply because hardly anything is trained unless it is meant to be
Before entering into discussions relative to the question of whether
the super sensitivities can experientially be trained, there is the
rather complicated Experiential Situation involving whether
specimens of our species in general fundamentally experience super
sensitivities in a more or less species-wide manner.
For example, it is quite well documented that instincts,
gut-feelings, intuitions, and premonitions are experienced broadly,
at least sufficiently enough to qualify as "universal" to our
These age-old and enduring phenomena are not generally thought of as
examples of experiential super sensitivity - largely because modern
parapsychologists could not figure out how to experientially drag
them into the laboratory and empirically test them.
One of the subtle problems involved here is that the vast
expansiveness of human experiencing has never quite fitted into
empirical models - or, as it might better be put, fitted into
empirical models that are usually structured upon limited contexts
thought to be evidential and thus valid, but which do not allow for
evidence outside their limited contexts.
Simply put, human experiencing that fits into empirical contexts is
thought to be scientific; human experiencing that does not fit into
such contexts is thought to be unscientific. End of story.
At first sight, the difficulties discussed just above are usually
thought to emerge out of flawed empirical concepts - which is at
least partially the case.
But there is an additional facet involved that is seldom, if ever,
considered. You see, the contexts and phenomena of human
EXPERIENCING are not very well understood, although it is taken for
granted that they are.
So the overall Experiential Situation has to do with a couple of
significant problems that subtly surround the term EXPERIENTIAL, and
these need to be worked through before going on. Please try to do
so, and see if the subtle fallacies involved become apparent.
That term is of course taken from the word EXPERIENCE ehivh has at
least eight definitions.
In general, it is first officially defined as,
conscious perception or apprehension of reality or of an external,
bodily, or psychic event."
Please note the "usually conscious"
The term is also narrowly defined as,
"The conscious events that make
up an individual life."
Lastly, the term is vaguely defined as,
encountered, undergone, or lived through."
Experimental is defined as,
"Derived from, based on, or relating to
experience - empirical" - i.e., usually conscious empirical
The insertion into this definition of the term EMPIRICAL engenders
subtle difficulties, because it has three somewhat conflicting
Relying on experience or observation alone often
without due regard for system or theory,
Originating in or based
on observation or experience; and most importantly,
Capable of being verified or
disproved by observation or experiment
All of these definitions might seem okay at first. But in seeking
the definitions of EMPIRICAL, one finds that its major definition is
"capable of being verified or disproved by observation
In other words, it confines the EXPERIENTIAL to whatever is,
of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment."
note that this particular definition is very meaningful in that
EMPIRICAL (i.e., empiricism) was THE chief hallmark of the modernist
sciences and philosophies.
This is to say that "something personally encountered, undergone, or
lived through" must be submitted to empirical verification or
disproving via empirical observation of experiment.
Bluntly put, this Empirical Situation involves WHOSE and WHAT
experiment via what and whose attitudes, opinions, ideas; via what
and whose philosophic and scientific theories or doctrines; and via
what and whose adherence to various social groupings and their
Thus, what is empirical to some may not be considered empirical by
others, this being a very old story. But within the ongoing mélange,
specimens of our species experience what they do whether such is
empirical or not.
It is worth noting that the contexts of both EXPERIENCE and the
EXPERIENTIAL have traditionally been discussed AFTER examples of
them have manifested.
But both terms imply the existence of potentials that might, could,
or can manifest whether they do or do not.
In other words, there probably exists a lot of experiential Stuff
that might never enter into one's experiencing of it, or into
empirical observation and experimentation of it.
Additionally, empirical observation and experimentation might NOT be
capable of addressing Stuff outside of criteria being empirically
Thus something, such as sudden emergence of super sensitivity
experiencing formerly not experienced might take place, often in
ways that objective, empirical realities cannot account for.
2. SOME OLD
Wonderment about whether training of the superpowers is possible is
made difficult because the question is entangled in numerous
Situations some of which are quite subtle and not easily
Most of these Situations are locked into old realities, some of
which are fortunately in process of being replaced by new ones with
staggering implications. If this were not the case, then
constructing this consultative document would be rather pointless,
and boring as heck to boot.
One of the "old" Situations consists of two somewhat related parts,
the first of which has to do with the question of whether or not
parapsychology has failed in the sense that it once was an idea
whose time had come, and thence, after a few exciting decades,
declined and went leaving behind a confused residue.
Among this residue, parapsychology contexts and frames of reference
still endure, even if now becoming slightly obsolete. But if those
contexts are not depended on or utilized then no one knows what is
being talked about.
The best (and shortest) definition of Parapsychology is found in
PARAPSYCHOLOGY: SOURCES OF INFORMATION published in 1973 wherein (on
page 13) it is stated that,
"Parapsychology (the modern and more
restrictive term for psychical research) is the field which uses the
scientific method to investigate phenomena for which there appear to
be no normal (that is, sensory) explanations.
Basically this refers
[only] to phenomena subsumed under the general term psi... [that]
refers to the building blocks of telepathy, clairvoyance,
precognition, and psychokinesis."
The operative key of this definition is "the scientific method," one
part of which involves utilizing the empirical statistical method to
establish scientifically acceptable epistemological evidence of the
real empirical existence of something, such as telepathy, etc.
The second part of this two-part Situation also involved "the
scientific method," but as seen not from parapsychology hopes but
from the empirical contexts of modernist Science itself - i.e., the
empirical context resolutely marked by the firm conviction that
nothing but Matter existed, and that unless a phenomenon could be
explained as a result of identifiable material sources and process
it could not be accepted as "scientific."
In other words, mere statistical evidence was Not Enough, even if
obtained via strict empirical procedure. So, in this sense,
parapsychology failed in obtaining its ultimate goal of scientific
But it is important to stipulate that overall it did not fail in its
basic, cumulative statistical approach to researching PSI and its
several manifestations among the human species.
However, as mentioned by others, it can justifiably be said in
retrospect that the parapsychology approach to PSI was too narrow
for any number of reasons, especially in that it did not, in
general, incorporate fundamental study of such phenomena as
perception, consciousness and its capacities, or the fuller spectrum
of exceptional human experiencing - or the possibilities of TRAINING
At about 1970, parapsychology was already more or less moribund when
this author inadvertently entered it as an experimental (and, at
first, a somewhat abused) guinea pig.
Since then, Science has discovered that Matter is NOT the only
reality, and that at least telepathy DOES have a physical basis - both of which ironic events are sardonically delicious to those who
have strongly experienced some kind of super sensitivity.
One of the working definitions of the term SITUATION is given as
"relative position or combination of circumstances at a certain
moment, place, or time."
When this definition is connected to the topic of the super
sensitivities, it simply signifies that concepts of the super
sensitivities are seen as relative to various kinds of circumstances
within which they are being considered pro or con.
Such relative circumstances can be cultural, social, individual
and/or "group think," philosophic, or scientific, etc., and they
also depend on what kinds of dominant intellectualisms are holding
sway at any given moment, place, or time.
All of this makes for a massively complex and messy picture that
writers, analysts, historians, etc., try to wade through - and
usually end cognitively mired up to their brainpans.
put, this simply means that there are very many conflictive
INTELLECTUALISMS via which the superpowers and their associated
super sensitivities can be viewed in various conflicting ways.
In order to TRY to cut through, or downsize, this complex and messy
entanglement, this author will consider only two situational
characteristics that are obviously involved.
The second of these might be styled as the DEEPER SITUATION, while
the first can more precisely be referred to as the SUPERFICIAL
SITUATION that is absolutely known to exist - if only because of the
vast abundance of popular books, theories, guesstimates, etc., that
"say" what they do pro or con, but don't provide all that much depth
into the essential, fundamental nature of the superpowers.
A very long paper could be written dissecting this superficial
situation, but it seems the better part of valor to suggest why it
exists in the first place, and exists in such a continuing manner.
You see that term INTELLECTUAL-ISM just above? Let us start
The INTELLECTUAL part seems okay, in that the term is defined as "of
or relating to the intellect or its use" - although what use is made
of intellect is sometimes to be wondered about.
Depth diving into this particular issue, it can be found that the
definition of the ISM part is given as "doctrine, theory; adherence
to a system, doctrine, or theory identified by the particular class
of principles incorporated into them."
Doctrine is merely defined as,
"something that can be taught"
[including its ‘principles'], while THEORY consists of, "a hypothesis
assumed for the sake of argument or investigation based on analysis
of a set of facts in their relation to one another."
However, a more perceptive actuality is this: until they are proven
factual, such theories, doctrines, principles, isms, etc. don't
always need to incorporate facts - and especially cannot really do
so if important facts are intellectually unknown within the
sometimes fact-less principles incorporated into them.
If and when important hitherto unknown facts come to light (if they
are allowed to do so, or can't otherwise be prevented or resisted},
then former principles, theories, doctrines, isms, begin to dis-incorporate
- or, as it might better be said, "become undone, to come apart."
Anything that is in process of dis-incorporating quickly sheds its
former vogue and fashionable allure. And pundits will begin pointing
up that such were composed only of mere and sometimes stupic
intellectualisms all along.
In the sense of the above observations, it can be wondered if both
modern Parapsychology and modern Science treated the superpowers in
In the case of modernist Science the answer is in the absolute
positive, because the superpowers were simply (and officially)
dismissed via ways and methods overall characterized by one of the
most dogmatic forms of crass superficiality.
In the case of modernist Parapsychology, it could be thought that
its empirical/statistical searches might not constitute a
superficiality - until it is realized that most (but not all) of
such searches were more politically motivated toward gaining
scientific acceptance (and hence more funding) rather than by more
profound depth-diving into the PSI phenomena being considered.
So, both parapsychology AND empirical science missed two of the most
important and enduring facts of the superpowers, two facts that have
long stood the tests of time - whereas parapsychology came and went,
and the ever-so-neat-packaged materialistic Science is now in the
process of going, too.
The two tests-of-time FACTS relative to the superpowers are:
That their reality existence
within our species has been noted in all cultures from time
That their manifestations erupt
spontaneously even within populations otherwise shackled by
various types of negative attitudes against them
In other words, while negative intellectualisms, theories,
doctrines, etc. might come and go, super sensitivity phenomena have
a much longer and deeper history - and it is these two tests-or-time
facts that principally constitute the DEEPER SITUATION as contrasted
to the more familiar Superficial ones.
All of the foregoing having been joyfully pointed up, we can now
move into the post-Modern arenas of super sensitivity recognition - and why attempts at training will certainly be future-forthcoming.
I.E., SOME ASTONISHING SCIENTIFIC "COSMIC"
SURPRISES OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
As already briefly discussed, the parapsychology goal of achieving
scientific acceptance based on empirical statistical data was
successfully resisted on the grounds that PSI phenomena could not
additionally be explained as the empirical result of empirical
Mere statistical data alone were not completely
scientific of and in themselves.
This scientific resistance was completely logical IF matter WAS the
Only Reality - meaning that nothing else other than Matter could
exist or co-exist with it.
So, from the scientific viewpoint, it was generally thought that
parapsychology research was in scientific default by failing to
provide direct physical evidence for the existence of PSI items such
as telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.
The idea that the modern scientific theory-doctrine holding that
Matter was the Only Reality could, itself, be in default was
To segue into the possible confusions that are to follow, the term
STUFF is usually considered as having very low
philosophic-scientific dignity and even lesser merit.
Among its several definitions in addition to "rubbish," one can
discover that the term refers to:
substance, or essence
the aggregate of something
special knowledge or capability
The contexts of these three definitions, however, usually refer to
Stuff that is more of less known to exist if only in a theoretical
manner, even though few if any details of what is involved are
As a case in point, advancing sciences (IF they ARE advancing) tend
to discover Stuff that can't be explained within the contexts they
are advancing out of. Philosophies are also reluctant to have
advancing Stuff discovered - because such discoveries would entail
bothersome rewriting of the philosophies.
As a general rule of thumb, scientists and philosophers usually
don't appreciate discovery of the real existence of Stuff that is
outside or beyond the reality boxes they don't want to advance out
of, probably because of the dreaded loss of face that would be
As of about 1890, scientific investigations of Matter were doing
quite well - until unanticipated Situations began entering into the
Only Reality when the cutting edges of physics began dissecting
Matter into smaller and smaller particles, and, as a result,
eventually encountered Stuff (during the early 1920s), which was
dubbed as the sub-atomic quantum realms.
Quantum theory thence yielded the advanced, cutting-edge concepts of
non-continuity, non-causality, and non-locality. The details of
these concepts are too involved to include here, and if interested,
one can bone up on them via Internet resources.
But briefly put here, quantum theory began establishing that Matter
was actually coinciding and interfacing within conditions of some
Other Realities Stuff that could neither be measured nor understood
by empirical scientific measuring and testing in ways consistent
with the Only Reality of Matter.
Perhaps too simply put, the Other Realities consisted of
"radiations" emerging, in the strict material sense, from
"no-material-thing," but which were anyway interpenetrating the Only
Reality of Matter.
Did you "get" all of this? If not, don't worry too much because
there is worse to come, but which, even if worse, is a bit more
To jump a bit ahead from earlier beginnings of quantum mechanics and
theory, during the 1980s and 1990s, the "cutting edges" of physics
found themselves capable of mathematically deducing the real
existence of Stuff dubbed as dark matter, exotic matter, dark
energy, multiple dimensions, and multiple universes.
As all of this stands so far:
DARK MATTER may or may not interpenetrate the
physical realms; but
EXOTIC (SUBTLE) ENERGIES interpenetrate; while
DARK ENERGY certainly does interpenetrate;
As well as do MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS that simultaneously
co-exist with and interpenetrate within each other.
One of the outcomes of all these "Other Realities" (including
PARALLEL UNIVERSES and the HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE), is that the former
"only reality" of Matter now is thought to constitute only about
some 4 percent to 7 percent of the Universe.
(NOTE: Those interested in these items are invited to check the
appropriate Internet sources. Google It, as it is said.)
For an attempt at clarifying, practically everyone comprehends what
is meant by PENETRATE, an English word officially defined as:
pass into or through; to see into or through; to discover the inner
contents or meaning of; to pass, extend, pierce, or diffuse into or
At a lower, more gross level of understanding, the term is
understood as merely shoving something into something else - and/or
gaining access to something that is thought to be shielded against
access, such as secrets, motives, intentions, and other hidden or
concealed whatnots, etc.
That much having been said, there is another English term that is
less understood - INTER-PENETRATE, defined as:
between, within, or throughout; to mutually penetrate; to spread or
diffuse through; to permeate."
The conventional modernist definitions, functions, and activities of
PENETRATION are quite well comprehended, largely because concrete
demonstrations of them are rife everywhere.
However, although the term INTERPENETRATION is occasionally used,
there is always the elusive issue of what is mutually
interpenetrating what - especially if such cannot strictly be
explained as the result of material processes.
What all of this interpenetrating scientific STUFF means with
respect to super sensitivities is by no means clear. But many super
sensitive individuals have referred to perceiving "radiations,"
other dimensions, multiple realities, and all kinds of information
not available via the five physical senses.
But a sort of parallelism is implied between the existence of
interpenetrating Stuff and, let us say, interpenetrating capacities
of human consciousness whose functions are not strictly confined to
objective perception of the matter-only reality.
Enlarging upon this a little, as far as the objective physical
universe of Matter is concerned (and in the modernist rational sense
of it), that universe is generally assumed to be composed of
physically objective things that might penetrate other things, but
which don't mutually interpenetrate, and thus do not mutually
co-exist with and within each other.
THIS context is the central reality of the modernist Western
philosophies and sciences. Or, as it might better be put today, it
WAS the central reality in the conventional modernist West.
The modernist philosophy of Materialism held that Matter was the
Only Reality. End of story.
The modernist sciences followed suit, additionally holding that
anything that could not be explained as a manifestation or resulting
processes of Matter could not have real existence.
It is quite easy to understand the utter allure of this, in that we
do exist in our local section of the material universe and have, by
necessity, to grapple with its local vicissitudes all of the time - THIS even before we have to grapple with the more complex
vicissitudes of human nature.
There are lots of old stories about this state of material affairs,
but there is one somewhat complicated aspect that has seldom
undergone examination and discussion.
The Matter universe is filled with OBJECTS, i.e.,
things "that are capable of being seen, touched, or sensed via the
physical senses" and/or via physical equipment designed and
engineered to do so.
These objects are LOCAL to and within the Matter universe, meaning
"characterized by or relating to position in space;
characterized by, relating to, or occupying a particular place" in
Such "position(s) in space" and "particular place(s)" are of course
OUTSIDE of US, and they all locally "belong" to what and where they
are at any given time.
Hence the term OBJECTIVISM, defined as,
"Any of the various theories
[including philosophic and scientific ones] stressing objective
reality, especially as distinguished from subjective experience or
Now, in these particular objectivistic contexts, it is quite easy to
comprehend that the first level of conscious-of-ness development
simply has to focus, or centralize, on external objects external
that exist in their local positions in space and in their particular
It is generally thought that THIS is achieved via the five physical
senses, and by tutoring and training them to function at least
somewhat properly and efficiently within the contexts of objectivity
as found among the vicissitudes and hazards of the Only Reality of
(As a brief aside here, please note that this kind of training does
not include efficiency training for dealing with the vicissitudes
and hazards of human nature itself for which other kinds of "senses"
are certainly required in addition to the famous physical five
For reasons that have never exactly been objectively explained, it
is taken for granted, in objective materialistic contexts, that all
of the objects in the local universe of Matter do not violate the
local "laws" that are assumed to govern the local objective
existence of matter, energy, space, and time.
Therefore anything that does so cannot be explained
- at least in
So a rather pregnant question can emerge from all of this: Why does
human consciousness seem to have capacities that dare to violate the
local "laws" of objective existence?
To remind: The term SUPERPOWERS refers:
to any sensitivities that cannot
be attributed to the five physical senses
to any sensitivities that
transcend whatever is passing for conscious reason and logic
based only on the restrictions of material objectivity
to any sensitivities that
transcend the materialistic understanding of matter, energy,
space, and time
to the acquisition of efficient
information that can, if well trained to do so, result from
Also to remind:
The term itself is not original to this author or to
this Website, having, as it does, a rather long history in other
languages. The prefix SUPER (and its many linguistic equivalents)
merely denotes "over and above; higher in quantity, quality, or
degree than; exceeding or so as to exceed a norm; surpassing all or
most others of its kind."
The key concept in all of the foregoing is INTERPENETRATE.
This is a
point to be emphasized for several reasons.
