HPAVC

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ HPAVC / HPAVC CD-ROM.iso / pc / RV2.ZIP / RV2.ASC < prev

Wrap

Internet Message Format | 1996-05-26 | 26.7 KB

Subject: Remote Viewing Vs Telepathic Overlay 2/2 Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 22:00:37 -0400 We have seen by now that the concept of rapport is obviously important to all telepathic matters. But it is a term rarely encountered in research today -- except in subliminal research where researchers are quite aware that human specimens are subliminally connected by various kinds of subconscious rapport states although not at all conscious of being so. Indeed, it is the existence of rapport which helps in many ways to distinguish between INTUITION and TELEPATHY, the two superpowers of the human bio-mind which are most frequently experienced world-wide. * The term INFECT is unpopular regarding telepathic stuff, because in its first definition it is largely taken to mean CONTAGIOUS in ways which contaminate or corrupt. Even so, regarding telepathic overlay and remote viewing, the former would contaminate the latter, and there is hardly any other way around this phenomenon. * But there is a second definition regarding INFECT: to work upon or seize upon so as to induce sympathy, belief, or support. * And INDUCED sympathy puts us within the realms of sympathetic states, rapport, and entrainment -- whether such are consciously perceived or subconsciously present in some kind of a psycho-active way. And all of this is not very far removed from the "psychic hypothesis" of the early researchers of mob psychology -- an hypothesis seeking to explain the infectious telepathic nature of the overpowering emotionality which literally sucks people into subconscious entrainment and participation. * One of the on-going situational problems regarding telepathy is that there are many different kinds of it -- only a few of which seem to fit in with the sender-receiver model. In the past, I was able to identify some thirty-five or thirty-six kinds of telepathy -- some of which, for example, show that information can be ABSORBED without being either "sent" or "received." From this latter category can be derived the concept of "telepathic osmosis" -- OSMOSIS referring to a process of absorption or diffusion suggestive of the FLOW of osmotic action. We need only to suppose that such a kind of telepathic osmosis can exist at the subconscious levels -- and thus we achieve the model for the existence of telepathic overlay regarding remote viewing. And at this point we also arrive back at the discarded concept that thought-transference (of thought AND emotion and empathy) entails some kind of "fluidic" mechanism. * In this sense, what we call telepathy appears to exist along a spectrum of some kind. Subconscious telepathy would absolutely have to be included in this spectrum. The concept of subconscious mind-linking (as opposed to conscious or intellectual mind-linking) would actually serve better to bring the existence of this spectrum into better view. People can say that they are not telepathically linked consciously -- but they well may be subconsciously. * I suppose that mind-linking may more easily be thought of as intellectual agreement. But it is quite easy to show that other formats of mind-linking exist with or without intellectual agreement. As an example of one kind of mind-linking that is never thought of as telepathic entrainment, it can easily be observed that an individual who personally is very charismatic can, even without trying to do so, induce certain entrainment states in his or her followers. Examples are very numerous along these lines. Such a charismatic individual can utter the most amazing nonsense - - but even so can accumulate a dedicated, hypnoid-like following whose entrained members will give up everything in order to be part of it. Thus, it can be witnessed that charismatic examples of our species can have some kind of telepathic power over others, a type of power which is explainable only by introducing a psychic hypothesis consisting of rapport and sympathetic states. * So, IF telepathy EXISTS at all, then one has to be somewhat backward to think that it exists only when one is cognitively aware of it, or that it exists only when an experiment to test for it is set up. And if one examines for the many different types of telepathy, then one has to be slightly addled to accept that the conscious sender-to-receiver model is the ONLY model for it. * As a result of all that has been discussed so far, we can now reexamine the definition of TELEPATHY. * The word TELEPATHY actually means empathy across distance (tele-). "Empathy" refers to (1) the capacity for participating in another's feelings or ideas, and (2) the projection of a subjective state so that those affected by the projection themselves appear to be infused with it. It is unfortunate, though, that what the "subjective state" consists of has never really been identified -- largely because no one comprehends what it consists of. And for that matter no one really knows what empathy consists of, either. However, a careful reading of the two definitions given just above will reveal that they mean something far different than so-called mind-to-mind contact or so-called mental telepathy. * Clearly the projection of (1) conscious mind content (2) empathic states, (3) subjective states, and (4) subconscious sympathy and rapport are FOUR entirely different sectors of the telepathic spectrum of the superpowers of the human bio-mind. For one thing, empathy is FELT, not thought about. And in the bio-mind systems feelings are subconsciously processed quite differently than conscious thinking. And feelings-empathic are transmitted quite more easily than conscious thinking as well. After all, thinking has to be understood to be processed. Feelings and empathy and subjective states do not need to be understood. Love and hate, both mostly consisting of subjective states, are often thought of as "contagious," but for reasons that are quite mysterious and completely unidentified -- unless