HPAVC/HPAVC CD-ROM.iso/RV1.ZIP/RV1.ASC

Text File | 1996-05-26 | 29KB | 573 lines

Subject: Remote Viewing Vs Telepathic Overlay 1/2
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 21:45:34 -0400


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


          REMOTE VIEWING VERSUS TELEPATHIC OVERLAY

                    Ingo Swann (04Feb96)


     The issue of telepathic overlay is very complicated at
first if you know nothing about it.  But after you know
enough, it then becomes a rather simple matter.
     It is the learning that is difficult, and for a number
of reasons.
                              *
     Among the first of those reasons is that the topic of
REAL and ACTIVE telepathy is avoided in most societal
contexts.  One sees references to telepathy in fiction and
in some few superficial non-fiction books.  One even sees
telepathy mentioned in parapsychology contexts, but
parapsychology has no real important place within most
mainstream societal contexts.
                              *
     It is generally accepted that our species probably does
have telepathic powers.  But when one gets beneath the
superficial treatment of telepathy, one finds that hardly
any extensive and serious work has been undertaken in the
direction of really sorting it out.
                              *
     There are good probable reasons for the lack of really
serious work regarding telepathy.
     Certainly one of the reasons for the avoidance is that
people fear having their minds read or invaded.  After all,
telepathy IS defined as mind-to-mind contact, and the mind-
invasive principle is implicit in this definition.
     Additionally, if telepathic contact with other minds is
possible, then it IS but one short developmental step to one
of the ugliest topics on Earth -- mind-control.
                              *
     It is quite probable, then, that people who fear having
their minds (or what passes for them) invaded and read by a
telepath probably not only don't want telepaths around but
don't want the topic opened up for research and development.
                              *
     As it turns out, then, not very much is really known
about telepathy, most probably for the reasons above.  I can
make this statement because I've spent many years tracking
down information not only about telepathy and its many
types, but information about social treatment of it and its
close relationship to other related topics.
     It is helpful here at the start to point up that
although telepathy is delicately defined as mind-to-mind, it
more literally might be defined as from one mind INTO
another mind.
     Parapsychologists occasionally have studied the mind-to-
mind thing.  But other types of research have considered the
mind INTO another mind thing.
     Some of those other types of research have included
those of mental influences, mind-control, mob and mass
psychology, telepathic contamination, and various forms of
subconscious and subliminal study.
                              *
     In the contexts of remote viewing, telepathic overlay
would introduce into the responses of a remote viewer a kind
of dirty-data contamination originating in the mind of
someone else.
     The pathway for the contamination probably would not be
a conscious one, but a subconscious one.
     So the telepathic introduction of the dirty data would
take place without much realization on the parts of anyone
associated with the viewing.  [You may wish to refer to my
essay regarding the Signal-to Noise Ratio already
available.]
                              *
     Before going on, I'm obliged to point up a peculiarity
I've observed during the many years remote viewing was under
research and development.
     It is this:
          SOME will get what telepathic overlay means and
implies   even though very little is said about it;
          OTHERS will never get it no matter how much is
said of it.
     People with very strong and overpowering egos usually
reject the possibility of telepathic overlay, as do those
who don't seem to have any naturally active superpowers of
bio-mind.
                              *
     It should also be mentioned that telepathic overlay has
extensive meaning to situations outside of remote viewing
contexts.  As you will see below, it is only by touching
upon some of those situations that what is meant by
telepathic overlay can be fleshed out.
                              *
     There is one other important reason why it would be
difficult to comprehend the meanings of telepathic overlay
as that phenomenon relates to remote viewing.  This has to
do with understanding remote viewing itself, what it really
is versus what many think it to be.  I'll address this
particular issue near the end of this essay.
                              *
     The most generally accepted definition of TELEPATHY
holds that it consists of the apparent communication from
one mind to another otherwise than through the channels of
the senses.
     I have taken this definition from a perfectly
respectable dictionary.  So two of its initial and all-
encompassing flaws must be pointed up.
                              *
     First, it is difficult to comprehend how "the channels
of the senses" can be subtracted from the telepathic
equation since some kind of sensory mechanisms must be
involved if communication from one mind gets into another
mind.
     We do have subconscious and subliminal senses, and so
this flaw in the definition probably should be corrected to
read "otherwise than through the channels of the physical,
conscious senses."