One can easily think or speculate about the existence of other
realities, realms, dimensions, and so forth. But there is a general
tendency to think of them as being outside of, elsewhere, and as
having their own versions of objectivity independent and separate
within the realms, dimensions, etc., of our material realities.
The difficult problem here is that although other realities, etc.,
probably do have their own objectivity versions within them, our own
scientific quantum and sub-quantum discoveries are indicating that
they are NOT ELSEWHERE.
Instead, they are mutually enfolded and interpenetrating each other
and thus are simultaneously HERE, simultaneously co-existing at
sub-quantum levels (including co-existing with our own material
realities), and, as one might suppose, doing their own thing
whatever that might be.
All of this is quite "alien" to our standard Western ways of
thinking about reality, because they are more less firmly locked
into the physical objectivity of things that can be perceived via
the five physical senses, even if it takes microscopes, telescopes,
and all other sorts of technical mechanisms to do so.
Indeed and on average, our consciousness is more or less programmed
to function only with what is objective in this or that material
sense, and which can objectively be "explained." Thus, when some
sort of spontaneous super sensitivity experience takes place,
everyone is befuddled, including the experiencer.
The foregoing is probably too amazing to take on board, so don't
worry too much about it. It takes time to digest this kind of STUFF.
The larger point being made is that INTERPENETRATION with and of
Other Realities is now a big deal, at least at quantum scientific
levels. Mainstream science magazines are full of it, even including
the venerable SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN whose earlier editors carefully
clung to objective-empirical precepts acceptable to scientific
If advanced interpenetration-realities are alien and absolutely too
amazing, it is likewise even more astonishing to find that something
like such has been known for a long time - but objected to by
modernist materialism, thus rejected and ejected from the arenas of
As already mentioned, this is revealed by searching other languages
for relevant word-references, a good many of which are found, for
example, in Amerindian languages that are redolent with such.
But it is astonishing to find that ancient Sanskrit... Well, let
us start over here.
Sanskrit has, of course, its share of terms dealing with objective,
material things, including actions and interactions within the
realms of Matter.
But these material references are far overshadowed by the
proliferation of terms relevant to Other Reality interpenetrations
of all sorts, and the sum of which has long ago been encoded on
behalf of possible and probable innate states of consciousness that
can and do deal with them.
This is to say that while our extraordinary present scientific
approaches to interpenetration Stuff have now been unavoidably
underway for about twenty years, there was a language dating back
3,000 or more years ago that had its own versions of such Stuff.
This is not at all to say that the contexts of our own post-modern
quantum discoveries are the same thing as are (or were) the ancient
Sanskrit Other Realities thing. But the Sanskrit contexts do
identify what we today refer to as "mutually interpenetrating
quantum and sub-quantum levels."
Thus, there is at least one somewhat discrete concept that the two
contexts do share, if only recently so - i.e., the actual existence
of multiple interpenetrating realities.
The Sanskrit contexts insist that human consciousness is possessed
of ways and means to interact with multiple interpenetrating
realities. Our post-modern quantum sciences seem to be lagging a bit
behind in this.
It is also worth mentioning that it should be obvious that super
sensitivities are principally distinguished by their
interpenetrating nature - which is to say, to interpenetrate Stuff
and things that the mere five physical senses cannot. More
discussion on this later.
We now need to move onward.
4. A NEW
THE SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY OF "TELEPATHIC" NEURONS
IN THE BRAIN
As already pointed up, it was held within modern materialist
philosophies and sciences that parapsychology research was in
default by failing to provide direct physical evidence for the
existence of PSI items such as telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.
Put another, perhaps more significant way, science itself had not
discovered any such kinds of physical evidence that could have aided
parapsychology's work - and so parapsychological data could be
excluded from scientific appreciation of it.
This exclusion was especially focused on super sensitivities which,
after all, transcended the "laws" that were thought to govern
matter, energy, space, and time, including the electromagnetic,
chemical, and quantum arrangements within them. And it was thought
to constitute a necessary, neat, tight, and seamless example of pure
scientific reason and logic based in confidence that nothing of the
kind would ever be discovered.
As a result, the exclusion has been socially enforced in rather
serious unforgiving ways, while proponents of the super
sensitivities, no matter their standing otherwise, have been
socially stigmatized, at least in the sense of mainstream
And yet, as already discussed, by the beginning of the twenty-first
century, mainstream science periodicals (such as the venerable
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN and the data-crunching NEW SCIENTIST) were
bristling with reports about Parallel Universes, Multiple
Dimensions, Holographic Universes, the mysteries of Dark Matter,
Dark Energy, Subtle Energies, and Exotic Stuff.
But before the twentieth century was over, a new kind of
mind-boggling discovery had been made during its ultimate decade.
While dark matter and energy etc. might not yet mean too much on
average to mere individuals plodding along in their local
"universes," this new discovery, once its ramifications begin to
sink in, IS particularly significant at the individual level.
Now, perhaps to over emphasize, it was held that telepathy did not
There were no brain-mind
mechanisms that could account for direct, mental
mind-to-mind exchanges of information especially of the
There was no known physical medium through which the mental
information could directly be transmitted - since in the
matter-only-reality universe, there was no non-matter Stuff
simply because no other realities existed
Such WAS the scientific situation.
An expanded version of what will now briefly be outlined below can
be found in this Website under the heading of TELEPATHY - THE
OPENING UP OF, and those interested are invited to surf the Internet
under the topics of TELEPATHY and MIRROR NEURONS.
In the April 30, 2005 issue of SCIENCE NEWS (Vol. 167, No. 18),
their appeared a brief article entitled "Goal Oriented Brain Cells
- Neurons may track action as a prelude to empathy."
This somewhat obtuse heading was then clarified as:
in Italy listened in on monkeys' brain cells that they say may lie
at the root of empathy, the ability to discern others' thoughts and
The scientific name given to these special brain cells was MIRROR
NEURONS (possibly because they "reflected" what was going on in the
neurons of others.)
Mirror neurons were first discovered in Macaque monkeys and later
confirmed by MRI scanning also to exist in humans where they are
located in Brodmann's area 44 (Broca's area) of the brain's cerebral
cortex and elsewhere.
Mirror neurons are now scientifically defined as specializing
neurons that (detect? respond to?) the "intentions and motives of
"Detecting intentions and motives of others" is, of course, the
official, long-standing definition of TELEPATHY - and some
scientists have noted (in print) that such neurons actually seem to
place one in the minds of others, or, at least "mirror" what is
going on in others' minds.
Among others, a neuroscientist scientist (at the University of
California) indicated that via the special premotor cortex neurons,
"we are practically in another person's mind."
At this juncture, it is again worth reminding that in this Website,
SUPERPOWERS more or less refers to any perceptual processes that
range beyond the limited powers of the conventional five physical
senses that "sense" physicality - which is to say that super
sensitivity perceptive processes transcend such limits.
"Telepathy" is a modern term that has been assigned to one such
superpower, although the processes involved were earlier referred to
as "thought transference," a definition that is much in keeping with
the new scientific definition of "mirror neurons."
As it is, the results of "thought transferring" and "thought
mirroring" seem, if not identical, at least quite similar.
Telepathic super sensitivities can easily be thought of as a
superpower, in that thoughts of others are not exactly comprised of
any identifiable physicality - and hence are not sensed by the usual
At this point, it would be de rigueur to provide reference sources
that attest to the actual scientific existence of mirror neurons.
But by now there many of such sources available in the Internet
under the subject of mirror neurons. Rather than list them here,
interested readers are now referred to that greater electronic
However, one such source is pointed up here, principally because it
contains a long list of references.
So, See: Gallese, Vittorio,
"Action, goals, and their role in intersubjectivity: from mirror
neurons to the ‘shared manifold' hypothesis" (email@example.com).
Before the recent discovery of mirror neurons in the brain, it was
scientifically thought, in crass materialistic terms, that telepathy
could not exist because there was no physical explanation for it.
So, the discovery came not only as quite a surprise, but also
engendered a number of ancillary questions.
One such question (not yet very openly being discussed, but
nonetheless quietly circulating here and there) consists of the
Well, if telepathic neurons exist, do similar kinds of them also
exist for, say, remote viewing, for various forms of clairvoyance,
for various kinds of intuitions, for premonition-sensing of future
events, and etc?
Since it is generally realized that motor cortex functions and
responses CAN be trained, well, you see, this wonderment is now
beginning to represent a VERY seriously sensitive one for any number
Because of the recent discovery of mirror neurons in the premotor
cortex of the brain and elsewhere in the biobody, interest has been
stimulated behind the public scenes as to whether some kind of
training might be possible so as to enhance and achieve higher
performance efficiency of their functions.
This developmental interest is probably not so much inspired by the
mere existence of such neurons, but more by the possibility that if,
"we don't try to develop them, others are sure to do so."
So, you see, telepathy under any other name IS here to stay - if not
in the general public per se, but certainly in the worldwide
espionage games. Ironic, isn't it, that a cutting edge of science
itself should discover the physical existence of little gray cells
that substantiate the actual existence of something on which science
itself expended much debunking.
Now, it must be pointed out that theoretical enhancing of mirror
neuron efficiency begs the question of whether ANY super sensitivity
can be enhanced. The only way we can judge this is by the actual
substantiated RESULTS of such enhancement.
ENHANCEMENT, by the way, is defined as:
"to raise; to make greater;
to heighten; to intensify."
NOTE: As this document was in preparation, in its Science Times
section of Tuesday, January 10, 2006, the very venerable NEW YORK
TIMES featured a lengthy article entitled "Cells That Read Minds."
The lead observation: "Scientists plumb the secrets of mirror
neurons, which allow the brain to perform its highest tasks - learning, imitating, empathizing. One mystery remains: What makes
them so smart?"
The "telepathic" issue was not enlarged upon all that much, but just
about everyone realizes what "Cells that can read minds" means.
EFFICIENT SUPER SENSITIVITY FUNCTIONING ACTUALLY EXIST?
Although they portend coming Situations quite different from
modernist ones, the scientific discoveries of various kinds of
non-locality-quantum Stuffs that interpenetrate our local Matter
realities probably, at first sight anyway, don't yet mean that much
to us who everyday struggle amongst the local Matter vicissitudes
However, the discovery of "cells that read minds" is probably a
quite different Situation - because such "cells" are part and parcel
of the vicissitudes of our local, everyday, Matter realities - in
that the deciphering of another's hidden intentions and motives is
now scientifically possible or at least theoretically feasible.
In other words, an important shift has suddenly taken place with
respect to how super sensitivities as a whole (and telepathy in
particular) are viewed. In the modernist past, the super
sensitivities were viewed, at best, as non-normal psychological
phenomena for which there was thought to be no material explanation.
Now that "cells that read minds" have been discovered in the brain,
the apparent lack of material explanation for telepathy has been
filled in - rather ironically it seems, because the greatest
modernist opponents of telepathy were the modernist sciences
One possible factor about all of this seems so far to have escaped
what passes for frequently changing scientific realizations - in
that cells that can read minds might have the capacity to "read" a
lot more than just minds.
That parapsychologists in the past have gotten up words and terms in
an attempt to differently categorize what appeared, to them, to be
various kinds of super sensitive phenomena is no sign that the
actual workings of super sensitivities MUST correspond to them.
For example, in the modern cultural West, a number of words and
terms have conceptually evolved that supposedly identify this or
that type of super sensitivity - such as telepathy, clairvoyance,
precognition, premonition, sixth sense, second sight, intuition,
etc., as well as remote viewing, a term that this author helped to
coin in 1971.
Such words and terms are useful at a superficial level, but they
don't at all provide cognitive access to the deeper particulars of
the functioning processes involved.
In terms of possible training of those deeper processes, it doesn't
take a rocket scientist to realize that if something is going to be
trained, one does not get very far by trying to train any
superficial concept of it.
One rather has to go to work and try to identify whatever deeper
processes are involved, processes that are amenable to training via
cognitive training, development, strengthening, and enhancement of
So, even if the terminological categorizing might serve some purpose
in parapsychology labs experimenting within objective empirical
methods, if one takes time to observe super sensitivity functioning
in real life situations, an entirely different picture tends to
The question that emerges from the brief discussion above has to do
with where, in real life, can one actually witness super
sensitivities in efficient activity.
One of the definitions of EFFICIENT is given as "productive without
One of the synonyms is EFFECTIVE, defined as,
"The quality of
being efficient; producing a decided, or desired effect or result."
Two further observations might be appended to these real-life
if super sensitivities do not produce information
that is usable, practical, or verifiable, then there is little
reason to consider them as much of anything
many may actually experience
active super sensitivities, but produce distorted
information down to and including gobbledygook that might be
fascinating in terms of entertainment, but having little
merit beyond that
In this particular contest, it might be observed that super
sensitivities turn into super POWERS only if they more so rather
than less so demonstrate useful, organized, efficiency.
So, where do we find demonstrations of efficient super
sensitivities? During the last hundred or so years, there seems to
be only one social real-life context within which efficient super
sensitivities have achieved a modicum of social tolerance and
This is the area now familiarly known as "psychic detectives" who
help solve crimes when police detectives find themselves either
between a rock and a hard place or up against a clueless brick wall.
Professional police detectives, working toward building an airtight
case must of course totally depend on accumulating logic-reason
evidence that will stand up in logic-reason courts of law.
As is well known, although they usually won't admit it, many police
detectives themselves are in possession of modicums of intuition or
gut-feelings. But even so, they occasionally encounter clueless
brick wall situations, after which they are up against whatever they
ARE up against, such as crimes not solvable by
In general, any super sensitive sleuth worth their own water is
expected to "see" through clueless brick walls and provide
informational clues not apparent via mere logic-reason contexts, but
which COULD become apparent if mere logic-reason knew where and how
to look and test for them.
About the only thing a super sensitive sleuth can do is to provide
information that, if ultimately proven efficient, can help resolve
There is, of course, a lengthy history of failure along these lines,
but there is no real need to throw the baby out with the bath water
- because the point here is that the baby does exist.
As this essay is being constructed, there are several quite
remarkable contemporary super sensitive sleuths here and there, and
which some few really stressed cops are no longer too reticent to
consult. (If interested in names of these contemporary super
sensitive sleuths, do consult the Internet.)
However, in the general contexts of this essay, there are a number
of reasons to review two deceased super sensitive sleuths.
Both of these are of Dutch fame. Both were assiduously investigated
by detractors and European parapsychologists - and, without much
help by the investigators, both trained themselves well enough to
efficiently deploy their remarkable super sensitivities.
Gerard Croiset (1909-1980), born in Enschede, Netherlands, was
plagued as a child with all sorts of confusing super sensitivities.
As he grew up, he somehow managed to train himself and thus achieved
some kind of efficient, heightened, volitional control over them.
At a rather early point in his life, he began working unobtrusively
with the Chief Justice of Leeuwarden and with the Chief Justice of
Haarlem, in tracing the activities of criminals or missing persons,
thereby helping to solve many crimes via different aspects of his
super sensitivities, thereafter becoming internationally known as a
Croiset's super-sensitivities were intensively investigated by
leading European and some American parapsychologists who established
that the sensitivities were multiple and included various
extraordinary forms of clairvoyance, telepathy, pre- and
post-cognition, the "sixth sense," and psychometry roughly defined
"using extrasensory perception of a physical object to gain
information about events or people once associated with it."
His "crimebusting" was utilized in close collaboration with police
departments in many European nations and even in the USA. Although
some failures occurred, his overall verified success rate remained
Since his remarkable sensitivities were present while very young, it
has everywhere been assumed he was especially naturally born with
This assumption fitted with the then fashionable idea that certain
specimens of our species are, via some special genetic combination,
naturally born with such sensitivities, while all the rest are not - i.e., unless you are naturally born with them you will never have
them. (This point of view will be dissected ahead.)
(Those interested in Croiset might avail themselves of his
biography, CROISET: THE CLAIRVOYANT (1964) by Jack Harrison
However, the "naturally-born" hypothesis underwent stress just as
Gerard Croiset's naturally-born fame was nearing its highest
Peter Hurkos (1911-1988) was also born in The Netherlands, in
Dordrecht, and early worked as a laborer and merchant seaman, later
becoming a member of the Dutch underground after Holland was
occupied near the beginning of World War II. During this period, he
didn't have a clue about any kind of super-sensitivity.
However, in 1941, at the age of 30, while painting a house he fell
thirty-six feet from a ladder and landed right on his head.
After more or less recovering from his injuries, he found himself in
sudden possession of super sensitivities enabling him "to obtain
information about people and objects" in telepathic and psychometric
He thereafter underwent a period during which he had to work out
various confusions, and was finally able to bring at least some of
his new sensitivities under heightened voluntary control. About this
same time period, he was captured by the Gestapo and imprisoned in
Buchenwald, Germany where he remained in hard labor until that camp
was liberated by U.S. and Canadian troops in 1945. So he had plenty
of time to test and train his newly found super sensitivities,
Regaining his freedom, his increasing super sensitivities were too
distracting for him to follow a normal occupation. So he took to
appearing on the stage to demonstrate his newly self-discovered
sensitivities, more or less obtaining the reputation of a mere
trickster. But he also began trying to help police in several
countries solve many cases of murder, theft, and missing persons.
His verified success rates were slightly less than those of Croiset,
but in any event Holland found itself possessed of TWO
internationally known "super-sleuths" during the same time period of
(For those interested, Hurkos wrote his own autobiography, entitled
PSYCHIC: THE STORY OF PETER HURKOS (1962).)
The foregoing brief sketches of Croiset and Hurkos are but two
examples of many that are available.
The first reason for reprising these two sketches is to focus
discussion of the long-standing assumption that one won't have such
sensitivities unless one is born with them - end of story.
Within the contexts of this assumption, Croiset WAS born with them,
since the super sensitivities were already naturally blipping on his
radar as a child.
It could therefore be concluded that Croiset was especially
naturally hardwired and thus equipped with them at birth.
In the case of Hurkos, however, the super sensitivities did not
begin blipping on his radar until after he quite dramatically fell
on his head and knocked himself out.
Apologists for the "naturally-born" hypothesis thus explain that
Hurkos was also naturally innately hardwired for such sensitivities,
but didn't know it, because they had not turned on earlier in his
If such WAS the case, then who is to know whom is similarly innately
hardwired, but doesn't know it? Most of us, perhaps?
YES? From this, it could be deduced, hypothetically anyway, that
many, most, or all are hardwired for super sensitive capacities but
don't know it.