the sub-telepathic hypothesis is admitted. * But even so, all formats of telepathy appear to have their basis in empathetic and rapport states. For one thing, it might be noticed that telepathy of any kind is hardly ever reported between people who are not sympathetic, or are out of rapport with, each other. * Now, in the light of all that has been discussed above, the question remains regarding remote viewing and telepathic overlay and how to eliminate the latter. To discuss this, we have to incorporate the probable existence of conscious AND subconscious telepathic information. We also have to incorporate, theoretically at least, the high probability that subconscious telepathy goes on all of the time. We also have to resort to the hypnotist-hypnotee model and the concept of who is to have power over whom. * Regarding the hypnotist-hypnotee model, it is easy enough to consider that subconscious telepathic information flows FROM the hypnotist TO the hypnotee -- meaning that the hypnotist's signals will overlay those of the hypnotee. In this sense, the hypnotist's signals will be duplicated by the hypnotee, and the latter's subconscious systems will respond accordingly. This may be the same as saying that the weaker is influenced by the stronger -- and this IS unambiguously the formula for who is to have power over whom even though many manifestations of this formula are very subtle. * But this is almost the same as considering who goes into rapport with whom, for if the weaker is influenced by the stronger, then the weaker has gone into rapport with the stronger. If subconscious telepathic signals are involved, which they are most likely to be, then the signals flow from the stronger to the weaker -- which is to say, flow from those accepted as having power to those accepted as having none or very little. * Now, in the typical parapsychology laboratory situation, consisting of experimenters and test subjects, the experimenters are accepted as having governing power. It is THEY who are conducting the experiments, while the subjects are just participating in them as guinea pigs. In the first instance, the subjects do want to please the experimenters -- and so one of the bases for rapport comes into existence. The experimenters then tell the subjects what to do, when to do it, and for how much and for how long. If the subjects have gone into rapport with the experimenters, a variety of strange situations then ensue. * A number of those situations have, to their credit, been investigated by parapsychologists themselves -- but without including the possibilities of sympathetic and rapport states which are politically incorrect within science itself. If, for example, it was discovered after the fact of the experiment that an experimenter did not expect the subject to succeed, then the subject usually didn't -- even though the same subject occasionally succeeded elsewhere under other more positive experimenter auspices. In such a case, it is quite feasible to suspect the existence of telepathic overlay at the subconscious level in which the experimenter's expectation of non-success somehow overlaid the subject's effort. Indeed, many subjects themselves have stated that they cannot perform if someone involved in the experiment is sensed as "negative" either consciously or non-consciously. * Within this context, it might be assumed that if the experimenter through and through wants the subject to succeed, then the subject ought to be able to produce stunning results. Something here does depend on the subject's capabilities in the first place. But if rapport has been established, then it is quite probable that the subject will do no better than the experimenter could if he or she undertook the same experiment -- because the experimenter's incapability has telepathically overlaid the subconscious strata of the subject. Most parapsychologists themselves are not "psychic." Indeed, as a social subset of science in general, they have a commitment NOT to be psychic in order to retain their scientific objectivity. * Admittedly, the whole of this is quite subtle and many of its aspects are debatable -- especially if the phenomena of sympathetic and rapport states are rejected to start with. But the issue here is not experiments themselves or their power-dynamic pitfalls, but whether telepathic connectiveness does exist at other than conscious levels. If it does, then much which usually is never taken into account, or even thought of, has to be brought up for serious consideration. * Another type of experiment which is sensitive to the power-dynamic pitfalls are those in which the experimenter guides, interrogates, or questions the subjects. Even though this relationship between experimenter and subject is not seen as a power one, there is no question about who is in power here -- rather, who is in control. And if rapport is to arise, there is no question of who is going to go into rapport with whom. If the existence of sympathetic and rapport states is accepted, then it is easy enough to see that the subject could easily go into rapport with his or her experimenter interrogator. * As it is, the general public has no idea of what actually goes on during a parapsychology experiment. Some small segment of the public may eventually see a report about it which will include the experimental design, protocols and results. The report is actually a selection of bits and pieces of the experiment made presentable. But if the entire overall experimental process, its environment, and participating personnel were put on film, such would reveal that many experiments somewhat resemble a psychological zoo. It would be seen that some, but certainly not all, experimenters have very little real interest in the subjects, but a great deal of interest regarding THEIR experiment. In my own experience of many years, even social graces are sometimes not observed regarding the subjects. I've talked with many subjects who at first enthusiastically wanted to be "tested" via an experiment, but who felt they were a piece of crud afterward. * The role of the