                              *
     In this context, it's worth noting that specimens of
our species can be described in many ways.  And one of those
descriptions can easily hold that each specimen is a
walking, talking bio-mind organism replete with astonishing
arrays of "senses," and most of which have NOT been
identified.
     Indeed, it's not too much to say that we are highly
designed and extremely refined sensory machines both as
regards bio-body and its internal sensing apparatus and
mechanisms.
     Just because most have not learned to identify and
develop MOST of their inherent sensing systems and channels
is no reason to exclude telepathic "communication" from
"channels of the senses."
                              *
     As to the second flaw, the accepted definition above
leaves one with the conviction that that telepathy
exclusively involves MIND.
     But that involves what one thinks the mind is and is
not.  And in that regard many past definitions of the mind
are entirely questionable -- while many of them have been
abandoned anyway.
     In any event, MIND itself has a number of definitions,
as many as twenty or more in some sources.
     But it is commonly understood as (1) the element or
complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives,
thinks, wills and, especially, reasons; and (2) the
conscious events and capabilities in an organism.
     Subliminal and subconscious researchers will think
those two major definitions are hilarious -- pointing up
that the activities and qualities incorporated in those
definitions are but the merest tip of the profound iceberg
of Mind.
                              *
     As it is, however, when it is said that telepathy is
mind-to-mind contact, the above definitions imply CONSCIOUS
perception or awareness of something telepathic.  The above
definitions also imply that if we cannot consciously
identify something as being telepathic, then telepathy
doesn't exist.
     In this regard, that there may be subconscious or pre-
conscious telepathy of which one is unaware sort of falls by
the wayside.  The idea of subconscious or subliminal
telepathy is thus somewhat alien to the usual concepts of
telepathy.
                              *
     A third complicating factor regards the following.
After intuition, telepathy is the second most commonly
experienced of the superpowers of the human bio-mind.
     But like intuition, a careful study of historical and
living testimony about telepathy reveals that there are very
many types of it, and not all of which can be incorporated
into the standard definition of conscious mind to conscious
mind.
     There is thus a spectrum of telepathy, and which
spectrum can best be described as varieties of information
exchanging at either the conscious or pre-conscious levels.
                              *
     The above having thus been said, we must now get to
work to dig deeper into what is involved.
     In the cultural West immediately before the term
"telepathy" was coined (in 1882), the information exchanging
was called thought-transference.
     The exact meaning of that earlier term is important --
for it involved two concepts that went missing after thought-
transference was renamed telepathy.
                              *
     In the thought-transference model, those two concepts
were SYMPATHETIC STATES and RAPPORT.
     It was accepted that if two or more people became
involved in sympathetic states or rapport, then transference
of thoughts and EMOTIONS could be exchanged -- even though
the mechanisms involved were not easily identifiable.
                              *
     The concepts of the existence of sympathetic states and
rapport can be traced back into antiquity (under other
terms, of course.)
     But the concepts were named as such during the High
Renaissance and from that time they ultimately followed
through into the study and research of Mesmerism.
     In general, the Mesmerism model was almost completely
involved with researching the causes and effects of
sympathetic and rapport states -- and which, it was
discovered, could be induced by various methods.
     The hypothetical mechanisms of information exchange
were thought to consist of sympathetic states and rapport
during which something "fluidic" took place between two or
more people.
     The sympathetic and rapport states were themselves
thought of as fluidic -- or, as might be said today, altered
states of consciousness, during which people become somewhat
aware that altered states seem to flow into and out of each
other.
                              *
     Anton Mesmer is best remembered as the so-called
discoverer of hypnotism -- but which in fact was adapted
from his work by later researchers and is a rather gross
form of the subtle states the Mesmerists worked with.
     As hypnotism is understood, though, it is a state which
needs to be induced in someone by another person, the
hypnotist -- and after which the hypnotee is under the
control of the hypnotist.
     A large number of studies regarding the effects of
hypnosis clearly establish that the hypnotee not only
responds to the conscious commands of the hypnotist, but
also is often found to be in telepathic rapport with the
unexpressed or subconscious motives and agendas of the
hypnotist.
                              *
     This type of thing is occasionally referred to as
telepathic bonding at levels beneath the consciousness of
the hypnotist.
     But if we introduce the concept of telepathic overlay,
then it could be said that some kind of information overlay
from the hypnotist is being transferred to the hypnotee via
telepathic routes that are not known to or even suspected by
the hypnotist.