To get into the second reason mentioned earlier, the term
PREMONITION is defined as,
"a warning presentiment or anticipation of
a forthcoming, usually dangerous event without rational or logical
conscious perception or reasons for it."
One doesn't need to be a Croiset or Hurkos type to experience
premonitions, because such have been experienced by "ordinary"
individuals in all times, societies, and cultures, backwaters,
battlefields, nature, streets, homes, etc. - and, it might be added,
experienced in ways that the experiencers themselves cannot account
The efficiency value of any super sensitivity can be determined,
only or mostly, by its practical results - and the practical results
of premonitions, when they are heeded, are obvious.
For every ten famous specimens of the Croiset or Hurkos types,
thousands or more of no particular fame spontaneously experience
premonitions, this somewhat indicating the innate hardwiring for
premonition sensitivity is far more indigenous to our species than
As already mentioned, PREMONITION is defined as,
"anticipation of an
event without conscious reason; forewarning."
It is rather safe to say that premonitions of some kind occur,
perhaps only infrequently, to just about everyone, and there is a
vast anecdotal literature describing many such events, most of which
When a premonition occurs "without conscious reason," the
implication is that somewhere in one's systems exists "something"
that is obviously conscious of whatever is involved in the
Thus, premonitions are usually attributed to some perceptual aspect
of the "subconscious" - which seems somehow to be aware of something
that is going to happen in the immediate or distant future that
"conscious reason" is not foreseeing.
In this sense, it seems possible to suggest that the subconscious is
equipped with innate hardwiring sufficiently enough to achieve such
perceptions, whereas the hardwiring, if any, of conscious reason
seems rather unequipped to do so.
Indeed, in at least some few specimens of our species, conscious
reason seems singularly inadequate with respect to playing with a
full deck of reasoning attributes.
There also exists a quite large, often dramatic and poignant,
anecdotal literature having to do with spontaneous cases of
mother-child telepathy during which mothers "sense" their child is
in distress or danger, even if the child is at a great distance
Fathers sometimes experience such events. But mothers seem in
particular to be hardwired along these lines, and in their cases it
seems that the barrier between sub-conscious and conscious
perceptions is very permeable indeed.
In any event, they spontaneously and easily abandon their "conscious
reason," and, if at all possible, make impulsive haste to aid and
abet their children.
This particular literature is well worth reading, especially now
that innately hardwired mirror (telepathic) neurons have been
discovered actually to exist.
So, what have spontaneous premonitions and telepathic linkages have
to do with teaching, learning, and training any of the super
To try to get into THIS, it is necessary to review the definitions
of SPONTANEOUS, which, in its most important nuances, is altogether
"involuntarily originating, being produced, or becoming
activated without conscious deliberation, without apparent external
influence, force, cause, or treatment."
The term has four synonyms:
INSTINCTIVE, IMPULSIVE, AUTOMATIC,
Everyone has, of course, heard of INSTINCT, but might not be too
familiar with the term's formal definitions:
"A natural [innate]
aptitude, impulse, or capacity; a complex and specific response by
an organism to environmental stimuli that is hereditary and
unalterable, does not involve reason, and has as its goal the
removal of somatic tension."
The "goal" part referred to in this definition might more
specifically be defined as "the preservation of the organism," in
that threat of non-preservation probably would result in all kinds
of "tension" in addition to somatic examples of it.
IMPULSE is principally defined as,
"a wave of excitation transmitted
to the tissues and, especially, nerve fibers and muscles that
results in physiological activity; a sudden spontaneous inclination
or incitement to some usually unpremeditated action."
What is not mentioned in definitions of this term is that such
"excitation and spontaneity" is largely the function of the motor
and pre-motor cortexes. Mull this over as we proceed.
With respect to the synonym AUTOMATIC, we will examine the
definition of AUTONOMIC NERVOUS SYSTEM, given as:
"the part of the
vertebrate nervous system that supplies with nerves (innervates) the
smooth and cardiac muscle and glandular tissues and governs
In this sense, the innervating autonomic nervous system is
automatic, and, as well, can be referred to as a MECHANISM - defined
"a process or technique for achieving a result or goal."
If spontaneous super sensitivities don't arise because of or out of
the perceptual conscious reason, then there are two systems
There has to be another perceptual system because of, and out of,
which the super sensitivities spontaneously arise and in ways that
conscious reason neither perceives nor can account for.
So the autonomic nervous system does its own things - sometimes much
to the alarm of whatever is passing for reason.
All of this having been said, it is now time to pose a very seminal
question: Can the autonomic nervous system be trained - that same
system that sometimes spontaneously produces hints and clues of
naturally hardwired super sensitivities.
SITUATION OF WHETHER SUPER SENSITIVITY RUDIMENTS
...ARE INNATE IN THE
So! We have modicums of highly efficient super sensitive sleuths who
have actually helped resolve crimes, and whose successes are
increasingly being substantiated by law officials, and some examples
of which are increasingly being documented on TV.
We also have voluminous spontaneous incidents of efficient and
amazing premonitions, mostly documented after the fact, because few
pay attention to premonitions until after they have been fulfilled.
(The best source on this so far is the 1971 book PREMONITIONS: A
LEAP INTO THE FUTURE, by Herbert B. Greenhouse.)
We also have a large incidence of transient, spontaneous super
sensitivity events erupting in the populations in general.
Last, but not least, we also have animal superpowers that of late
are acquiring not only popular, but also scientific attention. (See,
for example, the article entitled "Animal Superpowers" in the
December 24, 2005 - January 6, 2006 issue of NEW SCIENTIST.)
about everyone knows that animals sense-perceive energies and stuff
that humans usually don't unless they have a modicum of
clairvoyance. In the case of animal superpowers, scientists are now
busy trying to locate the relevant genetic hardwiring. They will
eventually (if they haven't already) get around to trying to locate
such hardwiring in US, in THEMSELVES, etc.
Developing, enhancing, training something presupposes that the
something already exists in rudimentary form.
RUDIMENT is defined as,
"raw, beginning; a beginning raw fundamental
principle or element that can be enhanced, developed, or trained
into a skill."
Before it became possible to map the entire genome (i.e.,
inherent-innate genetic structure) of a species, the existence of
rudiments had to be guessed at, or tested by observation and
During the last twenty or so years, it has become possible to
identify the existence of such rudiments at the genetic level, even
though they may have not been activated, turned on, energized,
awakened, and thenceforth developed into some kind of lesser or
greater skill-like efficiency.
It is also now understood quite well in the genetic research fields
that Genetic Systems are usually quite busy turning off and turning
on this or that rudiment, although the Why of this remains something
of a mystery.
It is also somewhat well known that genetic systems INNATELY possess
rudiments that are not used, but which anyway are passed along
through their progeny.
Some now speculate that the human species has an overabundance of
rudiments that are not used. Hence, these are not awakened,
energized, developed, etc., but are anyway downloaded into
So we have now tripped across that word INNATE - a depth diving term
that goes hand-in-hand with the essential existence of raw
The term INNATE is defined as,
"naturally existing in or belonging to
an individual from birth; inherent within; belonging to the
essential nature of something."
These are perfectly good definitions. But before going on it should
be pointed up that the term INNATE seems somewhat to have gone out
of fashion, and is being replaced by the concept of HARDWIRED.
This is now a concept associated with computers whose hard drive
capacities are, well, hardwired to perform those functions they do
or can do - and if they are not hardwired, then they cannot perform
Bending this analogy a little, it could be said that a computer's
hardwiring exists in and belongs to it from birth; its hardwiring is
inherent within it, and belongs to the computer's essential nature.
However, computers operate on electricity, and so somewhere is a
switch which, in its "on" position, is hardwired to permit the flow
of the necessary "juice," or, in its "off" position, cuts the flow.
When a computer is switched off, its hardwired capacities are still
inherent within its designed essential nature, and will perform
those inherent functions when the contraption is again turned on and
It could be said, roughly speaking anyway, that in its juiced-up
state, the computer is once more "sensitive" to its inherently
designed capacities AND the designed programs inserted into them.
It takes just one little glitch in all of this - well, everyone
knows what THAT means.
SENSITIVE is defined as,
"subject to excitations by external agents;
highly responsive or susceptible; capable of sensing and indicating
gross and minute differences; also, the capacity of an organism to
respond to stimulation by external and internal agents or sources."
As most realize, the human species and all of its individual
specimens possess and experience many different kinds of
sensitivities, so many in fact that no real attempt has ever been
undertaken to itemize them.
These copious sensitivities have been thought of as consisting of
two principal categories - physical sensitivities, and
super-sensitivity capacities, designated here as such, in that they
transcend the capacity limits of the physical sensitivities, and
which, in some demonstrated cases, seem to have no really
discernable limits at all.
It is generally accepted that the human organism is innately. i.e.,
"naturally," hardwired with respect to the physical sensitivities,
largely because of their broadly shared functions in all specimens
of our species.
But demonstrated emergences of this or that super sensitivity have
always been thought of as erratic among individuals, and, as such,
do not demonstrate broadly shared hardwired species functions.
So the super sensitivities have not been considered as innately
hardwired in anyone, much less throughout the entire species.
Nevertheless, the super sensitivities have been "accounted for" in
numerous ways, the principal one consisting of the erroneous idea
that certain human specimens are somehow specially born with them,
while the majority of those born are somehow deficit of them.
This idea does not really coincide with the widespread fluctuating
manifestations of the super sensitivities, even though it seems
"logical" enough - at least to those who are not too familiar with
the actual history of what is involved.
The recently discovered existence of mirror (telepathic) neurons in
premotor cortices implies they are innate, and thus have rudimentary
potentials whether they are cognitively activated or not - potentials having to do with discerning motives and intentions of
This must come as quite a shock to our present civilization in which
people resent having their conversations overheard, or their
telephones tapped. How does one get a search warrant with respect to
mirror neuron tapping of another's motives and intentions - a
warrant forbidding the use of one's own mirror neurons.
In any event, mirror neurons genetically exist, and so it must be
assumed they are super sensitive rudiments innate and universal to
our species, and in all of its specimens whether cognitively
inactive, or spontaneously active in the absence of conscious
understanding of what's happening and why.
Spontaneous activity of various super sensitivities, or the
existence of such, within our species has been reported perhaps from
Day One. So even if they only occasionally activate does not at all
mean that their rudiments don't permanently exist in some inactive
For extensive lists of what these innate "universals" are, do
consult the Internet, and/or especially the entry for a List,
compiled by Donald E. Brown, of "Human Universals" in THE MIT
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE COGNITIVE SCIENCES, Wilson & Keil, 1999.
List is also found as the Appendix of Steven Pinker's magnificent
book entitled THE BLANK SLATE: THE MODERN DENIAL OF HUMAN NATURE
To remind, and hopefully for increasing clarity, the term UNIVERSAL
is defined as,
"Including or covering a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception; present or occurring
everywhere; reference to everyone without exception in the class,
category, or genus considered."
INNATE is again defined as,
"Inherent; existing in or belonging to an
individual from birth, or inherent throughout a genus; originating
naturally rather than from learned experience."
To sort out a possible confusion here, UNIVERSAL more or less means
that everyone DOES it; INNATE means that everyone HAS it whether
they consciously know it or not, and if they don't innately have it
then they can never do anything with it.
Now to momentarily return to the List of innate universals referred
to above, it is therein pointed up that the innate items included in
it consist primarily of "surface" universals of behavior and overt
language noted by ethnographers, but that the List does not include,
"deeper universals of mental structure that are revealed by theory
Are we therefore to think that the activities of our species consist
only of "surface" universals that are unaccompanied by,
universals of mental structure."
Well, some of such deep-diving activities are quite well known and
widely accepted - such as INSTINCT and premonitions, future-seeing
episode phenomena, and INTUITIONS, none of which are included in the
Telepathy, the most socially hated super sensitivity, didn't make
the List, either, and of course clairvoyance is at such a
deep-diving depth that "mental structures" apparently need special
depth-cognitive equipment that might enable even partial notice of
that type of super sensitivity.
There are two grousing points being made here:
Temporary intellectualisms come
and go, and thus are characterized by impermanency
Even so, the innate capacities
of instinct, intuitions, and etc., are interpreted THROUGH
and BY such impermanent intellectualisms, many of which
would rather that such capacities did not exist at all (for
specific reasons that have earlier been discussed)
There is also a third grousing point.
As mentioned, super
sensitivities spontaneously emerge all of the time among specimens
of our species, this an historical FACT supported by all sorts of
unambiguous robust evidence - a FACT that many intellectualisms
chose to ignore.
Explaining the HOW & WHY of things is, of course, a favorite
preoccupation of various kinds of intellectualisms, and so if the
how-why of something can't compatibly be explained within the
reality boxes of given intellectualisms, then the "something" and
its how-why is not thought of very favorably, its facts not
So, are super sensitivities innate? If super sensitivities are
innate in our species, then one has to consider why they manifest
only occasionally and then mostly spontaneously.
There are numerous possible answers to this question, most of which
rotate around either doubt about their innateness or denial of it
However, if the super sensitivities are innate, then historical
evidence for them must exist in worldwide past cultures of lesser or
Depth diving into past cultures of lesser or greater antiquity is a
quite cumbersome activity, not as easy a matter as most historians
make it sound.
As many have commented elsewhere, one of the difficulties involved
is that historians usually only interpret past cultures via the
assumed realities of their own times - and there is a general
tendency to edit, distort, or omit past historical topics that are
inconvenient to the contexts of their own principles,
intellectualisms, and so forth.
But there is another difficulty, one seldom pointed up. If one takes
the time to examine the English language, about 93 percent of it
refers to external material objects, states, or facts, and so it is
deplorably deficient in references of any other kind. Thus, states
or facts that are not all that objective more or less have to be
discussed within English that has a minimum of terms for them.
However, most languages of greater antiquity are at least somewhat
rich with concepts and terms that specifically refer to states and
facts that are not based in gross material objectivity. For example
and among others, Hawaiian Huna, early Chinese, Tibetan, and
numerous Nordic and Amerindian ones, from which certain terms now
and again leak into English usage.
Predominantly, however, these foreign references are quite hard to
deeply incorporate - because modern English, in its overall
philosophic-reality sense, does not itself possess relevant
depth-contexts for them.
Since this essay focuses on possible training of super
sensitivities, we would like to know if they have ever been
identified as such in, let us say, antiquity, and if some kind of
training has ever been associated with them.
Indeed, if rudiments of super sensitivities are innate and more or
less universal, we would expect them to have been identified a long
time ago. They have been, of course, since many languages formatted
terms for them.
For reasons that will be self-explained ahead, this author has
elected to discuss certain aspects of the Sanskrit language, a
project he admits was, to say the least of it, quite challenging.
SITUATION OF WORDS, TERMS, CONCEPTS, AND THEORIES
Before discussing Sanskrit materials, however, it is necessary to
digress a bit into the Situation indicated just above.
If we have a
word for something, it is then thought of as identifying whatever
the word refers to - after which we think we know what we are
If the words refer to objective things, such as things ranging from
sub-quantum particles up to and including the visible matter cosmos,
then such words are probably efficient enough for their purposes.
However, if the words refer to non-objective "things" having no
exact or definite physicality, then their probable efficiency tends
to decrease, sometimes considerably so, although we still tend to
think we know what we are talking about - because we HAVE words for
what is involved.
Furthermore, words in this latter category are NOT actually based on
objective things, but on intellectualizing concepts or theories
which, in and of themselves, need words so as to be able to talk
about them - as if we again know what we are talking about.
Concepts and theories are merely based on what is thought to be
understood about whatever is involved. But such understandings can
be quite wobbly, and they tend to come and go when new
understandings emerge - and which might be replaced by other new
understandings, ad infinitum.
Human experiencing of super sensitivities needs word-concepts in
order to identify what has been experienced, and then to talk about
such to others, hoping the others know what is being talked about.
In English, there are at least eighty-five or more words that refer
to some kind of super sensitivity experiencing.
Such words, like all other words, have come into existence AFTER the
fact of the experiencing, and the definitions of which have been
contributed via intellectualizing concepts and theories based on
whatever kind, type, or quality of understanding was at hand - all
of this via intellects that might be slightly comatose in the first
This problematical situation doesn't stop with what has been
discussed above - because intellects that are not too comatose
sometimes seem to realize that non-objective kinds of experiencing
do need, if not exact words, some kind of suitable words, even if
slightly ambiguous ones.
Thus, in addition to ambiguous terms supposedly identifying this or
that super sensitive experience, other ambiguous terms such as
"mind," "intelligence," "subconscious," "subjectivity," "the
unconscious," "altered states," and even "Consciousness" itself (if
and when that item is used in its largest "cosmic" scope).
So, here is a rough description of the Situation we end up with by
considering the above brief discussions.
Super sensitivities are experienced.
AFTER the fact of being experienced, words are gotten up for them.
Concepts and theories are then generated that seem compatible with
The concepts/theories hold water only as long as they do, and then
new ones are originated, etc.
Since neither the super sensitivity experiences nor the resulting
concepts/theories for them can be explained by depending on
objective realities, they are perforce included in other
concepts-plus-theories that likewise cannot be explained, as least
in some total sense, in objective realities - such as subjectivity,
the mind, the subconscious, altered states, etc.
These particular word items and their contexts are supposed, or
posited, to exist. After which word items denoting experiencing NOT
directly derived from objective contexts can be bundled into what is
supposed or is posited to exist - for no other reason than having a
basis for discussing them at in least quasi-objective ways.
As it more or less turns out, if the actual dynamics of super
sensitivity experiencing cannot be explained via any relationship to
objective experiencing, they also remain unexplained in the contexts
of mind, subjectivity, the subconscious, altered states, etc. - as
well as in the contexts of Consciousness which, itself, so far
remains unexplained at least in the scientific sense.
So to briefly, and deliberately, to repeat:
Super sensitivity experiencing
takes place if and when it does
After the fact of the
experiencing words are gotten up so as to be able to refer
to the experiencing as such
Since words are of little use if
not accompanied by concept-definitions, these are then
attached to the WORDS, but NOT to the experiencing itself
The words are thus ONLY after-the-fact, superficial
Whereas the experiencing takes place, at least in spontaneous super
sensitivities events, before the intellectualizing words are gotten
up, or before one can intellectually look them up in a dictionary.
It is appropriate here to mention that different languages have
words for the same experiential phenomena, but in the other
languages the definitions can differ quite a lot. When then
transliterated into English words, the English definitions are
utilized, but the English definitions may be far from the mark as
expressed in the original other-language word.
Additionally, Sanskrit, for example, has certain terms for which
there are no equivalent words, or concepts, in English.