subject is, of course, to try to produce the phenomena the experimenters are after -- and, in most cases, produce the phenomena the experimenters themselves cannot. If you read between the lines of the paragraph above, and depending on who the experimenters are, including their particular egos and psychological balances, you can perhaps sense that some peculiar, subtle and difficult micro-social affects will arise -- few of which are ever mentioned in reports of experimental design and results. * There is one word which will help bring together most of the elements which have been discussed in this essay: INTERACTIVE. This is taken from INTERACTION which means mutual or reciprocal action or influence. Perfected interactive conditions are highly redolent of achieving complete rapport -- and which is the basis for telepathic identification between the interactive personnel. * In the ideal parapsychology or remote viewing experimental session, the goal is to have the subject (or viewer) interact with the target materials or distant location. For ease of reference here, we can say that the viewer is expected to exclusively communicate with the distant location or target. However, if the local environmental factors of the experiment and personnel involved with the session also need to be interacted with by the subject or viewer, it is quite easy to comprehend that the communication with the target by the viewer can become split in gross and subtle ways. And it is this splitting which permits the introduction of telepathic overlay -- and especially if the role of a second person other than that of the viewer becomes influential and dynamic. * In the early days of remote viewing research at Stanford Research Institute, it was supposed that the viewer could benefit from being guided during a session by someone else. Which is to say, benefit by interacting with the guide. Further down the line of research, this WAS to prove to be the beneficial case regarding tutoring in the techniques of remote viewing. But after the trainee had acquired the techniques and had become exceedingly proficient in them, the active role of the tutor-guide then ceased altogether -- and for reasons which should by now be obvious. * Before this had been understood, however, several effects of the guided remote viewing session were identified. For one thing, this particular model tended to increase the interactive dependency of the viewer on the guide (later referred to as the "monitor"). This dependency effect sometimes became so grossly evident that the viewer ultimately said nothing unless prompted to do so by the monitor. In this sense, then, the viewer was responding more to the monitor's role than to the viewer's role of exclusive contact with the distant location. The viewer's exclusive interaction with the distant location had become split between the location and the guiding function of the monitor -- and whose role was seen as interrogating the viewer about what was, or might be, at the distant location. * I will now illustrate some of the affects and difficulties of this guided method by condensing several of them into the following scenario. The monitor asked the viewer if the site was a nuclear reactor or a computer research installation. "I don't know," replied the viewer. "Well, is it a nuclear reactor?" "Yes." "Is it a computer research installation?" The viewer again replied "Yes." At this point, the monitor assumed that the site was a nuclear reactor with computer support, and asked the viewer to describe what she was seeing. She did so in a way which ultimately was determined to somewhat match what the guide thought such a place should look like. In experimental test situations like this, the monitor- guide did not know what was at the distant location -- and which turned out to be the Golden Gate Bridge. * This, then, was not remote viewing. At the vocal interactive level, the viewer was clearly responding to the suggestions of the guide, more or less in the same way an hypnotee might respond to the suggestions of the hypnotist. But at the non-vocal level the viewer proceeded to describe something which matched what the guide thought the nuclear reactor might look like. * Thus, we can describe two different kinds of interactive overlay, one of which was verbally determined and one of which fell into the wobbly category of telepathic overlay. * This guide-the-viewer procedure was undertaken in good faith by all concerned, and it certainly needed to be investigated, and in no sense did the guide-monitor consciously want to control the viewer nor did the viewer want to be controlled. But in the final analysis it could be seen anyway that the focus of control-power had subtly shifted to the guide- monitor, that the viewer had probably fallen into sympathetic rapport with him, and thereafter the viewer did not interact with the distant location but with the conscious and subconscious mind of the monitor. In this sense, then, the formula of who was to have power over whom was subtly present, even if no one involved consciously thought about implementing it. * The whole of this gave a good deal to think about -- for unless something could be done to resolve what otherwise was a mess, then remote viewing would be up against a wall of perpetual telepathic contaminants coming from who knows where. Up until that time, it seems that no one really realized, or didn't admit to, the possibility that people are continuously interactive at some deep telepathic levels -- and which levels are very interactive at least in sympathetic and rapport states. * Now, a diagram would be convenient here. Rather than use pixels to do so, I've discovered that I can erect simple forms of them with keys available on my keyboard. I will now try to construct one which incorporates most of what has been discussed in this essay. Below I will construct two pyramids representing two people, and cast them against the formula of who is to have power over whom, in the stronger versus weaker sense. You can assume that the stronger (S) will exert some kind of power over the weaker (W) -- as in the case of the hypnotist-hypnotee, experimenter-subject, or monitor-viewer. ____________________________________________________________ Conscious levels Stronger Weaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Interactive telepathic levels . . . > . . . . > . . . . > . ____________________________________________________________ As regards this arrangement of two people who might interact at the subconscious telepathic levels, if the weaker goes into rapport with the stronger, or is made to assume that status by some kind of social-environmental circumstances, then information would telepathically flow from the stronger to the weaker -- as indicated by the three > marks. There are, I think, some positive aspects to this -- for example, in tutoring or educating, for anyone might wish to benefit from telepathic transfer of information via a good teacher. But in many other instances, in remote viewing precisely, the transfer of information could be seen only as telepathic contamination. Some form of this contamination might easily emerge if the viewer is dependent on the monitor for anything at all. * The way all of this was ultimately handled at SRI, as least so far as controlled remote viewing was concerned, was to shift the power relationship exclusively to the viewer in ways which TERMINATED his or her interaction with anyone else, even with the monitor. This is to say that AFTER the viewer had been fully trained and could operate with high-stage proficiency, the viewer became the captain of the remote viewing ship -- while the role of the monitor became very minimal indeed. * In other words, if telepathic overlay flowed from the stronger to the weaker (the impressionable, or the suggestible,) then the only feasible way to try to eliminate telepathic overlay was to create controlled remote viewers who could maintain themselves and their performance as the central power core of any viewing -- and this regardless of whomever else might be involved around the edges of the viewing process. After all, the CRV'er PRODUCES -- whereas all else (including everyone else) is incidental to the product. * The only initial problem with all this was to get the potential RV'ers themselves and EVERYONE ELSE to agree to this. Almost everyone likes to direct something or someone in order to have a "place" within what is going on. But there are earlier models for this. The concert pianist, for example, studies long and hard to achieve competency. But when that has been achieved, when he or she steps onto the performance platform it is his or her show. It is inconceivable that the pianist would need someone else standing by and directing what and when to do something. Likewise, after the guru teaches the chela, the guru steps aside and does so voluntarily -- at least in the ideal scene. * In any event, something along these lines WAS achieved regarding controlled remote viewing -- and telepathic overlay vanished as a contaminating noise source, as did any form of suggestivity or influencing from others. The VIEWER controls the viewing, and ceases interacting with anyone else during it. Monitors make no attempt to interact with the viewer. Telepathic overlay vanishes. * It now has to be pointed up that there are two models for monitors regarding remote viewing: the TRAINING monitor and the FORMAL OPERATIONAL SESSION monitor. Unfortunately, as the years have lately unfolded these have become confused, and the latter model has disappeared. The training monitor of course guides and instructs the potential remote viewing student -- but only until he or she achieves various states of proficiency, and ultimately all of the states necessary to produce high-stage results WITHOUT any interference from anyone at all. The role of the operational session monitor is thus very minimal, and is mainly constituted to serve the needs and demands of the achieved CRV'er. Thus, while the training monitor at first has a great deal of power within the training mode, the role of the operational session monitor is practically nil. * More detailed descriptions of the discovery, realization, and amelioration of telepathic overlay will be included in my forthcoming Internet book REMOTE VIEWING, THE REAL STORY. What remote viewing actually is will be detailed in the book, and I dare say that many will find that it is something quite different from what they had assumed it to be. * The modern elements of thought-transference and traveling clairvoyance arose from research successors to Anton Mesmer during the early 1800s -- and who studied sympathetic and rapport states during which the phenomena of both often manifested with exceeding clarity. However, this is an epoch of history which has been almost totally erased from access. Fortunately, the intrepid historian of such phenomena, Eric J. Dingwall, spent many years collecting all relevant documents still available from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Scandinavia, Russia, Poland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Latin America, the United States and Great Britain. He published this amazing collection in four volumes entitled ABNORMAL HYPNOTIC PHENOMENA (J. & A. Churchill, Ltd., 1967.) Although these volumes may be hard to locate by now, I heartily recommend them to those ardently interested in the superpowers of the human bio-mind -- a number of which are breathtakingly presented in them. And, furthermore, presented in ways strip away the cloying, simplistic stereotypes fashionable today. (End) ___________________________________________________________ ** Copyright 1996 by Ingo Swann. Permission to redistribute granted, but only in complete and unaltered form. ** ** Distributed only, not written, by Thomas Burgin <thomas@obc.is.net> ** This and other recent articles by Ingo Swann are archived at the following sites: WWW: <http://www.webcom.com/way/the-way.html> WWW: <http://www.ameritel.net/lusers/rviewer/> WWW: <http://www.ticllc.net/~biomind/> (---coming soon---) FTP: <ftp.webcom.com/pub/way/> ___________________________________________________________