     As a gross example of this, the hypnotee then gives the
answers the hypnotist wants, or which answers fit into the
unexpressed expectations and convictions of the hypnotist
which have somehow become overlaid into the hypnotee.
                              *
     There can be no doubt, however, that ALL hypnoid states
are also sympathetic and rapport states in which the
telepathic exchanges of information can and do result in
ways which not only include conscious but subconscious
content.
                              *
     As we shall see ahead, deep hypnosis or even light
hypnosis is not necessary for this kind of telepathic
overlay to take place.  Such can occur as a result of even
light rapport and which would not be considered as hypnotic.
                              *
     Moving back now to 1882, the scientific concept had
come to the fore that the brain was the mechanism for
everything.  And so early psychical researchers wished to
emulate that concept in order better to be seen as
scientific.  One cannot really blame them, for the rapport
of the modern scientific model had infected almost the whole
of the Western world.
     However, sympathetic and rapport states were considered
as unscientific -- belonging, as scientific spokesmen said,
to the pre-scientific and superstitional past.
                              *
     In order to escape from the so-called "unscientific"
past regarding thought-transference, the early psychical
researchers wished to abandon the thought-transference
model.
     So they theoretically redefined the concept by calling
it telepathy -- and which was first advertised as inter-
communication between brain and brain by means other than
that of the ordinary sense channels.
                              *
     As it happened about the same time, the concept of
radio and radio broadcasting had come to the fore, and which
concept was definitely scientific.  Radio broadcasting
involved sending and receiving equipment via which
information could be sent out across distances and picked up
by receiving equipment.
     This seemed an ideal analogy for telepathy.  So
telepathy (actually empathy broadcast or sent across
distance) came to be thought of as brain sending across
distance to another receiving brain.
     The radio model of sending and receiving signals across
distances has since been thought of as the definition of
telepathy.
                              *
     The concept of "brain-to-brain" was modified after
World War I to "mind-to-mind" when the then-new field of
psychology began emerging in strength.
     After that, psychiatrists dealt with brain, but
psychologists dealt with mind.  Hardly any psychiatrists
entered into psychical and parapsychological research.  And
so the whole of what was involved became a problem in
psychology -- and from which arose para-psychology and which
studied the so-called "paranormal" phenomena of the Mind.
                              *
     Now it is very important to point up that, as a result
of all those conceptual and nomenclature changes, the old
model which incorporated sympathetic states and rapport
vanished altogether.
     To my knowledge, it was only the earlier Soviet
researchers of the 1920s and 1930s who reinstated those two
important factors, recombining them into their novel
definitions of bio-communications.  The West, including the
US, has not yet reconsidered and restored them into the
prevailing concepts of parapsychology and telepathy.
     So the phenomena and effects of rapport and sympathetic
states are not generally recognized.  However, you can
satisfy yourself along these lines by attempting to identify
situations characterized by sympathetic and rapport states,
but which are not otherwise recognized as such.
                              *
     Within the contexts of all of the above, then, the
problem or the situation of telepathy is, first of all, a
matter of sympathetic states and rapport.
     RAPPORT is defined as relation marked by harmony,
conformity, accord or affinity.
     SYMPATHETIC is defined as (1) existing or operating
through an affinity, interdependence, or mutual association;
(2) showing or being linked by empathy; and (3) sensitivity
to the emotions or moods of others.
     If we add to this "empathic sensitivity to the thought-
forms or thoughts of others," then we do arrive at a
combined, approximate definition of telepathy -- one which
goes far beyond the simplistic mind-to-mind thing.
                              *
     Within the remote viewing contexts, TELEPATHIC OVERLAY
would consist of picking up on information from someone
else's head and mistaking that information for the "signal."
     The SIGNAL, of course, would consist of information
pertinent to the distant location or "target."  Picking up
on "signals" from someone else's head and accepting them for
the RV signals can be called telepathic overlay.
     The question now emerges:  Does this kind of thing
happen?  Yes, it certainly does -- but only within certain
kinds of circumstances.
                              *
     Accessing the target information is the goal of remote
viewing.  Accessing any other kind of information is
"noise," in the sense of being contamination which distorts
the clear reception of actual signals.
     Accessing telepathic overlay information is therefore
noise -- and, as it might easily be understood, would be
quite deadly to the remote viewing faculties, processes, and
results of RV.
                              *
  Please see my essay regarding the Signal-to Noise Ratio.