Over-energetic translators then search English for the next-best
English term, but which almost nothing to do with the actual
definitions of the Sanskrit one.
Thus, if and when events come about that inspire interest in
possible training of super sensitivities,
WHAT is it that can be
The intellectualizing words?
The intellectualized concept-definitions associated with them?
Intellectual variations of the concept-definitions (of which there
have been many)?
The existing sum of intellectually accumulated knowledge about the
(Well, knowledge is not accumulated in the
absence of words-plus-concept-definitions. If one does not
comprehend this, let them try to accumulate knowledge without words
to speak-tell or read-learn about what the knowledge consists of.
And, by the way, the English and Western existing sum of accumulated
knowledge about the super sensitivities is not very big to begin
with, much less having achieved high degrees of refinement.)
The suggested bottom line here has to do with what comes first - in
respect of which it could be posited that experiencing comes first,
followed by intellectualizing word-concept-knowledge that may or not
activate or even reinforce the experiencing.
It could be obvious by now that nothing can be trained in the
absence of some kind of potential activity for it - activity that
results in experiencing of the activity.
Since all sort of spontaneous super sensitivity events do innately
occur throughout the human species (even to those many
intellectually ill-prepared for them), it should be supposed that
human sensing systems, known or unknown, are equipped with the
necessary rudiments, rudiments that may or may not have become
Has THIS situation been noticed before? Yes, it has.
SITUATION OF THE TWO GURU FUNCTIONS
The Language of modern science excludes terms that refer to super
sensitivities, as does the "language" of mathematics that so far has
not incorporated mathematical probabilities for them.
But outside of these two exceptions, most other human languages
(including English per se and some thousands of others) do
incorporate some terms for and concepts about super sensitivities.
After all, words are needed for what peoples experience and become
aware of - this somewhat based on the simple fact that if there is
no experience-awareness of something, then no words are needed for
It is difficult to search through languages because the terms in
question usually have been garbled via translation or
transliteration into English - and sometimes, as in the case of Huna
and American Indian languages, deliberately mistranslated or not
translated at all.
Additionally, English often altogether lacks modern equivalents for
contexts specified in other more ancient languages, so even
transliteration into English is usually only approximate at best.
To help get into what follows, Sanskrit is said to belong to the
Indic group of the Indo-Iranian subfamily of the Indo-European
family of languages.
Sanskrit is known to have been in existence at
about 1500 B.C., most certainly with much earlier antecedents. Just
what these antecedents actually were seems to be a matter of debate
- with the possibility that no one really knows for sure where that
Sanskrit was formatted, and when it was.
However, by about 1500 B.C. and later, Sanskrit seems especially
used, in its classical form, as both a liturgical and as a standard
court language, and therefore might have been inaccessible to
Sanskrit is commonly acknowledged by scholars to be,
by elegant and amazing perceptiveness."
It is very rich with terms
for states of Consciousness and for super sensitivities over and
above its "gross material" words.
For reference, this author has largely depended on:
edition (1976) of Judith M. Tyberg's book THE LANGUAGE OF THE GODS:
SANSKRIT KEYS TO INDIA'S WISDOM
Arthur Anthony MacDonell's A
PRACTICAL SANSKRIT DICTIONARY (2001
discussion of Sanskrit
terms with Sanskrit-fluent owners and employees of this author's
local magazine and tobacco shop
various Internet Sanskrit
(Please note that in the following examinations of
certain Sanskrit terms, we will march slowly and gently as
In our modern English, TEACHER is simply defined as "one that
teaches; especially, one whose occupation is to instruct."
So far, so good, right? Well, there is a sometimes not so subtle
complication involved having to do with what IS and IS NOT to be
taught - in that most social groupings, large or small, have their
own centralizing ideas of what is and is not to be taught-learned.
There are three general and quite identifiable results of this:
Teachers transfer to their
students only the information they are supposed to, while
learners receive that information the best they can
Information that conflicts with
what is taught and learned is discouraged and not taught
Innate potential capacities that
might conflict with what is to be taught-learned are
likewise discouraged, not taught, and not developed into
The principal result of (3) above is that no one really knows what
or how many innate capacities actually dwell within the potentials
of our species, such as hardwired capacities that exist in this or
that state of latency with no real effort to trigger or develop them
Furthermore, the modernist Western concept of teach-learn attempts
to be based on reason, logic, facts, and supposed facts. This mix is
usually all bound into what is assumed, at any given time, to be a
seamless "educational" package of information, that, in most cases
conforms to whatever is serving as social principles and standards.
In modern English, the Sanskrit term GURU is defined as "a venerable
teacher, usually a personal religious teacher and spiritual guide."
Thus, in English a Guru is basically thought of as a teacher.
However, in her book discussing various aspects of Sanskrit, Judith
M. Tyberg does effort a larger description of GURU, to wit:
"One who has the capacity to pass on his realizations to those who
seek him for wisdom."
"There may be,
the outer Guru, or Guide,
who removes ignorance by the radiant light of his divine wisdom
the inner Guru or Self (Atman) who is the Guide working through the
intuitive part of Man"
There are some subtle complexities in this description of GURU that
may not be noticed all that easily.
For example, "removing ignorance" is not quite the same as replacing
or curing it by absorbing information packages via the teach-learn
process that occasionally might result in installing a bit more
ignorance than actual learning.
In any event, in Sanskrit, there are at least two different Guru
functions, the first of which is to transfer information and
realizations to students, but the second of which is to invoke
wisdom by working through the intuitive part of Man.
Although this "invoke" part doesn't appear in Tyberg's descriptions
of Guru, a little depth diving into the origin of the term is
The Sanskrit root word upon which GURU is formatted is GRI meaning
"to invoke, to praise."
Now, don't just skate across this "to invoke" part, in that INVOKE
is, in most languages, including English, principally defined as "to
Please try to bear in mind that calling forth something is somewhat
different from the sometimes weary and unfruitful process of merely
transferring an information package to a student-learner.
So, in this sense, the second basic guru-function seems to consist
of calling forth something in the student-learner - i.e., awakening,
unfolding, and activating it, etc.
In this sense, it is possible to think that if something does not
exist in the student-learner, it cannot be called forth.
If such exists, but is not somehow called forth, then it continues
to exist in some kind of NOT-called-forth state or condition.
Here, then, is a significant distinction between,
what seems to
be the more profound guru-function
the Western modern teacher who
merely transfers information packages, the learning of
which, if such does take place, might not call forth much of
One of the specified guru-functions is "to remove ignorance."
In English, the term IGNORANCE is more defined by its synonyms than
by its actual definition - synonyms such as ILLITERATE, UNLETTERED,
UNTUTORED, UNLEARNED, all of these terms referring to "not having
knowledge" - i.e., destitute of the sorts of intellectualized
knowledge that can be transferred from teacher to learner.
However, the actual, and major, definition of IGNORANCE is simply
given as "unawareness."
So. With respect to the Guru-functions, "removing ignorance" could
refer to "removing unawareness" - this being a function that is
obviously achieved, and probably only achieved, by INCREASING
awareness by awakening and activating innate hardwiring latently
existing in the student.
Judith Tyberg indicates that a Guru,
"removes ignorance by the
radiant light of his divine wisdom."
The DIVINE part of this concept remains problematical
- until one
consults a competent dictionary, wherein it can be found that the
first definition is given as "to discover by intuition" - i.e., by
calling forth, invoking, or activating the intuition in students.
Thus, Tyberg's effort to describe GURU could be somewhat rephrased
as: One who has the capacity to pass on his intuitive realizations
to those who seek him for guided intuitive awakening toward
To repeat: There may be the outer Guru that merely teaches
information packages; or the inner Guru-Guide who removes
unawareness via the radiant light of his intuitive wisdom by working
through or with the intuitive part of Man, i.e., of human specimens
This author has not been able to discover exactly how this is
achieved - except to think that the "intuitive part" of individuals
of our species is innately be hardwired but often unactivated - but
which but can be lit up, so to speak, by the Guru-Guide who removes
unawareness of such hardwiring. Got it?
In the above sketch, there are good grounds for thinking that
"radiant light" might be replaced by "radiant energies" of some kind
- such as, perhaps, telepathic osmosis, telepathic transfers of
intuitive information, etc., etc.
In English, two of the first definitions of LIGHT are given as,
"something that makes vision possible; also inner light."
Of course, something depends on what is meant by "vision," and what
"inner light" might actually consist of, especially if such
Just ahead, we will have to begin depth-diving into a few other
complex Sanskrit terms, principally to establish that some of the
super sensitivities we have words for today actually had
identifiable and better developed Sanskrit concepts in the distant
This implies that such super sensitivities were with our species
during Sanskrit times, and probably much earlier.
But first, there is the matter of a particular term that needs a
little sorting out so as to help return us to its original and
literal definition in the Sanskrit language.
The nature and contexts of the Sanskrit term YOGA are much discussed
and debated within our modernist cultures. But nevertheless in
English dictionaries the principal definitions are given as:
A Hindu theistic philosophy
teaching the suppression of all activity of body, mind, and
will in order that self may realize its distinction from
them and attain liberation
A system of exercises for
attaining bodily or mental control and well-being
This author won't comment on these two somewhat decorated
definitions, except to note that the term ATTAIN might be
remembered, and that definitions (2) and (1) seem diametric
In any event, it seems that the literal definition of YOGA in
Sanskrit basically refers to "skill in action," which seems quite
close to one of the important nuances of our English term TRAINING - one of it's major definition being given as "to make prepared for a
test of skill."
As will be discussed ahead, "a test of skill," if positively
demonstrated, equates to an ATTAINMENT, a term referring to whatever
is "come or arrived at by motion, growth, or effort."
SANSKRIT TERMS FOR SUPER SENSITIVITIES, i.e., THE "SIDDHIS"
Siddhi is sometimes translated into English as referring to "Occult
But this translation is more or less reckless because the
term "occult" has been much demonized, often not in very good taste
or style, and with a seeming lack of higher cognitive intellect.
So it is necessary to remind that OCCULT is originally taken into
English from the Latin OCCULTARE meaning,
"The state of being hidden
from view or lost to notice; hidden or concealed from sight," i.e.,
hidden, or outside the scope and limits of the five physical senses,
and outside the limits of objective logic.
Please especially notice the "lost to notice" part of these
Before going on, it is the better part of valor to do a little depth
diving into two particular English words - ATTAIN and ATTAINMENT.
ATTAIN - "Achieve, accomplish; to come or arrive at by motion,
growth, or effort."
ATTAINMENT - "The act of attaining; the condition of being attained;
something attained; accomplishment."
The basic definition of the Sanskrit root word SIDH is "attain,"
while that of SIDDHI is "attainment" via processes almost exactly in
the sense of the above English definitions, i.e., by motion, growth,
or effort, accompanied, of course, by obviously specializing forms
of learning and TRAINING.
However, there are two special stipulations involved here:
That SIDDHI attainments refer,
to attaining cognitive access to
substantive qualities outside of, or beyond, the scope and
limits of the five physical senses
also outside of, or beyond,
objective material conditions and activities themselves
One's "mental structures" might quiver at this prospect.
So it is
worth reminding that our depth diving efforts here are simply
limited to discovering if any given ancient language did possess
words and terms at least somewhat equivalent to our modern English
terms denoting various types of super sensitivities.
This is an effort to establish that such super sensitivities have an
antiquity that is suggestive of their being innate and present in
our species, and therefore must be based in some kind of
long-existing innate capacities.
The principle extant source describing the Siddhis is The YOGA
SUTRAS OF PATANGALI, a volume that dates back to about the second
century B.C. It is generally agreed that Patangali did not originate
the Sutras, but rather compiled and systematized them from different
sources, some of which might have been 5,000 years old or more.
SUTRA literally means "thread." But the Sanskrit connotation is
accepted as referring to something like the slimmest or barest line
of meaning or thought which a Guru can expand upon so as to awaken
or stimulate, well, let's just put it, innate states or planes of
consciousness that are in need of awakening and recovery.
Patangali's Sutras are 195 in number, divided into numerous sections
that address different topics of yogic growth and development, but
he devotes a large fifty-four Sutras to the Siddhis alone - this
suggesting that he attached substantial importance to them.
The Sutras have been translated into English many times, but there
is that small matter earlier referred to - that English is mostly
focused on objective material contexts and is therefore deficient in
concepts relevant to inner and non-physical planes of consciousness
and their associated realities.
Thus, the various translations do differ, and perhaps the best thing
is to study and compare several of them.
Since this translation problem does exist, there is long-standing
difficulty in determining how many Siddhis Patangali is enumerating.
In her book already referred to, Judith Tyberg lists only eight of
them. For our purposes in this essay, we will briefly depth-dive
only four or five because we have approximate English terms and
concepts for them.
TRIKALA-JNANI SIDDHI. The least complicated way of defining this
Siddhi is given as,
"Attainment of knowledge-knowing of past,
present, and future via diving deeply into an object, phenomenon, or
This Attainment is achieved by activating "deeper mental
structures" rather than depending only on intellectual thinking
resulting from reason, logic, and whatever is passing as rational.
TRI = three
KALA = escaping or transcending time
JNANI = knowledge-information thus
achieved by doing so
This Siddhi is achieved by the practices of:
DHARANA = concentration; the binding of deep conscious awareness to
one place, object, or idea until all aspects are revealed.
DHYANA = a type of (non-objective?) meditation or contemplation.
SAMADHI = balanced state; to hold together completely; being one
with - so as to attain unity of deep perceptions.
When these three tripartite "practices" are developed and combined
together, the whole activates or attains a siddhi-like state or
plane of direct inner perceiving (perceptual) consciousness referred
to as SAMYAMA, which transcends the plane of consciousness directly
focused on gross physical matter only.
So? Did you get all of that? I
f not, don't worry too much, because
the whole of this Siddhi is much debated - not so much in its
Sanskrit contexts, but with trying to translate those contexts into
English which does not (yet) have similar concepts or equivalent
Before moving robustly onward, in his book THE YOGA SUTRAS OF
PATANGALI (2001 version), Sri Swami Satchidananda indicates that the
modern science of physics has performed a type of SAMYAMA on Matter
and its atoms by investigating deeper and deeper into their
constituencies - and have thus recently discovered that matter atoms
are merely clusters of energies that are not completely or exactly
material in their nature.
Some of these new discoveries have been discussed earlier, and will
again be referred to ahead.
In any event, the Trikala-Jnani Siddhi deals with perceiving past,
present, and future, this a Siddhi attained by activating
deep-diving perceptions the potentials that obviously exist -
otherwise they could neither be deep-dived into nor activated.
So it seems that the existence of such time transcending potentials
and associated super sensitivities had already been identified some
three to five thousand plus years ago - and were taken seriously
enough in those ancient times to inspire a rather elegant and
extraordinary research and developmental training of them.
But there is one question that goes unmentioned in Sanskrit texts
having to do with how and why such deep diving perceptions were
noticed in the first place.
Well, if it is possible to think that such deep-diving stuff is
innate in our species, it is then possible to think that such stuff
could spontaneously activate under certain circumstances - and do so
just about everywhere in all cultures.
And that could explain why most languages (except that of modern
scientism) develop words that identify them.
English contains one particular unscientific word that is assigned
to a particular type of spontaneous manifestation that is completely
in keeping with the Siddhi discussed above.
PREMONITION first appears in English at about 1456, defined as,
action of premonishing or forewarning; a forewarning of subsequent
events; a forewarning."
During the later 1800s, however, a new definition was added:
"Anticipation of an event without conscious reason."
Now, "anticipation without conscious reason" must occur
spontaneously via ways and means that conscious reason alone cannot,
or usually does not, have ways and means of accounting for.
If and when a premonition is "fulfilled," so to speak, and since it
cannot be attributed to "conscious reason," then the implication is
that deeper perceptual structures are somehow aware of what is being
spontaneously forewarned against - while, it MUST be emphasized,
conscious reason is out to lunch, especially if conscious reason
supposes that a given present time cannot be transcended in past or
Other English terms associated with premonition are INSTINCT and
INTUITION that also spontaneously transcend the limited scopes of
So, hypothetically speaking at least, spontaneous premonitions,
instincts, and intuitions are possible innate beginnings of Siddhi
development accompanied by some kinds of training - and such is
reported everywhere and throughout all time. So, as is now the
discovered case with mirror telepathic neurons, deep hardwiring
equipment must be latently universal, innate, or indwelling within
Sutra 3.37 identifies a composite or collective kind of Siddhi, the
activities of which awaken via Samyama, i.e., "spontaneous
intuition" that functions without conscious reasoning.
In English, this Siddhi collective is expressed as,
hearing, higher touch, seeing, higher tasting, and higher smelling,"
also collectively now referred to in English as Extra Sensory
In English, these superphysical activities are referred to as
clairaudience, psychometry of various kinds, clairvoyance, and
second sight or the sixth sense, while higher taste and higher
smelling have no English references.
Sutra 3.49 elaborates a little more about this by indicating that
applying Samyama (spontaneous intuition) to the general power and
qualities of perception, the intuitional senses actively re-attain
to the ability to swiftly function without the aid of the physical
So, what we refer to as ESP had achieved specific Sanskrit terms at
least three to five thousands years ago, but the organized discovery
of which in the modernist West took place just a little as a hundred
The acronym ESP dates only from the 1930s, although spontaneous
ESP-like events have long taken place in all cultures, sometimes
explained, if at all, as some kind of innate INSTINCT - which, by
the way, IS accepted as both innate and universal.
Sutra 3.26 refers to attaining to the Samyama intuitional super
sensitive Siddhis whereby,
"knowledge of the subtle, of the hidden,
and of remote distances is obtained."
Super sensitive perception of the subtle and the hidden are usually
grouped together in English as clairvoyance, but the "remote" stuff
began (in later 1870s English) began to be referred to as "traveling
clairvoyance," and later, during the 1970s, as "remote viewing."
The Sanskrit term for "remote" is VIPRAKRISHTA.
In Section Three of Patangali's book, Sutra 19 is devoted to a
particular type of Siddhi, various aspects of which are attained by
The Sanskrit is given as PRATYAYASYA PARACITTA JNANAM. This more or
less translates as "Knowledge of others' mental images is obtained."
PARACITTA = others' mental
JNANAM = knowledge (of).
The exact meaning of PRATYAYASYA seems a little difficult as
expressed in English, since the term is generally translated as,
"By Samyama on the distinguishing signs of others' bodies."
It is difficult to sort this out, except to note that Samyama
involves deep intuitive acquisition of knowledge independently of
the usual five physical senses, while SIGNS of others' bodies can
more or less be achieved by the five physical senses.
