home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Collection of Hack-Phreak Scene Programs
/
cleanhpvac.zip
/
cleanhpvac
/
RV2.ZIP
/
RV2.ASC
< prev
Wrap
Text File
|
1996-05-26
|
27KB
|
536 lines
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/>
___________________________________________________________