                              *
     As discussed in other of my database essays, the Signal-
to-Noise Ratio is fully involved here.
     Telepathic overlay is not the only form of noise which
degrades the remote viewing signals.
     But it can be an important noise source if the
ostensible remote viewer is unaware that telepathic overlay
not only exists but does so in very subtle ways.
     Where telepathic overlay is present, its information
content OVERLAYS and contaminates the signal line, usually
obscuring the latter from cognitive perception of the
viewer.
                              *
     Beyond its debilitating effects on the remote viewing
faculties, telepathic overlay is very interesting of and
within itself -- and is also meaningful regarding the entire
spectrum of superpowers of the human bio-mind.
                              *
     TELEPATHIC OVERLAY was identified by myself and Dr.
H.E. Puthoff in about 1975, and together we worked to
determine its causes, its relationship to remote viewing,
and how to avoid or eradicate it.
                              *
     We were quite concerned that the viewer was picking up
information from the minds of those associated with the
viewings rather than from the distant site itself.
     This was also a problem which worried the sponsors very
much, and for reasons which should be obvious.
     If telepathic overlay was the case, then we didn't have
remote viewing at all.  We had some format of telepathy.
                              *
     At first we felt that the sources or causes must be
quite complicated.  But in the end we discovered that a
single situation was the source of most telepathic overlay.
When that situation was cured, telepathic overlay tended to
vanish.
                              *
            That single situation revolved around
                   Who had power over Whom
         not only during the RV work but as regards
             the relationships of all involved.
                              *
     In other words, the telepathic overlay situation
somewhat resembled the subtle telepathic situation of the
hypnotist and the hypnotee.
     The hypnotist was in power-control of the situation AND
the hypnotee.  The hypnotee was in some kind of rapport with
the hypnotist in which the hypnotee accepted the commands
and suggestions of the hypnotist.
     The hypnotist expected the hypnotee to follow commands
and suggestions -- which the hypnotee usually did.
     But another unexpected effect could be observed
regarding a subliminal or subconscious transfer of
information from the hypnotist to the hypnotee.  The
hypnotee often became telepathically connected to the
motives, agendas, and desires of the hypnotist.
                              *
     To aid in clarifying this, we now have to distinguish
between:
          (1) telepathy which one or both parties might be
consciously    aware     of, and
          (2) subconscious or subliminal telepathy which
neither the    hypnotee nor the hypnotist are consciously
aware of (and which might be termed sub-telepathy to
distinguish it from the former.
                              *
     Regarding these possibilities and their implications to
remote viewing being studied at SRI, several psychologists
and hypnotists were consulted regarding this matter.  It was
generally agreed that something of the kind could account
for telepathic overlay contaminating remote viewing
sessions.
     It is well understood in psychology that if one person
has suggestive power over another, the latter will not only
accept the suggestions (or commands) but often will somehow
mysteriously emulate that person in more subtle ways.  The
controllee will often sense the controller's wishes, desires
and wants without their being vocalized.
     The whole of this is a kind of rapport, and certainly a
type of sympathetic state with the controller.
     Controllees often go so far as to non-consciously
emulate the controller's dress, posture, preferences,
mannerisms, and etc.
                              *
     Thus, what we termed telepathic overlay regarding
remote viewing has a larger picture and an historical past
under many other names in that the whole of this is typical
of what is sometimes called charismatic influencing.
     Charismatic influencing is also a situation regarding
who has power over whom, even if only very subtly so.
Charismatic influencing is also a situation which involves
rapport and sympathetic states.
                              *
     Telepathic overlay regarding remote viewing cannot
really be understood unless the particular problem it
represents is cast against a larger picture and which must
be precisely defined.
     This larger picture consists of whether the human
species is a telepathic species and, as such, is susceptible
to sub-telepathic situations and conditions which exist and
function beneath conscious awareness of them.
     It is thus necessary in this essay to present some
evidence of this general sub-telepathic potential -- none of
which, by the way, is found in parapsychology studies and
documents.
                              *
     To my knowledge, the first really scientific approach
to what was involved took place between the two World Wars
(essentially between about 1924 and 1938) when studies
regarding MOB BEHAVIOR were funded and undertaken.
     The concept of MASS BEHAVIOR was shortly added to the
studies.  The two concepts were scientifically dignified as
"mob psychology" and "mass psychology."