In this sense, one doesn't quite understand the connection between,
signs of others' bodies
Thus, (1) and
(2) seem contradictory - UNLESS some kind of telepathy is involved.
In English, SIGN is applied in two ways:
to any indication
perceived by the physical senses or by reason
to any signal
that transmits or conveys information beyond the range of direct
physical perception or recognition - and probably eluding "the
The second definition here could be applied to telepathy - IF
individuals are producing "signals" that transmit or convey
Samyama, as direct intuition transcending "the physical senses and
(usually) the reason", would not be too much needed to identify
signs, but would be needed with respect to signals of other's mental
images and the contents of their deeper mental structures.
This, of course, presumes that mental images and deeper mental
structures produce signals, or, shall it be said, vibrations that
emanate whatever they do.
Now, there is a long history behind the phrase "I can just see what
others are thinking" - this from physical body cues, or from an
intuitional type of perception first identified during the late
1800s as THROUGHT TRANSFERENCE and later in the early 1900s as, yes,
perhaps you already got it! TELEPATHY via interacting mirror neuron
activity - the remarkable SCIENTIFIC discovery discussed earlier.
There is MORE to be discussed about all of the above, but in order
to connect up the Siddhis with TRAINING, it is now necessary to
enlarge a tiny bit on the second of the two Guru functions also
pointed up earlier.
In Patanjali's discussions of the Siddhis (and elsewhere in the
Sanskrit literature), it is indicated that four conditions must be
present (more or less, anyway) in order to activate the Siddhi
Very briefly put,
there must be interest in activating them,
the intuitive function of a Guru Guide is needed as a
development and stabilization of what is in process
of being activated, and, finally,
a philosophy that incorporates
the actual intuitive realities that are involved
The principle English definition of GUIDE is given as,
leads, shows, or directs another in his way."
This definition almost
certainly applies to the second function of a Guru Guide with
special focus on attaining the Siddhi Attainments.
Now, it must firmly be stated that if there is no fundamental, raw
rudimentary basis upon which an attainment can be built, so to
speak, then it is really quite difficult to see how an Attainment
can be attained.
Equally speaking, if there is no interest in attaining something,
then it probably won't be attained, even though the raw potentials
for it are latently existing. This is the case with just about all
human activities, the activating and development of which depend on
interest in them.
If interest in whatever does manifest, then most are at first
dependent on others to show, lead, or direct that interest in some
kind of structured way.
With respect to the Siddhi Attainments, interest may erupt
spontaneously, or, if not, it can be "awaked" by a Guru Guide who
already has experienced such awakening and been properly tutored
with respect to how and why the awakening can be enhanced so as to
attain structured and efficient performance.
In English, this is usually referred to as DEVELOPMENT, the first
definition of which is,
"to set forth or make clear by degrees or in
One can think of this as "education" via the teach-learn context.
But it can also be thought of as training IF a raw potential is
involved and capable of growth and unfolding from its raw state to a
refined, perfected, efficient Skill-Attainment.
Finally, some kind of philosophical MODEL must be provided that
profoundly strengthens cognitive awareness structures necessary for
the actual growth, development, and actuality of Siddhi Attainments.
So, now THE question arises! WHAT philosophical model would we be
talking about that is relative to attaining the Attainments?
In Sanskrit, this philosophical model is quite complex. But it
contains one particular element that is quite surprising - the
element that can roughly be referred to as "interpenetrating
At First Sight, what now follows in this somewhat challenging
section might not seem relevant to the topic of super sensitivity
training. But there remain the questions of what, why, and how such
training might be possible.
So, in order to get into this, it might be repeated, once again,
that the modernist philosophic and scientific arenas abjured the
existence of super sensitivities on the grounds that they didn't
really exist because there was no material explanation of them.
Thus, the idea of training them was irrelevant.
As a first
Situational result, no modernist efforts were undertaken to build a
philosophic or scientific model that incorporated them. As a second
result, if super sensitivities do exist, then they must be thought
of as capacities of consciousness, the fuller attributes of which
admittedly remain unknown.
Yet, 3,000 or more years ago, such a model had been constructed, and
copious evidence of it remains today in the Sanskrit language.
In English, the term MODEL has several definitions. The two being
utilized here are given as:
a system of postulates, data, and
inferences presented as a mathematical description of an entity or a
state of affairs
a description or analogy used to
help visualize or conceptualize something that cannot be
directly or objectively perceived
The basic modernist Western model of "reality" was that Matter was
the Only Reality.
Thus, all phenomena had to fit with and within
So, in order to prepare for what is to come, it is first necessary
to examine our English term MATTER - that same objective Stuff that
has, during our modernism times, been assumed to constitute the Only
Reality in the universe.
Taken from the Latin MATERIA, our term MATTER was in English at
about 1340 with the early definition of,
"The substance, or
substances collectively, out of which a physical object is made or
of which it consists."
This definition was added to at about 1420:
"Physical or corporeal
substance in general, of which the chemical elements and their
components are the separate kinds, contradistinguished from
immaterial and incorporeal substance (spirit, soul, mind) and from
qualities, actions, and conditions."
Modern English definitions, including scientific ones, have not
moved much beyond these early ones.
For example, most dictionaries
define MATTER as "physical substance," end of story, and one has to
enter higher education in order to become acquainted with modernist
scientific details of it.
Back in the 1300-1400s, however, thinkers were not yet acquainted
with such modernist details, and MATTER was thought to consist of
four elements - Earth, Water, Fire, and Air - plus a fifth element
referred to as Quintessence.
Quintessence was in English at about 1430, defined in the Oxford
"the ‘fifth essence' of ancient and medieval
philosophy, supposed to be the substance of which the heavenly
bodies were composed, and to be actually latent in all things; the
essential part of any substance."
The "supposed to be" phrase of this definition came about much later
when modernist Materialism began (c. 1845) influencing mainstream
philosophic and scientific thought with the Only Reality thing.
However, as scientific things stand this concept is being
reintroduced because since the 1980s, when physicists began,
"weighing the universe, they discovered that there is too little
visible matter to account for the observable behavior of galaxies,
clusters and superclusters, etc., and that most of the missing mass
As discussed earlier, that "missing" mass was eventually referred to
as dark matter, dark energy, etc.
(For those up to a longer
discussion of this, see QUINTESSENCE: THE MYSTERY OF MISSING MASS IN
THE UNIVERSE - revised edition of "The Fifth Essence" - 2001-
by Lawrence Krauss, Chairman of Physics at Case Western Reserve
University. Please also note that this same Situation is also anciently found
discussed, in Sanskrit, in the Hymn of Creation, the RIG VEDA.)
To try to get into Sanskrit equivalents of our concepts of "matter,"
it seems appropriate to simply suggest that we cannot do so.
In other words, we cannot reverse engineer our English terms back
into Sanskrit contexts, and then propose to think that we understand
the Sanskrit contexts.
To be sure, Sanskrit has its bulky share of terms that refer to
matter, material things and situations, and to objective perceptions
of it. But whereas modernist concepts are rather firmly rooted in
matter-as-the-only-reality thing, ancient Sanskrit realities are not
rooted in anything of the kind.
So the brief discussions that now follow might stretch cognitive
capacities and overload at least some brain synapses. In other
words, get ready for a headache. But do remember we are still hot on
the trail of the super sensitivities.
In Sanskrit, there are numerous and diverse words that apply to what
we think of as "matter," or as "material existence"
- and, in
modernist Materialism's terms, as the "Only Reality."
Now, we shall proceed very slowly, so take your time.
The larger majority of these Sanskrit "matter" terms are based on
the root word BUHR having the general meaning of,
material existence and experience, and Man's earth-world."
One of the several terms derived from this root word is BHUR-LOKA - defined as the "World of material becoming," and which is the
lowest, most "gross" World of seven (and possibly more) LOKAS into
which the "Universe is divided."
The term LOKA represents the,
"universal heavens, the Vast places of
Light and becoming in them."
BUHR-LOKA therefore refers to,
"Becoming, arising, proceeding, or
being produced from or within earth [matter] as a substance,"
which is considered as the lowest, most gross form of all possible
The next "becoming" situation, slightly above BHUR-LOKA, is
"world of vitalistic manifestation-of-embodied life
existence and becoming within emotion, passions, affectations of
which desire is the pivot."
This is the vital or nervous "plane" just above our material earth
"plane" through which "gods" come to commune with Man, but it is a
confused wideness, and its paths are many, intricate and entangled.
It is the mid-point "plane," or mid-world between Bhurloka and
Here, it becomes slightly obvious that what we refer to as (possibly
confused?) "consciousness" seems to be the "pivot" that is being
Above this mid-point, or mid-world mess, is SVAR-LOKA, the "world"
of light, pure (unentangled) thought and feeling, and becoming,
within a pure psychic state" or "plane". Svarloka is described as
becoming within the "clarity of high mental existence," but one
wonders if the English term "mental" is all that much applicable
Although this author has not found it mentioned in the Sanskrit
sources he has at hand, one also wonders if attaining Svarloka is a
necessary precursor in order to awaken and attain efficient Siddhis,
i.e., efficient super sensitivities that are not entangled with the
Indeed, it would seem that if rudimentary Siddhis awaken, but remain
entangled with the Bhuvarloka mess, then one attains little more
than an entangled Siddhi mess. Some examples of such messes are
available, but we are trying to remain constructive here.
Above the clarities of Svarloka is the "plane" of MAHAR-LOKA,
described as the "world of vastness - beyond mind." This seems at
least to suggest "consciousness" unentangled with mind, and thus
becoming and operating, so to speak, in the "Unobstructed Vast."
The Sanskrit root term MAHAS equals the English term VASTNESS. Other
than that, English has few other supporting contexts - except,
possibly, the innate vastness of consciousness itself.
There are three other, and even higher, Lokas, which will not be
discussed here because of extreme language difficulties. It should
also be mentioned that all of the above depends on which Guru-Yogin
is involved, of which Judith Tyberg discusses a rather great number
in her precious book. You see, various Guru-Yogins seem predisposed
to argue about what's what with all of this.
The basic point being made in dragging (ever so briefly and perhaps
inadequately) through the foregoing is that one of the most basic
themes throughout the Sanskrit language has to do with "becoming,
arising" within something, including numerous incorporeal states
"above" the matter-earth-corporeal thing.
In contrast, the Matter-Is-The-Only-Reality thing clearly indicates
that Matter is the only thing to become or arise in. End of story!
Additionally, the Sanskrit language is dripping with, as it might be
put, scads of incorporeal terms that are not translatable into
English because English has no comparable terms or contexts - excepting, of course, some of the Attainment Siddhis, but which
terms are only relevant in parapsychology, etc., and forbidden in
modernist versions of philosophy, science, and today's quantum
Now for the really, really hard part which focuses on Sanskrit
treatment of States of Existence in addition to, or above the
In English, these "higher" States are referred to as identifiable
PLANES, and all of which COULD have some kind of different
separateness in the contexts of objective realities where things are
different and separate.
Why the English term PLANE should have been selected is something of
a mystery - until it is discovered that, among its many other
definitions, one of them refers to,
"A level of existence,
consciousness, or development."
You see, a great portion of the Sanskrit language is devoted to
words having relevance to levels of existence, levels of
consciousness, and levels of development within the fundamental
context of "arising-becoming" within them.
Which is to point up that a PLANE (in the particular Sanskrit
context) is not individual to or with the individual, but rather
exist as extra-material realities in their own right - and within
which the individual can, with training (at least with an
appropriate Guru-Guide) can undertake arising and becoming.
Basically speaking, in Sanskrit a PLANE refers to various
hierarchical ranges of existence that "blend" with, into, and
INTERPENETRATE all other planes. (So, finally, there is THAT word -
in Sanskrit no less.)
The physical matter world grades off and "upwards" into a "higher,"
more subtle ones, which in turn grades off into another more subtle,
which in turn grades of into yet another higher, more subtle one,
and etc., etc., etc., while the sum, or whole, of these grades
interpenetrate, including interpenetration of the physical world.
In modernist materialistic mainstreams, there could not conceivably
be a model for this kind of thing, and so it was thought of as a lot
of hooey and occult nonsense.
However, a similar, if not exact, model for this is now in hand with
the recent discoveries of dark, subtle, and exotic energies that
interpenetrate, as well as interpenetrating multiple dimensions that
are theorized as interpenetrated by same, including our matter-only
reality - and including parallel universes.
So Stuff exists and interpenetrates - something the Sanskrit
ancients were somehow aware of sufficiently enough so as to identify
and create words AND a model for the apparently extensive "planes"
of the interpenetrating Stuff.
It can now finally be pointed up that if Stuff interpenetrates, then
it interpenetrates with whatever it interpenetrates. If, for
example, so-called dark energies and multiple dimensions
interpenetrate our Matter universe, then this interpenetrating
includes not only physical bodies, nervous systems, and brains - but
innate consciousness capacities, too.
So, in a certain sense, the recent Situations of interpenetrating
discoveries are at least akin to similar interpenetrating Situations
discussed in Sanskrit 3,000 or more years ago.
In English, INTERPENETRATE is defined as: "to penetrate between,
within, or throughout; permeate; to penetrate mutually."
In English, PERVADE is defined as: "to become diffused throughout
every part of; to go through, or mutually go through."
In English, PERMEATE is defined as: "to penetrate so as to diffuse
through or throughout; to spread or diffuse through."
So, how did English come to have this precise definition? This a
definition that harks back to Sanskrit times at least 3,000 years
ago or more.
Well, it seems that this particular definition was, in its first
instance, associated with the geometry of OPTICS, otherwise known as
the scientific study of light, which got underway at about 1570, and
which was combined with the 1811 discovery of polarization, often
referred to as bi-polarization.
Now, under the scientific concept (c. 1865) of "Combinations and
special collocations," PLANE-POLARIZATION was originally defined as,
"of light, so polarized that all the ethereal vibrations take place
on one plane."
ETHERIAL vibrations?!!! Well, for goodness sakes.
ETHER has several English definitions, one of which is given as "A
medium that in the undulatory theory of light permeates all space
and transmits transverse waves."
ETHERIAL is also basically defined as "Immaterial, impalpable;
marked by unusual delicacy and refinement."
SITUATION INCLUSIVE OF...
THE INFORMATION UNIVERSE AND SUPER SENSITIVITY
INFORMATION TRANSFER WITHIN IT
It is generally understood that the physical senses detect
information only within ranges of their objective, material physical
It is then understood that the detected information is
transferred via the nervous systems to the brain - after which
conscious awareness of what has been detected becomes involved one
way or another. Thus, the transfer of information via the physical
senses is more or less scientifically understood
However, the super sensitivity transfer of information is not
likewise scientifically understood for at least two reasons:
super sensitivities that detect information have not been
the information the super
sensitivities detect not only notoriously transcends various
objective aspects of matter, energy, space, and time, but
also often "transcends" conscious awareness of whatever
information is involved
It is thus to be expected that confusions about the nature of the
super sensitivities and their transfers of information should come
about, and especially so for the following reasons - i.e., Science
has not succeeded in attaining either a complete model or a science
of consciousness, and it seems that Science has missed at least half
the brain in the first place.
The modernist scientific failure to achieve such a model is quite
embarrassing, so it is not generally emphasized or brought to public
It was very daring of Roger Penrose (Professor of
Mathematics at the University of Oxford) to intimately discuss the
details of this embarrassing failure in his book entitled SHADOWS OF
THE MIND: A SEARCH FOR THE MISSING SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS (1969).
The details rendered in this book are somewhat challenging and will
not be reviewed here, but it is recommended for those brave enough
to struggle through it.
A review of science missing at least half the brain is found in
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN (April, 2004) under the heading HAS SCIENCE
MISSED HALF THE BRAIN - which title should read "Science HAS missed
Half The Brain." This is a fascinating read.
A brief explanation:
seems that for every one cell neuron in the brain, there are nine Glial cells that were once thought merely as providing neurons with
Now it is being recognized that Glial cells "may be nearly as
critical to thinking and learning as neurons are" i.e., NINE times
Exactly how Glial cells might be "critical" is not discussed all
that much in the article, but they seem to involve implications to
"thinking and learning," all be it what kind of such is not
discussed in any detail.
Even so, "thinking and learning" (and training, too) involve some
kind of INFORMATION and INFORMATION TRANSFERS - this being a
particular aspect of super sensitivity activity that seems to have
"gone missing" so far, along with the missing science of
consciousness and missing than half the brain, too.
So here is yet another Situation that briefly needs to be dissected.
Early psychical and later parapsychology researchers set up a
paradigm, or a basic model, within which various types of super
sensitivity evidence were looked at as "phenomena" that could
separately and objectively be categorized under given verbal
identifiers - such as telepathy, premonition, clairvoyance,
psychometry, precognition, ESP, etc.
By using such largely arbitrary verbal categories, one could
intellectually know what one was talking about. Over time, this
categorizing verbal model became so automatic that it was, and still
is, difficult to suggest that it contained at least one important
The term PHENOMENON has several definitions, but the one being used
in this context is given as,
"a rare or significant fact or event; an
exceptional, unusual, or abnormal occurrence."
The subtle difficulty here is that such facts, events, or
occurrences can be perceived only AFTER they have manifested, and if
one perceives something only after it has happened then all one can
perceive is that it happened - and one will be left much in the dark
about the source, cause, about the why and how, it happened.
The term EPIPHENOMENON is defined as,
"a secondary phenomenon
accompanied by another and caused by it."
The prefix EPI denotes,
"upon, near to, over, outer, before,
anterior, after, besides, related to, coming before in time,
Therefore and in general, "epiphenomenon" refers to something that
precedes something else, which caused and accompanies that something
else, and which remains before AND after, as well as upon, near,
over, beside, and related to that something else.
A bit boggling, isn't it, certainly with respect to the objective
senses that perceive physical-material things as they SEEM, at any
given point in TIME.
In any event, when super sensitivity activities are viewed only
within the contexts of the objective-intellectual senses, those
activities can be perceived (AFTER the fact of perceiving them) ONLY
as exceptional, unusual, or abnormal occurrences resulting in a rare
or significant fact or event. That is, IF the information contents
of such turn out as a demonstrable, verifiable reality.
TRANSFER is defined as,
"to convey or move from one person, place, or
situation to another."
The Situation with respect to super sensitivities is that
information is transferred from a situation OUTSIDE of sensing
systems into a situation INSIDE the sensing systems, after which the
sensing systems forward the information to something that can
understand it as information - this particular "something" quite
possibly being Consciousness, for which a science is missing.
