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.
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)