                              *
     Both mob and mass behavior demonstrate quite remarkable
phenomena, and one particular phenomenon seems to stand out
regarding both types of behavior.
     This has to do with the removing of individuals from
their individualizing sense of logic, reason and common
sense -- and somehow replacing those with a sense of
emotional participation which is collective and rapport-like
rather than individualizing in nature.
                              *
     This type of thing was first referred to as EMOTIONAL
RAPPROCHEMENT, the latter word meaning to bring together --
and, in the case of mob and mass psychology to bring
emotionally together in a shared rapport or sympathetic kind
of way.
     But mob and mass behavior are also characterized by
their intensity, and in this regard the term RAPTURE is
fitting.  It means "a state or experience of being carried
away by overwhelming emotions."
     The distinctions between "rapture" and "rapport" are
quite narrow.  The rapture of violence in mob psychology
was, of course, a noted characteristic of mob behavior when
the shared anger sentiments had reached saturation and began
being acted out collectively.
                              *
     The term eventually settled on was ENTRAINMENT -- which
is somewhat difficult of definition and whose psychological
meaning is often not found in dictionaries.
     In its pristine sense, ENTRAIN simply means "to get on
a train."
     But when used in a psychological meaning, it obviously
refers to thinking, acting, and responding in ways which are
collective rather than individual -- in ways which are quite
like sympathetic or rapport states.  It was this type of
thing which was meant by entrainMENT.
                              *
     And in this sense, although entrainment can be thought
of as intellectual, it usually refers to emotional or
EMPATHIC subconscious strata of our species whose potentials
are far more collectivizing than are individualistic logic,
reason and common sense.
     The use of the term "empathic" in mob behavior research
documents brought the whole problem very close to some kind
of telepathy -- whose original definition was empathy
communicated between human specimens across a distance by
means unknown.
                              *
     Researchers of the early 1930s distinguished between
mob and mass psychology.  The mob was out of control, hence
unpredictable and dangerous.  The mass was under control, or
at least some modicum of it, and not therefore dangerous.
     But other than this, the real distinctions between mob
and mass behavior are quite similar, in that mass behavior
can quite easily disintegrate into mob behavior replete with
riots, violence and other destructive whatnot.
                              *
     The early researchers of mob psychology brought their
work up to the point where it was realized that mob behavior
was somehow infectious in ways which were decidedly NOT
visible or easily accounted for.
     A perfectly sensible person could become incorporated
within the mysterious collectivizing dynamics of a mob and
become "entrained" at a rough emotional level which was
somehow susceptible to taking on board those rough emotions.
     The person then became a sympathetic participant, an
entrained one, and began manifesting rough, and usually
gross, emotional behavior out of keeping with common sense,
logic and reason.
                              *
     Some of the early researchers began supposing that mob
and mass behavior could be explained only by introducing a
psychic hypothesis -- a psychic telepathic "something" which
would account for the entrainment-like infection.
     I'm obliged to point up that the words "psychic" and
"telepathic" WERE used, and that in this essay they have not
been invented by myself and retrospectively applied to the
research of the 1930s.
                              *
     I'm also obliged to point up that the introduction of a
"psychic hypothesis" regarding any form of human behavior
was taboo in all mainstream formats of modern research
during the 1930s -- and is still taboo today.
     As it back then turned out, after the need for a
psychic hypothesis had been indicated, it appears that ALL
research in this area ceased, due, one might suppose, to the
political incorrectness of this hypothesis, and/or
withdrawal of funding because of it.
     In any event, the rigors of World War II soon
intervened, and a great deal of research in these areas
ceased altogether.  Rather roughly speaking, this kind of
research resurfaced after the War, but under the concepts of
mind-control and behavior modification.  Mind-control
exponents thought that a psychic hypothesis was not
necessary, and who anyway do not study mob psychology.
     Both mind-control and behavior modification are, at
base, essentially problems regarding who is to have power
over whom.
                              *
     The psychic hypothesis of the early mob psychology
researchers focused on the possibility of some kind of
subtle, non-conscious telepathic hookups or channels.
     At the subconscious emotional response levels,
individuals were sensitive to the "entrainment factors"
which "infected" all or most of those exposed to them -- and
which reduced individuals back into some kind of collective,
hive-like behavior.
     There is only one suitable word for this:  RAPPORT --
via which sympathetic sub-telepathic infections can be
induced into those, well, into those infected by them.
                              *