No matter how super sensitivities are intellectually identified by
words and concepts that enable placement in different kinds of
categories, all of them share one factor in common.
information from an outside situation into an inside one.
Telepathy transfers information.
Clairvoyance transfers information
Second Sight transfers information.
Precognition and premonitions transfer information.
Intuition transfers information.
Instinct transfers information.
The Sixth Sense transfers information.
Postcognition transfers information
Remote Viewing transfers information. Etc., Etc., Etc.
All of these (perhaps more yet undiscovered) transfer information,
but then there are two problems yet involved:
the problem of the
something that understands whatever information has been
transferred, and the problem of from where it has been transferred.
As discussed earlier, it is increasingly being thought that whatever
the universe consists of, it principally consists of information
through and throughout - and whatever forms are within it are built
upon the information they consist of. This universal state of
affairs is being referred to as The Information Universe.
This is clearly mind-boggling, but there it is, and detractors of
this must argue with the scientific cutting edges examining this
state of universe affairs.
If this is the case, then information exists whether or not there
exist information detecting systems for it.
Information detecting systems will think, quite obviously so, that
the universe consists only of what they detect - since what is not
detected will have no detectable reality.
So a double sort of confusing question arises as to what the
information universe actually consists of that is or is not being
detected by various kinds of information detecting systems.
As so far established by cutting edges of various sciences, the
information universe consists of atomic matter and energies, and of
Stuff so far labeled as dark matter, of dark energy, of subtle and
exotic energies, of multiple dimensions, of parallel universes, of
holographic potentials, of entropic Stuff having no specific form,
of local and non-local situations, of time loops, etc - and whatever
other Stuff remains undetected so far.
As so far understood, dark matter may or may not interpenetrate
atomic matter, but all of the rest could, might, or do.
Within all of this Stuff, the percentage of atomic matter/energy
Stuff has now bottomed out as having the lowly status of only about
4 percent to 7 percent of the actual constitution of the Universe.
All of this is well and good - if a bit dizzying and confounding to
certain types of reluctant reason and logic.
But there is an observation that could be made about all of this,
one that is perhaps somewhat overdue.
This is that human Consciousness does not, even on average, ACT like
it is totally confined within and to the 4-7 percent of matter.
In some cases, perhaps admittedly rare, it doesn't act like it is
confined within anything at all - THIS having a certain similarity
to the activities of super sensitivities.
Additionally, even though the five physical objective senses might
seem as if they are confined to perceiving only physical
objectivity, there is increasing scientific evidence that such is
not ALL they detect even within their own categories as
conventionalized in the past.
Each topic that has been discussed in this small section suggests
particular future situations that are likely to be applied toward
comprehending the actual nature of super sensitivities of
Consciousness - sensitivities that clearly interpenetrate with
information ranging from the mundane to, so to speak, the Cosmic - whatever the Cosmic is inclusive of.
It might actually be thought, in the sense of the Information
Universe, anyway, that information interpenetrates everything.
Now, it is scientifically held that Matter incorporates the "laws"
that result in matter being matter. It is also held that the Matter
Universe doesn't disobey these "laws." Indeed, if matter disobeyed
its own laws, then what would happen? If, so, matter would become
something other than matter, and who knows where we would be?
Is this not at least somewhat logical?
As discussed earlier, it is thought that Stuff such as dark, subtle,
and exotic energies and multiple dimensions interpenetrate
everything, including our Matter, and if such interpenetrating Stuff
followed the "laws" of Matter, then such Stuff would become Matter,
So it seems that such different Stuffs do not follow Matter "laws,"
making it possible to think that such Stuffs might have their own
"laws" quite different from Matter "laws."
Furthermore, our Matter Universe is both built upon and is
consistent with the Information it embodies.
Thus arises the question as to what kinds of Information these other
interpenetrating Stuffs are built upon is consistent with the
Information "laws" they embody?
In our Matter "reality," matter is identified as objects
galaxies down to and including subatomic and subquantum particles.
Space is measured by the distance between objects.
Energy is identified by whatever energy is input and output from,
between, and into the objects and the space between them.
Time is measured by motions of objects relevant to each other.
The recently discovered Stuff that interpenetrates our local matter,
energy, space, and time cannot be consistent with the law-like
information that makes up any of these Matter phenomena - because if
such Stuffs were consistent with the law-like information of Matter,
the Stuffs could not interpenetrate and probably would tend toward
Insofar as this author has been able to discover, there seems to be
no great scientific revelation as to whether the different kinds of
recently discovered interpenetrating Stuff contains, embodies, or
carries their own kinds of Information - or how such Information is
within the contexts of their interpenetrating.
However, in that the interpenetrating Stuffs interpenetrate the
substance, information, and "laws" of our Matter realities, it might
be presumed that the interpenetrating Stuffs have their own "laws"
that transcend those of Matter and all of its substantive
Advancing Information Theory postulates that all Information in the
interpenetrating Information Universe is everywhere available - even
if detectors appropriate for detecting it are NOT available - or,
put another way, even if appropriate sensing systems are not
available. If information is not sensed-detected, then no one is the
wiser that it exists in the Information Universe.
So it is possible, say, for given bio-consciousness organisms to
have sense-detectors for certain kinds of information, but not for
other kinds of it, after which the perceived "realities" of such
organisms will correspond only to what is sensed-detected.
It must then follow that if the human species is innately possessed
only of Matter sensing-detecting systems, perceived "realities" will
then be confined to and correspond with Matter and its various
phenomena, the "laws" of which do not transcend anything.
But the Situational problem involved with all of this is that the
human species is apparently possessed of sensing-detecting systems
other than the Matter detecting ones - sensing-detecting systems
that interact with Information that transcends the limits of the
As already briefly discussed, in Sanskrit these transcending
sensing-detecting systems are generically discussed as the
"Intuitional Part of Man." This "Part" can and does interact with
the infinitely interpenetrating "Intuitional Plane" in which all
Information is available all of the time.
Among others, ancient Greek, Latin, Chinese, and (somewhat) Egyptian
also had nomenclature equivalents for "Intuitional Plane," as do
several American Indian languages.
However, these ancient nomenclature equivalents will not be
reiterated here - because they are yet too scientifically sensitive,
which is to say, too upsetting to basic scientific thought yet
reeling from implications of the now discovered interpenetrating
In the discussions just above, it might not be noticeable that we
have glided past a quite important Situational question - discussions of which will be undertaken just ahead.
SITUATIONAL "MISSING LINK"
...IN COMPREHENDING THE REAL EXISTENCE OF SUPER
The important Situational question referred to above might be
phrased as follows: How in any given time period do specimens of the
human species begin to become aware of the existence of super
sensitivities in addition to their physical, mundane, objective
Having searched high and low for about five decades, this author has
not been able to discover any source in which this significant
question has been discussed or even mentioned.
So, in the absence of any supportive source, it seems the better
part of valor is simply to TRY to initiate the required discussion -
even if more or less hypothetically.
It seems that reasonably conscious people become aware of what they
experience - in that if they don't become consciously aware then
they can't claim to have experienced anything.
Of course, one can become intellectually aware of the existence of
something without having actually experienced it. Thus, one can
become intellectually aware of the existence of super sensitivities
without actually having experienced any of them.
Thus, we might think in terms of prime actual self-experiencing of
the real thing, so to speak, and secondary intellectual experiencing
via what one has been able to hear or read about. In other words,
prime actual experiencing is not the same as secondary intellectual
experiencing - and, for that matter, never has been and never will
In order to get the meat of this across, it is necessary to pick a
particular poignant example of prime actual experiencing and discuss
it in some detail - an example that has a tremendously long
tradition even in antiquity, and examples of which are still
For example, one is contentedly walking along a narrow mountain path
admiring the surrounding scenic wonders. One's physical body
suddenly stops walking, the legs take a few steps backward. There
has been no cognitive volitional decision to do this - one wonders
why - if one has time to do so - because
Without any perceptible hint of forewarning, the path ahead
immediately falls away in a thunderous landslide.
Legs now quivering, one cautiously creeps forward, and, with some
elevated degree of mind-numbing amazement, peers over the edge and
objectively views where one's mangled body would objectively have
Then, as soon as one can reach the mountain lodge, one consumes at
least three martinis while breathing heavily.
Tales of this spontaneous, unpremeditated, unpredicted event are
then incredulously told, retold, and often recorded, even including
the involuntary stopping and the involuntary backward stepping that
no one can understand the what, why, or how of.
Prime experiencing, right? And of a type that has a very long
history, especially in situations when this type was useful and
Let us now TRY to consider what was basically necessary for this to
First of all, one's volitional cognitive awareness factors seem
clearly not to have been involved.
So it was, shall we say, some other sensing-detecting system
perceived that the path, cliff, and mountainside were going to
collapse a few seconds ahead in time.
To this other sensing-detecting system, the few seconds ahead in
time represented calamitous DANGER.
This other sensing-detecting system perceived that there was not
time to try to trigger even a slightly awareness premonition into
the cognitive activities happily in charge of moving forward while
enjoying the scenery.
So, this other sensing-detecting system simply commandeered the
physical brain's motor cortex which then stopped the volitional
walking and executed the involuntary backward stepping - all in a
day's work, perhaps. After which the astonished volitional cognitive
systems needed the three martinis, and perhaps six more.
Archaic peoples and the ancients that followed them probably did not
know of the existence of the motor cortex.
But when it came to prime experiencing such things, they probably
had the cognitive powers to recognize the difference between events
like this and the more limited physical objective senses that do not
transcend time even a few seconds ahead during which extreme dangers
can come out of nowhere.
You see, this kind of prime experiencing saved lives, whereas the
mere physical objective senses might not likewise be as dependable.
This author has met hundreds and hundreds of people who have
experienced exactly something like this, and lived to talk about it.
Yet, no parapsychological term has been assigned to it. The only
official documentation for it consists of interviewing those who
have undergone different kinds of such prime experiencing.
When it is necessary to refer to it via a word, the term INSTINCT is
usually seized upon.
But "instinct" has not officially been accepted as a super
sensitivity parapsychology construct, because it is not seen as
having any "Para" implications.
You see, INSTINCT is simply defined as "a complex and specific
response of an organism to environmental stimuli that is largely
hereditary and unalterable, does not involve reason, and has as its
goal the removal of somatic tension" - such as, presumably, somatic
tensions arising because of sensing danger present or ahead.
Sensing such most certainly will result in somatic tensions.
Well, who is to say that instincts do not involve their own kinds of
reason? And who is to say that prime super sensitivity experiencing
is NOT the result of some kind of reasoning, a kind of reasoning
that can act independently of whatever is passing for mere
And who is to say that the brain's motor cortex itself does not have
its own versions of reason?
We thus arrive at considerations of the "missing link" which, it is
thought, with respect to super sensitivities - i.e., the brain's
motor cortexes are entirely responsible for any and all motions of
the organism, even the motions of thought processes no matter what
they consist of, including all information transfer systems.
13. THE DOUBLE
...OF SOCIAL DESENTIZING OF SUPER SENSITIVITY
INFORMATION TRANSFERS, AND THE ABSENCE OF AWARENESS 101
In that instinct "does not involve reason," it could not be thought
of belonging to PSYCHOLOGY generally defined as,
"the study of mind,
mental or behavioral characteristics in general, and the study of
mind and behavior associated with particular types of reason."
Even so, if instinct does not involve reason, it can be wondered how
it could detect and reasonably recognize forthcoming danger a few
moments into the future.
In the same sense, it is can easily be observed that psychological
reason is somewhat infamous for failing to detect danger in the here
and now, just ahead, or farther ahead into the future.
In any event, INSTINCT was not included in the lexicon of
parapsychology studies because it was thought not to involve reason,
while certain super sensitivities thought to involve psychological
reason were included - such as telepathy, clairvoyance,
premonitions, etc., which were assumed to consist of extraordinary
reasoning functions of mind and its mental processes.
Do note that REASON is defined as:
"mental computation; to
calculate, to think; the power of comprehending or inferring
especially in orderly rational ways; the sum of intellectual
As earlier discussed in section 2 entitled "Some Old Situations,"
super sensitivities have a longish history of not being socially
wanted or approved.
One basic reason for this is that most societal groups function on
shared average, normal, or mundane sensitivities usually of the
objective kind. Thus, it would be quite obvious that efficient super
sensitivities might give numerous advantages in those types of
social contexts within which access to such advantages are prized
and jealously guarded.
After all, efficient mind reading and predictive foreseeing would
obviously muck up any number of mundane or secretive goals, plans,
plots, machinations, etc., while even halfway efficient instinct,
gut-feelings, intuition, inspired deduction, or even a smattering of
wisdom would also be problematical.
It is thus that societies might become somewhat or even very
intolerant of attempts to broadly enhance super sensitivity
functioning, even though spontaneous eruptions of them occur among
its general populations.
Since it is difficult to prevent such kinds of spontaneous
eruptions, about the only general way of containing, so to speak,
the issues involved is to envelope within social ways and means for
discrediting, discouraging, and desensitizing awareness interest in
Nothing about the various kinds of super sensitivities is really
real to individuals unless they first self-experience and attain
awareness of their existence, the type of awareness that invokes
experiencing that results in becoming conscious of whatever is
This is to suggest that conscious experience of something is first
preceded by some kind of subtle-to-stronger awareness, and also to
suggest that if such awareness does not take place, then nothing
happens, and no one is any the wiser - excepting the known fact that
super sensitive phenomena often appear in dream, hypnotic, altered
states, and spontaneous super sensitive events.
In most societal collectives and their systems, and according to
their stabilizing and principles and other social control whatnots,
one is encouraged to be aware of what one is SUPPOSED to be aware
of, and furthermore, if social controls are to be and remain
workable, one should not become aware of what one is NOT supposed to
be aware of.
It is thus that most evolve and imprint not only somewhat precise
mind maps containing what they are supposed to be aware of, but also
evolve at least rough mind maps of what they are not supposed to be
This to say that most become SENSITIZED, via social reinforcement,
to what they are supposed to be aware of, and at least roughly
discouraged and DESENSITIZED, via social intolerance, with respect
to what they are not supposed to be aware of.
In conditions like this, the worst thing in the world is to ask
people what they have actually become or are aware of, especially if
smatterings of super sensitivities are involved.
It is not surprising, therefore, that studies of awareness and
potential awareness are few and far between, and that what might be
called Complete Awareness 101, or even mere Awareness 101, is absent
just about everywhere. There is no encyclopedia itemizing either the
scope of awareness magnitudes of our species or the innate
capacities within consciousness that make such magnitudes possible.
It does turn out, however, that so-called "archaic" peoples, living
and trying to obtain their life-support needs within the dangerous
vicissitudes of Natural environments did tend to encourage
enhancement of awareness, instincts, intuitions, etc., including
various kinds of super sensitivities.
So-called "civilized" people don't need to do much of this kind of
thing, because life-support elements are more easily at hand, and
thus mere objective experiencing stands them in good stead, more or
less anyway, depending on their social strata positions.
It is quite well known to anthropologists that peoples depending on
Nature for their life-support needs encourage the development and
enhancement of higher and more extensive levels of awareness,
because Nature beautiful and wonderful is also fraught with serious
dangers to life and limb.
Archaic (i.e., pre-civilized) peoples did not have our present
vocabulary for super sensitivities.
But what we refer to as
developed instinct rated very highly, as did extensive awareness
enhancement, up to and including their versions of telepathy over
distance, certain pro-survival clairvoyant capacities, higher
quality premonitions, and possibly enhancement of infrared and ultra
violet sensing, and, of course, awareness of various kinds of other
This suggests that archaic societies quite probably did have some
kind of Awareness 101 tutoring in mind - or, as perhaps better said,
Appreciation of Awareness Potentials 101.
AWARE is principally defined as "to be wary," but the "archaic"
definition is given as "watchful."
More modern definitions are given
"having or showing perception, realization, or knowledge."
Synonyms are given as COGNIZANT, CONSCIOUS OF, SENSIBLE, ALIVE,
As found in Webster's International dated 1966, in the contexts of
AWAKE "implies that one has become alive to something
and is on the alert."
SENSIBLE "implies direct or intuitive
perceiving, especially of intangibles or of emotional states or
ALIVE "adds to SENSIBLE the implication of acute
sensitivity of something."
However, Webster's 1966 does not point up that these SAME awareness
definitions were being utilized and worked with in Sanskrit 3,000 or
more years ago - Sanskrit Awareness 101?
INNATE SUPER SENSITIVITES TO TEACH-LEARN-TRAIN
So, we have words denoting certain kinds or types of super
sensitivities - such as telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, etc.
Because the words have been brought into existence, and because they
have established definitions, it is generally assumed, by utilizing
the words-plus-definitions, that it is understood what is being
Thus, for example, the definition of TELEPATHY is mind-to-mind "mind
CLAIRVOYANCE - "the professed power of discerning objects not
present to the physical senses."
PRECOGNITION - "having clairvoyant cognition relating to a future
event or situation that has not yet occurred."
Additionally, these and other parapsychology terms are referred to
Thereafter, teach-learn-train procedures depend on or proceed from
the intellectual frameworks established by such terms-definitions,
and the whole of this seems to make perfect intellectual sense
having no flaws because we do know what we are talking about.
Well, as with just about everything else that is more or less JUST
intellectual, it follows that teach-learn procedures can and do
emulate such intellectualized frameworks, and so the
intellectualized information transferred from teach to learn can be
perfectly understood, again with the idea we know what we are
But subtle problems begin to be recognizable when it comes to
TRAINING of the alleged "abilities."
For starters, it can be thought that IF the intellectualized
frameworks were, say, ENTIRELY workable, then efficient and vigorous
activation of super sensitivity training would have manifested some
time ago - producing thousands of all kinds of efficient super
sensitivity experts and workers.
It must clearly be pointed out that the above musing is not at all
intended to demean any attempts to enhance super sensitivity
processes, because ANY attempts to do so are seriously better than
none at all. After all, it is the super sensitivity heritage of our
species that is involved, and any attempts at such enhancing should
be properly appreciated in this specific sense.
So with respect to any attempts of such kind, it can be said that
what works does work, to the degree such can be seen to work. And in
this sense, we can learn as much from failed attempts as successful
However, the point under discussion here is not (in any criticizing
manner) directed at real or alleged super sensitivity training
attempts. Instead the point is directed to the possibility that mere
intellectualized understanding is quite different from more profound
In this sense, in all fields of human activity it is easily
demonstrated that "book" or "armchair" learning is quite different
from direct experiential learning - i.e., direct experiencing in the
open field of experiencing.
So, two questions can now be posed, the first of which is: Does
efficient super sensitivity training mostly emerge from "book" and
"armchair" learning, or would such training more emerge from direct
experiencing of super sensitivities themselves?
The second question might ask if the word-definitions of the various
super sensitivities actually and accurately reflect the intimate
processes involved, and some of which remain decidedly unidentified?
There are partial answers to these two questions, and all of such
answers depend on WHAT is trainable. E.g., would one be training
words-plus-definitions-plus-intellectualizing concepts; or, would
one be training direct super sensitivity experiencing?
After all, the relationship of our super sensitivities to the
teach-learn-train thing DOES NOT so much depend on what can be
taught-learning, but on WHAT in general CAN be trained.
There is a subtle Situational problem involved here - in that it is
generally assumed that learning and training equate to the same
However, learning consists only of learning, but training consists
of applied learning plus direct experiencing - APPLY being defined
"to put to use, especially for some practical purpose."
If, however, super sensitivity learning is not meant to be applied,
then training efforts are not applicable, right?
It is always useful to clarify the definitions of terms when
attempting to write about them, especially in the contexts of super
sensitivity discussions. Such is the case with the words to TEACH,
to LEARN, and to TRAIN, the more precise functions of which often
become confused with each other.
TEACH is taken from the Medieval English TECHEN meaning "to show,"
but the modern definitions are "to cause to know a subject; to cause
to know; to impart the knowledge of; to instruct by precept,
example, or experience."
LEARN is defined as "to gain knowledge or understanding or skill in
by study, instruction or experience; to come to be able to; to come
TRAIN is defined as "to direct growth of; to form by instruction,
discipline or drill; to teach so as to be fitted, qualified, or
proficient; to make prepared for a test or performance of a skill."
It is obvious that the contexts of these three terms are
interactive, but subtle differences between them do exist.
The central context of TEACH is simply to instruct.
The central context of LEARN is simply to be instructed whether by
others or by oneself.
The central context of TRAIN is to make proficiently prepared by
directing (via instruction, discipline, and drill) the GROWTH or
UNFOLDMENT of potential activity."
Aside from the definition of,
"a stage in the process of growing, the
central context of GROWTH is progressive development as in
emergence, evolution, increase, or expansion."
The teacher-learner relationship is wonderful, of course, especially
if teacher is proficient and learner is interested, so there is much
to be said of that relationship. But there is always the matter of
what is being taught and what is being learned.
It can be mentioned, as many have done, that just about anything can
be taught and learned - including, as it must be said,
misconceptions, "facts" not based on facts, suppositions,
speculations, assumptions, all sorts of falsities, and etc.
Such can be taught without either teacher or learner being the
wiser, and sometimes not having any recognition that what is taught
and what is learned do not produce the phenomena of any kind of
In other words, such teachings as these have their own contexts and
always yield those same contexts - until it is recognized that they
are, as it is said, "the mothers of all fuck-ups."
There are, of course, teachings that result in better and more
knowing, showings, and learnings - some such teachings perhaps not
resulting in too much growth of anything, but rather resulting in
rote application of the learned knowing with little growth beyond
what has been learned.
For example, a mere unfounded opinion can be taught and learned; a
theory (which at first is also mere opinion based on supposition,
etc.) can be taught after which both teacher and learner might tend
to think of themselves as learned; an idea, whether fruitful or not,
can be taught; a falsity, whether recognized as such or not, can be
taught; prejudices can be taught/learned; etc, and ad infinitum.
The teacher-learner relationship seems to be a dynamic factor innate
in our species, and when that important relationship does work and
bear positive fruit it is absolutely terrific.
It is possible to think that in the absence of the innate
teacher-learner function, everyone would have to figure out
everything for themselves - perhaps including toilet training. As it
is, however, the teacher-learner relationship automatically
commences everywhere our species is found.
But this statement must be slightly qualified, in that this
teach-learn-train concept usually automatically commences in
relationship to becoming conscious of physically objective
realities, based on the physical senses and, as has been discussed,
modernist concepts of consciousness do exclusively relate it to
perception of physical objects.
This is to say that consciousness is based on
awareness-cum-perception of material objects - i.e., Matter-Only
things and stuff.
However, super sensitivity types of consciousness involve other
kinds of awareness-perceptions that imply the existence of
consciousness without an object.
(NOTE: This author has discovered only one extensive modern
philosophic treatment of this in THE PHILOSOPHY OF CONSCIOUSNESS
WITHOUT AN OBJECT by Franklin Merrell-Wolff, first published in
1923, reissued by Julian Press in 1973.)
So the now probable existence of awareness-consciousness not based
on objects opens a door onto the subtle, but significant, vista of
all kinds of super sensitivities not exactly explainable in
Matter-Only terms - not only involving super sensitive awareness of
ghosts which can't quite be considered or explained as Matter-Only - but which subtle super sensitivities, if enhanced, might be
inconvenient to awareness-consciousness based on Matter-Only
In any event, teach-learn-train processes are quite identifiable
with respect to objective matter realities, largely because it is
usually understood WHAT can be trained - such as intelligence
experientially operating within the contexts of this or that kind of
However, when it comes to super sensitivities that transcend
objective matter realities, teach-learn can intellectually convey
what has been learned, or thought to be learned, about them.
But the TRAINING aspect is not understood (in general that is),
because whatever is involved has long been assumed to involve
intelligence experientially operating within contexts other than
those of objective physical matter.
So, is that assumption entirely correct?
RELATIONSHIP OF TEACH-LEARN-TRAIN
...TO THE BRAIN'S INNATE MOTOR CORTEX
Learning about the motor cortex of the brain is probably not very
high on everyone's reading agenda.
So something resembling a
suggestive reason to take interest in the matter needs to be
We will begin by referring back to the incident of walking along a
mountain path, body stopping, legs moving backward, cliff collapsing
in a tremendous avalanche, life saved - all of which took place
WITHOUT volitional conscious reason or explanation. Thousands of
similar events exist in various literatures.
These events are understood as having occurred via non-conscious
intuition, non-conscious gut-feeling, non-conscious instinct, etc.
The events are, after the fact, intellectually quite appreciated as
such, as some kind of extraordinary events.
But one important factor is seldom, if ever, discussed - why the
body was stopped without a trace of volitional reason, why the legs
stepped backward, also without conscious reason. Indeed, none of the
several factors operational in various kinds of similar of events
were accompanied by conscious reason.
In other words, this entire event was totally involuntary, taking
place beneath, above, or outside of conscious perceptions and reason
- and none of which is explainable, except particular one factor.
No biophysical motion, whether voluntary or involuntary, takes place
without motor cortex activity.
In the biological sense, MOTOR is basically defined as,
that causes or imparts motion;
of, or relating to, or being a nerve fiber that passes from the
central nervous system or a ganglion to a muscle and conducts an
impulse that causes movement;
also, a motor-neuron, a nerve cell with its processes;
a muscle designed to move a particular part of the animal frame;
a nerve whose function is to excite muscular activity in a
particular part of the animal body."
Prior to about 1800, it was generally thought that the muscles
themselves supplied their own "muscular energy" so as to result in
At about 1808, it was being held that,
"In every motion, there must
always be a number of muscles employed, some as motors, some as
directors, some as moderators."
However, by about 1899, motor-motion seems to have taken on, shall
we say, a "mental" aspect - for example,
"If we think of a ball,
this idea must comprise the images of these muscular sensations, as
it comprises the images of sight and touch.
"Such is the motor image. Also, by making reading and writing
proceed together, the two memories, visual and motor, are
constrained to associate and to aid one another."
In 1900, it was announced (in AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, April,
XI, 210) that,
"Motor phenomena are now regarded as necessary in all
In 1903, the THE AMERICAN NATURALIST (March, XXXVII, 207) indicated
"To whatever sense the stimulus is given, the impulse has to go
to the motor-image centers, and then to the muscles."
At some point this author has not yet been able accurately to
determine, but probably about 1924, it was either discovered or
decided that the "motor-image centers" resided in what then became
termed as the "motor cortex."
Also during the 1920s, a general Map of the Brain was produced by "a
French woman" (whose name has not yet been discovered by this
This Map seems to have endured - until quite recently.
In any event, the physical placement of the motor cortex is situated
at the top of the brain.
The motor cortical areas are now typically
divided into three regions that have different functional roles:
The purpose of M1 is to connect the brain to the lower motor neurons
via the spinal cord in order to tell them which particular muscles
need to contract.
These M1 upper motor neurons are found in layer 5
of the motor cortex and contain some of the largest cells in the
brain. (If one is interested, Map diagrams of the physical brain are
It has, however, proven difficult to locate anything like an elegant
definition of the motor cortex composed of 200 words or less.
It is usually pointed up as "The region that is mainly involved with
motor functions," after which discussions descend into describing
its internal physical details and minutia for which physical
evidence is identifiable.
The entire brain is also described along such physical lines, i.e.,
how areas of the brain physically act or react to objective
information fed into it via the five objective physical senses.
This is completely in accord with the Matter-Only thing, and so
activities associated with super sensitivities that seem to
transcend matter, space, energy, and time have not scientifically
been looked for.
NOTE: Excepting, of course, the recent and now ongoing discoveries
of premotor cortex involvement with mind-to-mind sensing of others'
intentions and motives - in that intentions and motives hardly fall
into any completely neurophysical category.
This Map Situation, however, is undergoing change - because it seems
that cutting edge research of the brain is rendering the old
map/model of the brain more or less obsolete.
For example, the physical brain was once the exclusive territory of
These must now move over a bit so as to include what are being
called "3D brain mappers and cartographers" who scan brains via all
sorts of imaging devices, and are thus busy attempting to create the
most detailed and sophisticated computer brain-atlas ever assembled.
In December 2001, BBC News interviewed Arthur Toga, director of the
Laboratory of Neuro Imaging at the University of California (UCLA),
who complained (here somewhat paraphrased):
That the old brain-map
that has served as a model for the billions of brains on the planet
has been inappropriate in terms of representing the entire human
That the old brain-map was mostly an physical anatomical one, so the
fuller scope of its functions have not been mapped in any
That brains may be anatomically similar in general, but individually
their functions vary in accord with genetic inheritance and other
And that no one yet has been able to identify what a "normal" brain
should look like.
Troubles with the old brain-map have also arisen elsewhere in other
types of research.
For example, it was once thought that since the brain is divided
according to its anatomical "regions," that each of such parts and
activities had a separate identifiable function.
MRI and Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scanning have recently
indicated that when the brain is in this or that kind of activity,
not just parts but ALL of its regions light up more or less like
fireworks in the night sky, as if scads of "information messages"
were being exchanged among the regions with great velocity.
article entitled SPREADING CONSCIOUSNESS: AWARENESS GOES GLOBAL IN
THE BRAIN, by Bruce Bower in SCIENCE NEWS, October 19, 2002.)
The September 29, 2001 issue of SCIENCE NEWS featured an article (by
Bruce Bower) entitled
JOINED AT THE SENSES: PERCEPTION MAY FEAST ON
A SENSORY STEW, NOT A FIVE-SENSE BUFFET.
This article basically
discusses evidence that helps explain one of the fundamental
mysteries of the brain - i.e., how it unites separate sensations
into multifaceted experiences.
So, on-going research of these kinds seem to imply that progress is
being made with respect to identifying all sorts of functions of the
brain. And indeed is seems that progress is being made in
discovering what has NOT been known about it.
As already mention, in its April 2004 issue, the venerable
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN featured a lead article (by R. Douglas Fields)
HAS SCIENCE MISSED HALF OF THE BRAIN? NEGLECTED CELLS HOLD
KEYS TO THOUGHT AND LEARNING.
This article discusses the topic of,
"Mounting evidence suggesting
that Glial cells, overlooked for half a century, may be nearly as
critical to thinking and learning as neurons are."
In the past, Glial cells, even though out-numbering neural cells nine to one,
were thought to have only a maintenance role, such as bringing
nutrients to neurons, maintaining a healthy balance of ions in the
brain, and so forth.
It has now been discovered that Glia influence the formation of
synapses and help to determine which neural connections get stronger
or weaker over time, such changes being essential to learning and to
storing long-term memories.
Research along these lines has begun to show that Glial cells also
communicate among themselves in a separate but parallel network to
the neural network - which is tantamount to being ANOTHER brain
inside the neural network one.
So, although yet cautious, neuroscientists are excited by the
prospect that more than half the brain that has gone largely
unexplored may contain a trove of information about how the entire
brain actually works.
To remind AGAIN, interlocked within all of the above advancing
discoveries, were also the discoveries of mirror "telepathic"
neurons in the premotor cortex.
Meanwhile, while all of the above discoveries developed, certain
neuro scientists have recently embellished on the discovery of "The
OTHER Brain, the One With Butterflies" - (A
version of this article appeared in print on August 23,
2005, on page D8 of the National edition with the headline: The
Other Brain, the One With Butterflies).
According to THE NEW YORK TIMES (23 August 2005), this is,
in your gut."
So, the human body has two brains,
"the one at the top
of the spinal cord and the hidden but powerful brain in the gut
known as the enteric nervous system."
This article includes, in
glorious color, a cut-away anatomical diagram of the gut.
The TIMES article more or less focuses on physical (and some
psychological) situations and difficulties that might occur between
the two brains. But in the contexts of this Situational paper, it
can be noted that the rather famous "gut-feelings" involving
premonitions, instincts, and presentiments, etc., have a long human
Most of the advancing research efforts briefly discussed above are
still quite locked into focusing only on anatomical physical
phenomena, and don't seem quite ready to include experiential super
sensory functioning. So "more-than-half" of human experiencing
functions are still being missed, i.e., those functionable aspects
relative to information that transcends mere physical, objective
But it is somewhat obvious that many of the old realities about
brains are in process of being turned upside down.
However, most of the old concepts about the motor cortex are still
holding water, and especially two of them as already mentioned.
Returning to the motor cortex, as a brain part, it is located at the
very top of the brain and, deeply embedded downward within it, is
the region mainly involved with motor functions in which precise
muscle-moving signals originate.
Just in front of this primary cortex is the premotor cortex, the
primary "receiving" area for detected incoming signals, and for
initiating and sequencing movements - and which is also associated
with "higher intellectual functions," especially those associated
with "planning and intention." (This is the principal area in which
the apparently innate mirror (telepathic) neurons have recently been
It is generally appreciated that the importance of the motor
cortexes cannot be over estimated, in that if they don't work, then
nothing else does either - even though elsewhere in the general
nervous systems neural detectors-receptors are busy enough
initiating "waves of excitation" that remain undetected by the two
Likewise, it seems that although the motor cortexes might have
different kinds of innate capacities, some of these kinds might not
become awakened or activated - which is the same as saying that they
are not working. And even if awakened or activated, they might not
have pierced through the veil of cognitive unawareness.
The motor cortexes are definitely innately and diversely hardwired
to deal with the enormous varieties of stimuli and resulting waves
of excitation provided by the five physical sensing organs. The
"kingdom" of these five is, of course, the objective physical
material universe, but only insofar as the detecting limits of the
It is thus that tremendously strong general and special perceptual
responsive learning "programs" are developed within the motor
cortexes, programs based exclusively on physical stimuli (whatever
these consist of in different environments.)
E.g., learning to walk, talk in different languages, skillfully and
automatically managing computer keyboards with all ten fingers,
riding bicycles without thinking about it, etc., all of which
require at least the equivalent of some kind motor-skill training -
but most of which might not require all that much intelligence,
because after all everyone can perceive and interpret the Here & Now
physicality in more or less equal playing field ways, and which
perceiving does not require the introduction of all that much super
So, it is possible to end up with very strong motor cortex
perceptions and interpretations of OBJECTIVE PHYSICALITY via the
famous five sensory organs - and not much else, even though the
motor cortexes might also be innately hardwired for dealing with
other kinds of perceiving, say, super sensitivity perceiving.
So, properly outfitted with matter-only perceptions, one can be
walking along and just about to cross a bridge or something of the
kind, and suddenly experiences a compelling premonition to stop
walking. One stops walking without conscious reasons for doing so.
During this involuntary stop walking pause, the bridge, or whatever,
then collapses - even though there was no consciously perceived
apparent physical, objective, Here & Now reason for it to do so.
So, the situational question here has to do with what DID perceive
the collapse of the bridge (or mountain side) BEFORE it did
collapse, and after pulling off this non-conscious bit of
wonderment, what involuntarily MOVED the body backward.
It certainly seems that "something" was perceiving ahead in time,
perceived the forthcoming danger, put two and two together via some
kind of non-conscious thinking, and galvanized the processes of the
motor cortex systems to move somewhere outside the perceived,
forthcoming danger zone.
As already elaborated, there are multitudes of historical examples
of this kind of spontaneous event, and so it is almost an equal bit
of wonderment as to why involuntary movement that takes the
objective body out of harm's way has not been researched, and
especially so in parapsychology.
About the only clue to all of this is found in the following two
early statements about the motor cortex:
MOTOR PHENOMENA ARE REGARDED AS NECESSARY IN ALL MENTAL PROCESSES.
WHATEVER SENSE THE STIMULUS IS GIVEN, THE IMPULSE HAS TO GO TO THE
At the time these two motor cortex provisos were formulated, they
obviously referred to objective physical stimuli that transferred
objective information to the motor cortex that forwarded such to the
brain's associative areas, and then into the conscious cognitive
areas of the brain.
But if these two motor cortex provisos can be interpreted as
including super sensitivity stimuli-impulses resulting in super
sensitivity information transfers, then the two provisos equally
apply to objective and super sensitivity information transfers.
Which is again to say that without motor cortex involvement and
participation, nothing can be perceived consciously or otherwise to
happen, and therefore nothing can be experienced, nothing can be
taught, learned, or trained.
SITUATIONAL QUESTION OF...
...WHETHER OR NOT THE INNATE MOTOR CORTEX CAN
DIRECTLY AND "MENTALLY" INTERACT WITH SUPER SENSITIVITY INFORMATION
In closing this Situational Paper, it is now necessary to TRY to
discuss the "mental" aspects of the brain's rather complicated motor
cortexes. Basic information about those cortexes can rather
massively be found by consulting appropriate neurological textbooks
and in Internet sources.
In order to TRY to get into this situational question, there is the
question of what is meant by the term MENTAL.
For about 200 years, perhaps a bit more, that term has, in English,
almost exclusively come to refer to whatever is psychological and
outside the scale of given situations characterized, it is thought,
by (get this!) "normality."
In turn, NORMAL is defined as "according to, constituting, or not
deviating from a norm, rule, or principle."
NORM refers to "a pattern or trait taken to be typical in the
behavior of a social group; an authoritative standard."
However, MENTAL is principally defined as "occurring or experienced
in the mind" - such as THINKING in the awake conscious state of
THINK has a number of definitions that describe different kinds of
thought-experiencing that go on in the mind.
The scope of most of these THINK definitions are reflected in a sort
of confused and intellectually messy grab bag containing the term's
given synonyms - such as,
CONCEIVE, IMAGINE, FANCY, REALIZE,
ENVISAGE, COGITATE, REFLECT, REASON, DELIBERATE, SPECULATE,
FANTASIZE, THEORIZE, SPECULATE, etc.
However, the most basic definition of THINK has to do with
"attainment of clear ideas or conclusions," and in the light of this
definition most of the given synonyms might not actually qualify as
But the synonyms do suggest much "think" that needs to be
desensitized in order to achieve this or that condition of "typical
mental behavior of a normalized social group."
If the capacity potentials for super sensitivities are innate, such
may spontaneously be experienced only in the contexts of special
real circumstances, especially the spontaneous kinds that result in
However, the term THINK is not applied to such cases, probably
because such spontaneous experiencing is commonly understood as not
being based on thinking that is understood mostly to take place via
cognitive processes of the awake mind - which, if not out to lunch
altogether, is busily at work trying to apply reason to whatever is
being thought about.
Even so, when one is spontaneously saved from avalanches, collapsing
bridges, or mine fields in war, "something" outside of conscious
reason has gained the necessary "attainment of clear ideas or
conclusions" that activated the otherwise unexplainable saving
In any event, why and how "attainment of clear ideas or conclusions"
is achieved is hardly ever discussed with reference to verifiable
super sensitivity activities.
But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that it is
achieved via processing of information either in the non-conscious
parts of the brain, or in non-conscious capacities of Consciousness
itself, or at least somewhere in human neurological systems
(discovered or yet undiscovered) that can pull off the necessary
"attainment," even if conscious reasoning is not conscious of such.
Now, nothing can do anything unless it has capacities to do so - this being the case both with,
creating artificial intelligence
mechanisms into which information-processing capacities have been
as well as with any biological
organism that has, hopefully, modicums of hardwired
capacities to do so
With respect to information acquired via super sensitivity
processes, the ever-so-important bottom line points to hardwired
capacities for processing information, in the absence of which such
information would not get processed - with the logical fallout that
no one is the wiser about such unprocessed information, but might be
dead in an avalanche, etc.
A rather laborious effort has been made in this document to
substantiate that specimens of the human species often EXPERIENCE
various kinds of spontaneous super sensitivity events, generically
referred to as premonitions, intuitions, or instincts that are
experienced even though the THINK mechanisms of conscious reason has
not been involved.
The why and how of these experiencing events cannot be explained by
depending on the physical senses or by objective reason-logic based
So when the why and how of the super sensitivity event ultimately
proves correct, there is no real way to explain anything.
We shall now begin modifying the above sentence so as to state it in
a slightly different ways.
When the information of the super sensitivity event ultimately
proves correct, about the only explanation possible is that there
exist capacities for sensing information that is not sensed by our
objective physical senses or by reason-logic based on them.
There are three specific factors to be considered here:
When the physical motor systems
of the body involuntarily move the body out of harm's way
before it is consciously realized that such has actually
taken place, it should be obvious
That sensing systems
transcending the physical ones have processed relevant
information and "attained clear ideas and conclusions" about
Then DONE something about it, including preempting the brain's
central motor systems (even though this usually leaves one's "mind"
in an astonished and confused flutter.)
In other words, the conscious "mind" is not the only aspect of human
capacities that processes information, in that it seems quite clear
that the motor cortex is involved in interacting with information
the conscious "mind" is not processing.
So in the
contexts of verifiable super sensitivity experiencing and activity,
there must exist:
Capacities (largely unidentified) that process information in ways
that transcend (or transgress) the known "laws" of matter, energy,
space, and time as objectively seen in the material realms;
Capacities of awareness that undercut objective, conscious awareness
of those material realms - but which capacities can nonetheless
interact with the brain via its motor cortex and associative
systems, or perhaps the entire autonomic nervous system altogether.
To reiterate, the term CAPACITY has several materialistic
It also refers to,
the ability to hold, receive,
store, and accommodate information
the POWER to grasp and analyze
ideas and cope with problems, situations, and experience
The term POWER also has some materialistic definitions, and, of
course, several social ones. But that term also applies to human
faculties of ability capacities, to personal or species capacities,
to natural aptitude capacities, the term NATURAL referring to
Although the use of the term POWER in these contexts has been
unfashionable for several decades, it is nevertheless derived from
POTENT simply defined as "to be powerful" in the context of
POTENTIALITY defined as,
"capable of development into actuality."
In these contexts, then, it seems that natural-innate super
sensitivity capacities exist that are capable of development into
actuality, but might not be developed into activity.
However, if verifiable and efficient spontaneous super sensitivity
events take place, it would seem that the capacities involved simply
blossom into activity all by themselves, and do so without
consciously struggling to "develop" them within whatever is passing
for normal reasoning.
Two of the useful definitions of DEVELOP are,
"to set forth or make
clear by degrees or in detail; also, to make active."
Thus, in order to develop undeveloped capacities, it is necessary to
be taught so as to learn something about them in terms of clear
degrees and details.
However, it is commonly understood that to render a developing
capacity into an active state, not only is learning required, but
also TRAINING - defined as,
"to form by instruction, discipline, or
drill, so as to become prepared for a test of skill."
It is, of course, completely recognized, in the materialistic sense,
that humans have both innate and acquired capacities for objectively
interacting, via the physical senses, with material objectivity.
It is also accepted that increasing the potentials for this
interacting can be achieved via all kinds of teach-learn-train
processes, and that such processes can be applied even if intimate
details of brain activity are not known.
For example, although it is thought that one "learns" to ride a
bicycle, such is not accomplished by the learning, but by training
into the motor cortex an experiential program that eventually works
automatically on its own.
The same applies to anything else that requires motor cortex
participation, such attaining efficiency in sports, various of the
martial arts, ballet dancing, vocal training, utilizing a computer
keyboard with all ten fingers, language training, recognition of
super sensitivity information aspects such as "psyching out" land
mines in a jungle, sensing intentions and motives of others, etc. ad
It is worth reminding that brain activity, much less details of it,
were NOT historically known until, roughly, the beginning of the
nineteenth century A.D., and which details are not YET fully known
as this document is being constructed.
Today, however, it is fully recognized that the associative and
motor cortexes are fully involved in the teach-learn-train
processes, and with the memory components, too.
MEMORY reflects an obvious and a powerful innate capacity, the
existence of which could not have gone unnoticed even in ancient
times (although in today's sciences, the location in the brain of
the Seat of Memory is a mystery still to be solved, along with the
Seat of the Mind, and the Seat of Consciousness itself.)
So, an important issue-question arises, one that has not been even
minimally addressed in our modernist, materialistic, scientific
Before the modern discovery of brain details, it is quite obvious
that the teach-learn-train thing had been recognized throughout
But teach-learn-train procedures need to be based against
perceptible evidence indicating the existence of something can
benefit from teach-learn-train efforts.
We will slip into this important issue somewhat sidewise. If
something is NOT experienced, then whatever is involved doesn't
exist as such, and there can be no concept of applying
teach-learn-train procedures to it.
But if experiencing, especially various kinds of super sensitivity
pro-survival experiencing, IS experienced, then there might arise
interest in evolving teach-learn-train procedures so as to enhance
whatever experiential dynamics are involved.
This applies more or less equally to experiencing the objective via
enhancing the dynamics of physical sensitivities, as well as to
experiencing super sensitivities via, as it might simply be put,
enhancing the dynamics of super sensitivity.
Of course, those who have not experienced spontaneous eruptions of
what we today refer to as instincts, premonitions, or intuitions,
might be at sea here.
But in the past, in rough and tough environments (including human
nature environments), the potential advantages of experiencing
instinct, intuition, and premonition could not possibly have gone
unnoticed - in that all of these super sensitivities demonstrate
various kinds of FOREWARNINGS not directly available via the
objective physical senses alone.
Forewarnings are GOOD - at least relative to environments and topics
where they are useful.
As already discussed, no one can experience anything for which
rudimentary capacities don't exist. Such capacities might exist in a
latent, or inactive unawakened condition - such as is the general
case not only for super sensitivity capacities, but also for mere
objective sensitivity the larger experiencing scope of which is
often found in desensitized (or not enhanced) conditions.
But that capacities for super sensitivities do exist is vouched for
via all human languages (even so-called "archaic" ones) that contain
many terms reflecting many different kinds and types of them.
In fact, the few modern terms we have used for them probably
represent only the tip of the VAST super sensitivity iceberg - VAST
here referring back to the discussions about Sanskrit multiple
As also earlier discussed, the modern, materialist Objection to
super sensitivities was that no physical source or physical
processes could be discovered for them - and so they could not be
considered either as innate or acquired capacities.
This Objection was more probably based on social intolerance of
super sensitivities rather than on real scientific observation and
In any event, after about 200 some odd years of the supposed
legitimacy of this Objection, mirror "telepathic" neurons were
discovered to be innate in the premotor cortex not only in monkeys,
but in humans also - apparently much alive and working in monkeys,
apparently less alive and working in humans.
Mind reading (also a component of forewarning) represents one of the
most socially sensitive issues imaginable. However, enhanced
instinct, intuition, and premonition are probably as socially
sensitive as telepathy - IF any or all of these might respond to the
teach-learn-training thing designed so as to involve motor cortex
So, can such super sensitivities be trained?
As discussed in the Sanskrit sections earlier, probably NOT unless
at least a modicum of experiencing capacity can be awakened, that
is, be coaxed up from a latent to a somewhat active state.
After that, as is quite well understood today, the brain's motor
cortexes are certainly involved, and that anything involving the
motor and associative cortexes almost certainly can be
Because, you see, motor responses CAN be trained, as well as can
anything involving information transfers if they become recognizable
This is entirely in keeping with the known fact that incoming
information is first processed via the motor cortex, then forwarded
to and processed by the associative systems.
As we now near the close of this Situational report, there are two
very subtle Situations involved that have not been identified as
The modernist scientific Objection to the super sensitivities held,
that they could not be explained or accounted for by Matter-Only
sources or processes
that since Matter was the only
reality, there was no other reality that might account for
them and or provide ways and means for their processes
Thus, the super sensitivities were dubbed as EXTRA-SENSIBLE, defined
as "beyond the each of sensuous perception" - meaning beyond the
limited scopes of the five objective physical senses, and beyond the
reach of objective-matter-only sciences, too.
The term EXTRA-SENSIBLE was converted to EXTRASENSORY PERCEPTION by
the J.B. Rhine, whose famous book of the same title was published
in 1934, and which term,
"denoted awareness apparently received
through channels other than the usual [physical] senses."
One of the principal results of this was that the super
sensitivities, and evidence of them, became detached from any
physical contexts, after which it was assumed that there was nothing
that connected them to physicality.
Thus, there was no logical
reason to look for such connections either in parapsychology or in
the Matter-Only brain.
This Situation remained in place until about 1996 when mirror
"telepathic" neurons were discovered in, of all places, the physical
premotor cortex of the physical brain - and which discovery came as
a "surprising" shock to matter-only scientists and numerous
This implied that TELEPATHY, ambiguously defined as "mind-to- mind"
can now be rendered more precisely as "premotor cortex to premotor
cortex," although this conceptual shift has not actually occurred
Meanwhile, the ongoing cutting edges of physics and astrophysics had
determined that the Matter-Only universe was not a matter-only one - in that the Universe was also occupied not only by dark
interpenetrating energies, but equally interpenetrating subtle and
exotic energies, as well as multiple interpenetrating dimensions and
interpenetrating realities, etc.
It might be presumed that these other realities "carry" or
"manifest" various kinds of information that are not governed by the
objective "laws" of Matter but apparently by yet unknown "laws" of
So, it seems that there exist interpenetrating "laws" as well as
"interpenetrating" information - concepts that somewhat resemble
concepts and terms found in the Sanskrit (and many other) languages.
Thus, we are obliged to reexamine the general definition of
EXTRASENSORY PERCEPTION once given as a term that,
apparently received through channels other than the usual [physical]
We might, for example, begin this reexamination by asking
"awareness" of What?
If AWARNESS is to be defined as,
"having or showing realization,
perception, or knowledge,"
...then it is quite proper think in terms of
perception of What, realization of What, knowledge of What.
You see, although it might be too simplistic to say so, if there is
nothing to become aware of, there will not be any awareness of it.
In other words, awareness occurs AFTER the fact of the existence or
presence of something that can stimulate awareness of it.
To repeat so as to GRIND this in, if there is not something to
become aware of, then awareness does not ensue, take place, or
So, awareness itself cannot be "received," but information might be
received through channels that might provoke, awaken, or stimulate
awareness of whatever such information consists of - and which
information is thus converted into perception of it, realization of
it, and knowledge about it.
It is now reasonable to ask where, why, and how such information is
thusly converted within innate Consciousness perspectives and
capacities - in that, again, if Consciousness does not exist then
utter universes of information might exist with nothing to "receive"
So it could be thought that Information exists;
Within Consciousness are capacities to detect Information;
It seems that the physical Brain has something to do with
"recognizing" different types of Information;
Thus the Brain must have different kinds of neural (and other)
information recognition detectors and which commence the processing
of Information as different kinds of information;
Such information may refer to physical objective information, and to
super sensitivity information acquired by other "channels than the
usual physical senses"
After all of this, conscious-of Awareness may or may not take place;
But nonetheless, there is one Brain Part that seems to recognize
information whether conscious-of-Awareness takes place;
So far as is understood, this Brain Part seems principally to
consist of the Motor Cortex and its closely affiliated sub-parts;
One of which is designated as the premotor cortex;
Which is the physical Brain Part in which mirror telepathic neurons
have been discovered and which apparently possesses innate
"channels" that deal with detecting information (such as intentions
and motives) in others;
And which particular motor cortex capacities probably represent only
the tip of the super sensitivity iceberg.
SHIFTING SUM OF THE SITUATIONS
With the exception of the Situations forming up because of the new
scientific discoveries, the contexts of most of the other Situations
probably would have continued to endure.
As discussed, the most apparent principal reason for this projection
probably has to do with social antagonism toward super sensitivities
that might interfere with the protection of confidentiality and
secrecy upon which many human activities depend.
Early psychical and later parapsychological research certainly
suffered from such antagonism, although both research objectives
were energetically pursued at their startups.
Both of those research objectives essentially focused on identifying
super sensitivity phenomena - psychical research focusing on general
experiential phenomena in the presence of suitable witnesses, while
parapsychological research focused more narrowly on theoretical
statistical phenomena gained in laboratory settings.
Neither research objectives undertook examination of how to enhance
or train super sensitivities - principally because it was thought
that super sensitivities were special "gifts" or "abilities" of
individuals often of very different psychological types, but
altogether consisting of a census of only 7 percent or less in given
So their "gifts" or "abilities" were more or less
considered as psychological flukes occurring by inconsistent
Many popular books were early available that presented evidence of
individuals spontaneously experiencing some kind of super
sensitivity event, especially of the premonition, intuitive, and
These sources of indicated that such spontaneous experiencing took
place quite more frequently than expected, and did so among
individuals in whom special "gifts" and "abilities" did not manifest
This quite large body of evidence was more or less
dismissed as merely anecdotal - meaning questionable and possibly
The concept that rudimentary super sensitivities might be
species-innate achieved only extremely minimal discussion in
closets, and, at any rate, was never connected up with anecdotal
body of spontaneous evidence, with the exception of certain "occult"
studies ostracized from psychical and parapsychological research, as
well as from modernist philosophic and scientific endeavors.
This mix of Situations was so cemented in place that even when
advancing quantum studies began revealing phenomena of non-locality
and non-Matter realities that might have implications for
Consciousness, such phenomena were only very tacitly connected up
with super sensitivity probabilities or potentials.
In this author's thirty some odd years in super sensitivity
research, no one, including himself, could imagine anything of
sufficient magnitude that might shift this complex Situational
cement to any significant degree.
Then, voila! Mirror "telepathic" neurons are discovered in premotor
cortexes of brains - in which, albeit yet undiscovered, are supposed
to be the Seats of Consciousness, Seats of Minds, Seats of Memory,
as well as other possible Seats yet undiscovered or imagined. So,
how about Seats of Super Sensitivities? This, of course, is just a
vague question here.
In the PHYSICAL brain, no less - hence a Situation scientific,
albeit a New one, unexpected, but implying all sorts of
ramifications, including biogenetic ones, innateness, Gosh, probably
more, such as a new Sum or all Fears - efficient mind-reading if it
And where there is one brain-confirmed super sensitivity critter
roaming about, it there is likely to be others - as the old saying
somewhat goes. And so some Situational shifts along such lines might
Perhaps the biggest Situational shift has to do with the failure of
the Matter-Is-The-Only-Reality thing. Of course Matter itself is not
going to shift. But the implications of Stuff interpenetrating
Matter, such as multiple dimensions realities, etc., would result in
new types of science in addition to the material sciences.
Thus, a shift from one exclusive type of science to multiple types
of it - such as is happening already, albeit in a sort of infant
stage of development.
Those living exclusively within and fixated by the contexts of
gross, objective material realities would not be affected by such
scientific shifts - unless it turns out that interpenetrating
multiple Stuffs and dimensions have interacting informational
exchange potentials that, as it might be put, LEAK into and out of
It may be possible that such interpenetrating information leakage
might have something like subtle energetic holographic forms that
might be detected by certain innate super sensitivities innately
designed to do so.
In this case, such might give evidence, say, as to how future
information leaks into consciousness in holographic forms, even if
only in dreams, visions, intuitions, gut-feelings, etc., and
sometimes on a quite large scale.
NOTE: One of the best surveys of this kind of leakage is found in
PREMONITIONS: A LEAP INTO THE FUTURE by Herbert B. Greenhouse (1971)
- which might be studied in connection with THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE
by Michael Talbot (1991).
In the sense of all of this, it might turn out that approaches to
super sensitivity training might focus on holographic leakage
phenomena, but do so in ways that are consistent with the
signal-to-noise ratio embodied in Information Theory - accompanied,
of course, by the distinct probability that innate Consciousness is
innately possessed of super sensitivity capacities that detect and
interact with such leakages.